Unpacking social media’s role in resource provision: Variations across relational and communicative properties

Societies

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 561-586

  Vitak, Jessica ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Facebook; Relational closeness; Relationship maintenance; Social capital; Social network sites; Social provisions

Indexed keywords

EID: 84991854402     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20754698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/soc4040561     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Hampton, K.N.; Goulet, L.S.; Rainie, L; Purcell, K. Social Networking Sites and Our Lives: How People's Trust, Personal Relationships, and Civic and Political Involvement are Connected to Their Use of Social Networking Sites and Other Technologies. Pew Internet & A merican Life Project: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
2. Burke, M.; Kraut, R.; Marlow, C. Social capital on Facebook: Differentiating uses and users. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on H uman Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–11 May 2011; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 571–580.
3. Burke, M.; Marlow, C.; Lento, T. Social network activity and social well-being. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on H uman Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA, USA, 10–15 April 2010; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 1909–1912.
4. Ellison, N.; Gray, R.; Lampe, C; Fiore, A. Social capital and resource requests on Facebook. New Media Soc. 2014, doi:10.1177/1461444814543998, in press.
5. Ellison, N.; Steinfield, C.; Lampe, C. The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Exploring the relationship between college students’ use of online social networks and social capital. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 2007, 12, 1143–1168.
6. Ellison, N.B.; Steinfield, C.; Lampe, C. Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media Soc. 2011, 13, 873–892.
7. Ellison, N.; Vitak, J.; Gray, R.; Lampe, C. Cultivating social resources: The relationship between bridging social capital and Facebook use among adults. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 2014, 19, 855–870.
8. Lampe, C.; Gray, R.; Fiore, A.; Ellison, N.B. Help is on the way: Patterns of responses to resource requests on F acebook. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on C omputer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, Baltimore, MD, USA, 15–19 February 2014; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 3–15.
9. Lee, E; Kim, Y.J.; Ahn, J. How do pe ople use Facebook features to manage social capital? Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 36, 440–445.
10. Liu, D.; Brown, B.B. Self-disclosure on social networking sites, positive feedback, and social capital among Chinese college students. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 38, 213–219.
11. Steinfield, C.; Ellison, N.B.; Lampe, C. Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 2008, 29, 434–445.
12. Vitak, J. The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 2012, 56, 451–470.
13. Hampton, K.N.; Goulet, L.S.; Marlow, C.; Rainie, L. Why Facebook Users Get More Than They Give; Pew Internet & American Life Project: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
14. Jung, Y.; Gray, R.; Ellison, N.; Lampe, C. Favors from Facebook Friends: Unpacking dimensions of social capital. In Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France, 27 April—2 May 2013; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 11–20.
15. Gray, R.; Ellison, N.; Vitak, J.; Lampe, C. Who wants to know? Question-asking and answering practices among Facebook users. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on C omputer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, San Antonio, TX, USA, 23–27 February 2013; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1213–1224.
16. Morris, M.R.; Teevan, J.; Panovich, K. What do pe ople ask their social networks, and why?: A survey study of status message Q&A behavior. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on H uman Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA, USA, 10–15 April 2010; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 393–404.
17. Williams, D. On and off the ’Net: Scales for social capital in an online era. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 2006, 11, 593–628.
18. Putnam, R. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community; Simon & Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2000.
19. Appel, L.; Dadlani, P.; Dwyer, M.; Hampton, K.N.; Kitzie, V.; Matni, Z.A.; Moore, P.; Teodoro, R. Testing the validity of social capital measures in the study of information and communication technologies. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2014, 17, 398–416.
20. Weiss, R.S. The provisions of social relationships. In Doing Unto Others; Rubin, Z., Ed.; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1974; pp. 17–26.
21. Wellman, B.; Wortley, S. Different strokes from different folks: Community ties and social support. Am. J. Sociol. 1990, 96, 558–588.
22. Facebook. Available online: https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info (accessed on 15 June 2014).
23. Ellison, N.; boyd, d. S ociality through social network sites. In Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies; Dutton, W.H., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013; pp. 151–172.
24. Treem, J.W.; Leonardi, P.M. Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, persistence, editability, and association. Commun. Yearb. 2012, 36, 143–189.
25. Donath, J.S.; boyd, d. Public displays of connection. BT Technol. J. 2004, 22, 71–82.
26. Ellison, N.; Vitak, J. Social media affordances and their relationship to social capital processes. In The Handbook of Psychology of Communication Technology; Sundar, S., Ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Boston, MA, USA, 2014, in press.
27. Bourdieu, P. The forms of capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education; Richardson, J., Ed.; Greenwood: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 241–258.
28. Lin, N. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action; Cambridge University Press: London, UK, 2001.
29. Stefanone, M.A.; Kwon, K.H.; Lackaff, D. Exploring the relationship between perceptions of social capital and enacted support online. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 2012, 17, 451–466.
30. Shumaker, S.A.; Brownell, A. Toward a theory of social support: Closing conceptual gaps. J. Soc. Issues 1984, 40, 11–36.
31. Granovetter, M.S. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 1973, 78, 1360–1480.
32. Burt, R. Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005.
33. Ledbetter, A.M.; Mazer, J.P.; DeGroot, J.M.; Meyer, K.R.; Mao, Y.; Swafford, B. Attitudes toward online social connection and self-disclosure as predictors of Facebook communication and relational closeness. Commun. Res. 2011, 38, 27–53.
34. Stafford, L.; Canary, D.J. Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender, and relational characteristics. J. Soc. Pers. Relationsh. 1991, 8, 217–242.
35. Vitak, J. Keeping Connected in the Facebook Age: The Relationship Between Facebook Use, Relationship Maintenance Strategies, and Relational Outcomes. Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA, 14 December 2012.
36. Vitak, J. Connecting in the Facebook Age: Development and Validation of a New Measure of Relationship Maintenance. In Proceedings of the International Communication Association 64th Annual Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, 22–26 May 2014. A vailable online: http://www.slideshare.net/jvitak/vitak-ica14-relationship-maintenance-web (accessed on 15 July 2014).
37. Burt, R. A note on social capital and network content. Soc. Netw. 1997, 19, 355–373.
38. Lin, N.; Dumin, M. Access to Occupations through Social Ties. Soc. Netw. 1986, 8, 365–383.
39. Lin, N.; Erickson, B. Social Capital: An International Research Program; Oxford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008.
40. Van der Gaag, M.; Snijders, T.A.B. The resource generator. Soc. Netw. 2005, 27, 1–29.
41. Burke, M.; Kraut, R.E. Growing closer on F acebook: Changes in tie strength through social network site use. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on H uman Factors in Computing Systems, Toronto, ON, Canada, 26 A pril–1 May 2014; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2014, pp. 4187–4196.
42. Burke, M.; Kraut, R.; Marlow, C. Using Facebook after losing a job: Differential benefits of strong and weak ties. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, San Antonio, TX, USA, 23–27 February 2013; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1419–1430.
43. Baym, N.K.; Zhang, Y.B.; Kunkel, A.; Ledbetter, A.; Lin, M. Relational quality and media use in interpersonal relationships. New Media Soc. 2007, 9, 735–752.
44. Marwick, A.; boyd, d. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media Soc. 2011, 13, 114–133.
45. Dindia, K. Definitions and perspectives on relational maintenance communication. In Maintaining Relationships Through Communication: Relational, Contextual, and Cultural Variations; Canary, D.J., Dainton, M., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2003; pp. 51–77.
46. Donath, J.S. Signals in social supernets. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 2007, 13, 231–251.
47. Haythornthwaite, C. Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2005, 8, 125–147.
48. Rozzell, B.; Piercy, C.W.; Carr, C.T.; King, S.; Lane, B.L.; Tornes, M.; Johnson, A.J.; Wright, K.B. Notification pending: Online social support from close and nonclose relational ties via Facebook. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 38, 272–280.
49. Vitak, J.; Ellison, N. “There’s a network out there you might as well tap”: Exploring the benefits of and barriers to exchanging informational and support-based resources on Facebook. New Media Soc. 2013, 15, 243–259.
50. Bakshy, E.; Rosenn, I.; Marlow, C.; Adamic, L. The role of social networks in information diffusion. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web, Lyon, France, 16–20 April 2012; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, USA, 2012; pp. 519–528.
51. Ledbetter, A.M. Measuring online communication attitude: Instrument development and validation. Commun. Monogr. 2009, 76, 463–486.
52. Rabby, M.K. Relational maintenance and the influence of commitment in online and offline relationships. Commun. Stud. 2007, 58, 315–337.
53. Cutrona, C.E.; Russell, D. The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress. In Advances in Personal Relationships; Jones, W.H., Perlman, D., Eds.; JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, USA, 1987; Volume 1, pp. 37–67.
54. Cutrona, C.E. Social Support in Couples: Marriage as a Resource in Times of Stress; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1996.
55. Cutrona, C.E. Social support and stress in the transition to parenthood. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 1984, 93, 378–390.
56. Cutrona, C.E. Transition to college: Loneliness and the process of social adjustment. In Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Research, Theory, and Therapy; Peplau, L.A., Perlman, D., Eds.; Wiley Interscience: New York, NY, USA, 1982; pp. 291–309.
57. Vitak, J.; Ellison, N.; Steinfield, C. The ties that bond: Re-examining the relationship between Facebook use and bonding social capital. In Proceedings of the 44th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HI, USA, 4–7 January 2011; Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 2011.
58. Berscheid, E.; Snyder, M.; Omoto, A.M. The relationship closeness inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1989, 57, 792–807.
59. Dibble, J.L.; Levine, T.R.; Park, H.S. The unidimensional relationship closeness scale (URCS): Reliability and validity evidence for a new measure of relationship closeness. Psychol. Assess. 2012, 24, 565–572.
60. Ledbetter, A. Assessing the measurement invariance of relational maintenance behavior when face-to-face and online. Commun. Res. Rep. 2010, 27, 30–37.
61. Wright, K.B. Online maintenance strategies and perceptions of partners within exclusively Internet-based and primarily Internet-based relationships. Commun. Stud. 2004, 55, 239–253.
62. Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2007.
63. Bohrnstedt, G.W.; Carter, T.M. Robustness in regression analysis. In Sociological Methodology; Bohrnstedt, G.W., Borgatta, E.F., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1971; pp. 118–146.
64. Schlomer, G.L.; Bauman, S.; Card, N.A. Best practices for missing data management in counseling psychology. J. Couns. Psychol. 2010, 57, 1–10.
65. Meier, L.L. IRSE. Interactions in Multiple Linear Regression with SPSS and Excel (Version 1.6) [Computer software and manual], 2008. Available online; http://www.urenz.ch/irse (accessed on 1 June 2014).
66. Lampe, C.; Ellison, N.; Steinfield, C.A face(book) in the crowd: Social searching vs. social browsing. In Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Banff, AB, Canada, 4–8 November 2006; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 167–170.
67. Ledbetter, A. Patterns of media use and multiplexity: associations with sex, geographic distance and friendship interdependence. New Media Soc. 2009, 11, 1187–1208.
68. Dunbar, R.I.M. How many “friends” can you really have? IEEE Spectr. 2011, 48, 81–83.
69. Johnson, A.J. Examining the maintenance of friendships: Are there differences between geographically close and long-distance friends? Commun. Q. 2001, 49, 424–435.
70. Johnson, A.J.; Becker, J.; Craig, E.; Gilchrist, E.; Haigh, M. Changes in friendship commitment: Comparing geographically close and long-distance young-adult friendships. Commun. Q. 2009, 57, 395–415.
71. Stafford, L. Measuring relationship maintenance behaviors: Critique and development of the revised relationship maintenance behavior scale. J. Soc. Pers. Relationsh. 2010, 28, 278–303.
72. Bott, E. Family and Social Network: Roles, Norms, and External Relationships in Ordinary Urban Families; Tavistock Press: London, UK, 1957.
73. boyd, d. Friendship. In Hanging Out, Messing Around, Geeking Out: Living and Learning with New Media; Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., boyd, d., C ody, R. Herr-Stephenson, B., Horst, H.A., Lange, P.G., Mahendran, D., Martinez, K., et al., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; pp. 79–84.
74. Lewis, J.; West, A. ‘Friending’: London-based undergraduates’ experience of Facebook. New Media Soc. 2009, 11, 1209–1229.
75. Rankin, D.J.; Taborsky, M. Assortment and the evolution of generalized reciprocity. Evolution 2009, 63, 1913–1922.
76. Zuckerman, M. Belief in a just world and altruistic behavior. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1975, 31, 972–976.
77. Lampe, C.; Vitak, J.; Ellison, N. Users and nonusers: Interactions between levels of Facebook adoption and social capital. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, San Antonio, TX, USA, 23–27 February 2013; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 809–820.