skip to main content
10.1145/2556288.2557094acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Growing closer on facebook: changes in tie strength through social network site use

Published:26 April 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Scientists debate whether people grow closer to their friends through social networking sites like Facebook, whether those sites displace more meaningful interaction, or whether they simply reflect existing ties. Combining server log analysis and longitudinal surveys of 3,649 Facebook users reporting on relationships with 26,134 friends, we find that communication on the site is associated with changes in reported relationship closeness, over and above effects attributable to their face-to-face, phone, and email contact. Tie strength increases with both one-on-one communication, such as posts, comments, and messages, and through reading friends' broadcasted content, such as status updates and photos. The effect is greater for composed pieces, such as comments, posts, and messages than for 'one-click' actions such as 'likes.' Facebook has a greater impact on non-family relationships and ties who do not frequently communicate via other channels.

References

  1. Allan, G.A. A sociology of friendship and kinship. G. Allen & Unwin, 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Berger, C.R. Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the development of interpersonal relationships. Language and social psychology, (1979), 122-144.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernard, H.R., Killworth, P., Kronenfeld, D., and Sailer, L. The problem of informant accuracy: The validity of retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology 13, (1984), 495--517.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Berscheid, E. and Reis, H.T. Attraction and close relationships. The handbook of social psychology 2, (1998), 193--281.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Burke, M. Reading, Writing, Relationships: The Impact of Social Network Sites on Relations and Well-Being. Carnegie Mellon University Doctoral Dissertation. (2011). http://reportsarchive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/hcii/Carnegie Mellon University-HCII-11--107.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Burke, M., Kraut, R.E., and Marlow, C. Social capital on Facebook: Differentiating uses and users. Proceedings of the 29th international conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI '11), (2011), 571--580. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Burt, R. Decay functions. Social Networks 22, (2000), 1--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Collins, N.L. and Miller, L.C. Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin 116, 3 (1994), 457.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Donath, J. Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13, 1 (2008), 231--251.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Duck, S. Relating to others. Dorsey Press, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Duck, S., Rutt, D.J., Hurst, M.H., and Strejc, H. Some evident truths about conversations in everyday relationships. Human Communication Research 18, 2 (1991), 228--267.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Ellison, N., Vitak, J., Grey, R., and Lampe, C. Cultivating Social Resources on Social Network Sites: Facebook Relationship Maintenance Behaviors and their Role in Social Capital Processes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, (2014).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Fischer, C.S. To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and city. University of Chicago Press, 1982.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilbert, E. and Karahalios, K. Predicting tie strength with social media. Proc. 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI'09), (2009), 211--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Hampton, K., Goulet, L.S., Rainie, L., and Purcell, K. Social networking sites and our lives. 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Hampton, K.N., Lee, C.J., and Her, E.J. How new media affords network diversity: Direct and mediated access to social capital through participation in local social settings. New Media & Society 13, 7 (2011), 1031--1049.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Haythornthwaite, C. Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. The Information Society 18, 5 (2002), 385--401.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Hill, R.A. and Dunbar, R.I.M. Social network size in humans. Human Nature 14, 1 (2003), 53--72.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Junco, R. Comparing actual and self-reported measures of Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior 29, 3 (2013), 626--631. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Keele, L. and Kelly, N.J. Dynamic models for dynamic theories: The ins and outs of lagged dependent variables. Political Analysis 14, 2 (2006), 186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Knapp, M.L. and Vangelisti, A.L. Interpersonal communication and human relationships. Allyn and Bacon Boston, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., and Scherlis, W. Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being' American Psychologist 53, 9 (1998), 1017--1031.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J., and Ng, Z.W. Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89, 6 (2005), 925.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Ledbetter, A.M., Mazer, J.P., DeGroot, J.M., Meyer, K.R., Yuping Mao, and Swafford, B. Attitudes Toward Online Social Connection and Self-Disclosure as Predictors of Facebook Communication and Relational Closeness. Communication Research 38, 1 (2011), 27--53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Litwak, E. and Szelenyi, I. Primary group structures and their functions: Kin, neighbors, and friends. American Sociological Review, (1969).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Marin, A. and Hampton, K.N. Simplifying the Personal Network Name Generator. Field Methods 19, 2 (2007), 163--193.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Naaman, M., Boase, J., and Lai, C.H. Is it really about me': message content in social awareness streams. Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, (2010), 189--192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Pollet, T.V., Roberts, S.G.B., and Dunbar, R.I.M. Use of Social Network Sites and Instant Messaging Does Not Lead to Increased Offline Social Network Size, or to Emotionally Closer Relationships with Offline Network Members. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 14, 4 (2011), 253--258.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Roberts, S. and Dunbar, R.I.M. Communication in social networks: Effects of kinship, network size, and emotional closeness. Personal Relationships, (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Spence, M. Job market signaling. The quarterly journal of Economics 87, 3 (1973), 355.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communications. Management science, (1986), 1492--1512. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Turkle, S. Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Valkenburg, P.M. and Peter, J. Preadolescents and adolescents online communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology 43, 2 (2007), 267.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. van Grove, J. Twitter analysis: 40% of tweets are pointless babble. Mashable, 2009. http://mashable.com/2009/08/12/twitter-analysis/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Vitak, J. Keeping connected in the Facebook age: The relationship between Facebook use, relationship maintenance strategies, and relational outcomes. (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Vitak, J. Facebook Makes the Heart Grow Fonder: Relationship Maintenance Strategies Among Geographically Dispersed and Communication-Restricted Connections. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Zahavi, A. Mate selection--a selection for a handicap. Journal of theoretical Biology 53, 1 (1975), 205--214.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Growing closer on facebook: changes in tie strength through social network site use

    Recommendations

    Reviews

    Sandhya Jane

    Burke and Kraut have undertaken this research to broadly examine the development of interpersonal relationships based on interaction over social networking sites (such as Facebook) with friends. It also seeks to explore the impact such sites have on relationships offline through a sample survey of 3,649 Facebook users with 26,134 friends. The primary intent behind this research is to understand if these sites have any adverse impact on existing relationships or simply replace them with newfangled, virtual friendships. The effects are measured through types and intensity of communication in social networking jargon such as likes, comments, and posts. The survey was conducted to understand the strength of relationships based on communication, frequency, and relationship types. This strength was measured and compared with traditional communication methods such as intimacy, exchanges off of social networks over phone, e-mail, and so on, and types of relationships (friends, colleagues, and so on). The survey analyzed behavioral log data by examining users direct communication, broadcasting, and passive consumption. A few examples are provided on their positive impact in cementing old relationships that were seemingly jeopardized, as well as building new relationships with strangers via Facebook who later became familiar entities after a personal meeting. The study concludes with the types of Facebook interactions that are positive and build bonds among virtual or real friends over a period of time. Although the strength increases with broadcasting, more strength is provided by direct and composed communication. However, the study does not include following criteria: 1. On a negative note: Friendships may turn bitter following unpleasant arguments over deep-rooted religious or political affiliations or views. 2. On a positive note: The study doesnt include relationships developed with unknown like-minded users promoting the same cause. Online Computing Reviews Service

    Cathryn Peoples

    Relationships, measured in the strength of a tie between people, can be characterized according to interactions, and are dependent on what, why, and how we communicate, and the frequency of communication activities. Given the rise in new technologies, and dependencies on these to support day-to-day life, communications are changing in each aspect; we can therefore assume that our relationships are similarly changing. In their work, Burke and Kraut consider the occurrence and impact of this in relation to people "growing closer on Facebook." The how is therefore a particularly interesting metric in this respect, and the investigation examines how the way we communicate using Facebook affects relationship strength. Strength in this work is dependent on interaction with Facebook's built-in features, such as its "like" option, wall posts, and status or photograph comments. Research for the paper is based on data collected both from Facebook servers and survey participants. Disappointingly, a number of the conclusions drawn are predictable. The authors conclude that Facebook improves tie strength in both kin and non-kin relationships. In non-kin relationships, the how of Facebook is particularly important: "one click" actions are inadequate and may negatively impact relationships, while tie strength increases through "directed" one-to-one communication and, to a reduced degree, passive consumption of wall content. Facebook does not improve tie strength between next of kin, but can change perceptions between family members. While the data and analysis in this work therefore verify the impact we might imagine of Facebook, little new insight is provided. Online Computing Reviews Service

    Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

    Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '14: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2014
      4206 pages
      ISBN:9781450324731
      DOI:10.1145/2556288

      Copyright © 2014 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 26 April 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '14 Paper Acceptance Rate465of2,043submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader