2.1. Getting Social on the Internet
2.2. Social Capital
2.3. Facebook and Social Capital: Bridging, Bonding, and Maintained Social Capital
2.4. Types of Interactions on Facebook and Social Capital
2.5. Self-Esteem, Facebook Use, and Social Capital
3. Literature Search and Procedures
4.1. General Facebook Use and Social Capital
4.2. Types of Interactions on Facebook and Social Capital
4.3. Self-Esteem, Facebook Use, and Social Capital
|Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2007)||||N = 286 students|
Mage = 20.1
|USA||Survey||FB Intensity Life||BRISC||FB Intensity has a positive relation with BRISC/BOSC/MASC.|
This relationship is stronger for people with low SE and less life-satisfaction.
|Steinfield, Ellison, and Lampe (2008)||||N = 92 students|
Mage = 21.0
|USA||Longitudinal survey (2 waves)||FB Intensity|
|BRISC||FB intensity positively affects BRISC.|
|This effect is stronger for people with low SE and less life-satisfaction.|
|Burke, Marlow, and Lento (2010)||||N = 1193 adults|
Mage = 33.7
|World||Survey + server logs of FB activity||FB Intensity|
|BRISC||Directed comm. positively predicts BRISC; it does not predict BOSC.|
|BOSC||Consumption negatively predicts BRISC and BOSC.|
|Loneliness||SE predicts BRISC and BOSC.|
|Burke, Kraut, and Malow (2011)||||N = 415 adults|
Mage = 33.7
|USA||Longitudinal survey (2 waves)||Time spent on FB|
Number of friends
|BRISC||Time spent on FB positively affects BRISC.|
Directed comm. positively affects BRISC.
No effects of consumption and broadcasting on BRISC and BOSC.
People with low SE experience a stronger effect of directed comm. on BRISC.
|Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2011)||||N = 450 students|
Mage = 20.4
|Info-seeking only connection strategy that (positively) predicts|
|Number of FB friends + actual friends||BRISC and BOSC.|
|Self-esteem||Number of actual friends positively predicts BRISC.|
|Connection strategies: initiating, info-seeking, and maintaining||SE positively predicts BRISC and BOSC.|
|Papacharissi and Mendelson (2011)||||N = 344 students|
Age range: 18–25
|USA||Survey||FB use (time spent + number of friends)|
Motives for FB use
Unwillingness to communicate
Affinity with FB
|No relation between FB use and BRISC, BOSC, and MASC.|
|Motives “expressive info sharing” and “relaxing entertainment” correlated highly with BRISC, BOSC, and MASC.|
|Vitak, Ellison, and Steinfield (2011)||||N = 325 students|
Mage = 20.7
|BRISC||FB intensity is positively related to BRISC.|
|BOSC||No relation between FB intensity and BOSC.|
|Social provision||SE predicts localized BOSC.|
|Yoder and Stutzman (2011)||||N = 557 students|
Mage = 19.9
|USA||Survey||Public comm. on FB (status updates + wall posts)||BRISC||Public directed comm. predicts BRISC.|
|Private comm. on FB (chat + direct messaging)|
|Brandtzaeg (2012)||||N = 391 adults|
Age range: 15–75
|Norway||Longitudinal survey (3 waves)||Users versus non-users||BRISC||Positive effect of SNS usage on BRISC.|
|Loneliness||SNS users report more BRISC than non-users.|
|Stutzman, Vitak, Ellison, Gray, and Lampe (2012)||||N = 230 students|
Mage = 21.2
|USA||Survey||FB use: time spent + number of friends + actual friends|
Signals of relational investment (directed comm.)
FB disclosures (broadcasting)
|BRISC||Broadcasting is positively related to BRISC and BOSC.|
Directed comm. is positively related to BRISC and BOSC.
There is a positive relation between SE and BRISC/BOSC.
|Vitak (2012)||||N = 364 students + PhD’s|
Mage = 30.0
|USA||Survey||Amount of FB disclosures (broadcasting)||BRISC||Amount of disclosures (broadcasting) is positively related to BRISC.|
|Intended disclosure||Intended disclosure is positively related to BRISC.|
|Johnston, Tanner Lalla, and Kawalski (2013)||||N = 572 students|
Mage = 20.6
|South-Africa||Survey||FB Intensity||BRISC||FB intensity is positively related to BRISC, BOSC, and MASC.|
SE does not moderate these relations.
|Lampe, Vitak, and Ellison (2013)||||N = 614 adults|
Mage = 45.0
|USA||Survey||Users versus non-users|
Time spent on FB
Number of friends + actual friends
Signals of relational investment (directed comm.)
|BRISC||Heavy users report higher BRISC compared to non-users or light users.|
Heavy users and non-users report higher BOSC compared to light users.
FB usefulness is positively related to BRISC and BOSC.
SE is positively related to BRISC and BOSC.
|Lee, Kim, and Ahn (2014)||||N = 256|
Mage = 20.9
|FB intensity is positively related to BRISC and BOSC.|
|Number of FB feature use||Use of wall (broadcasting) is positively related to BRISC.|
|Frequency of FB feature use||Use of likes (directed comm.) is positively related to BOSC.|
|Preference of FB feature use||Use of comments (directed comm.) is negatively related to BOSC.|
|Brooks, Hogan, Ellison, Lampe, and Vitak (2014)||||N = 238 adults|
Mage = 45.0
|USA||Survey + actual FB behavior||FB use: Time spent + number of friends + actual friends||BRISC|
|Number of friends and visits on FB are not related to BRISC and BOSC.|
|FRMB||Info-seeking behavior predicts BRISC and BOSC.|
|Info-seeking behavior||FRMB (directed comm.) predicts BRISC and BOSC.|
|Self esteem||There is a positive relation between SE and BOSC.|
|Ellison, Vitak, Gray, and Lampe (2014)||||N = 614 adults|
Mage = 45.0
|USA||Survey||FB use: Time spent + number of friends + actual friends|
|BRISC (general and FB specific)||FRMB is positively related to both forms of BRISC.|
|Actual FB friends is positively related to both forms of BRISC.|
|Number of friends is positively related to general BRISC.|
|SE is positively related to both forms of BRISC.|
|Lampe, Gray, Fiore, and Ellison (2014)||||N = 3877 status updates||World-English status updates||Content analysis||Mobilization requests||Responses on mobilization requests||Posts that attempt to mobilize help receive more response (social capital) than non-mobilization attempts.|
|User characteristics (e.g., visitation frequency)|
4.4. Theoretical, Analytical and Methodological Issues
4.4.1. Theoretical Issues
4.4.2. Analytical Issues
4.4.3. Methodological Issues
Conflicts of Interest
- Jones, S.; Fox, S. Generations Online in 2009; Pew Internet & American Life Project: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Brenner, J. Pew Internet: Social Networking. Available online: http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/March/Pew-Internet-Social-Networking-full-detail.aspx (accessed on 14 February 2013).
- Smith, S.D.; Caruso, J.B. Research Study ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology; EDUCAUSE, Center for Applied Research: Boulder, CO, USA, 2010; Volume 6, Available online: http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/ecar-study-undergraduate-students-and-information-technology-2010 (accessed on 1 March 2014).
- Facebook (2015). Key Facts. Available online: http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/ (accessed on 9 March 2015).
- Boyd, D.M.; Ellison, N.B. Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2007, 13, 210–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinfield, C.; Ellison, N.; Lampe, C.; Vitak, J. Online social network sites and the concept of social capital. In Frontiers in New Media Research; Lee, F.L., Leung, L., Qiu, J.S., Chu, D., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 115–131. [Google Scholar]
- Nie, N.H. Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the Internet: Reconciling conflicting findings. Am. Behav. Sci. 2001, 45, 420–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraut, R.; Patterson, M.; Lundmark, V.; Kiesler, S.; Mukophadhyay, S.; Scherlis, T. Internet Paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? Am. Psychol. 1998, 53, 1011–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraut, R.; Kiesler, S.; Boneva, B.; Cummings, J.; Helgeson, V.; Crawford, A. The Internet paradox revisited. J. Soc. Issues 2002, 58, 49–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, D. On and Off the ’Net: Scales for Social Capital in an Online Era. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2006, 11, 593–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaw, L.H.; Gant, L.M. In defense of the Internet: The relationship between Internet communication and depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and perceived social support. CyberPsychol. Behav. 2002, 5, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Morahan-Martin, J. The relationship between loneliness and Internet use and abuse. CyberPsychol. Behav. 1999, 2, 431–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Parks, M. What will we study when the Internet disappears? J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2009, 14, 724–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, N. Building a network theory of social capital. Connections 1999, 22, 28–51. [Google Scholar]
- Bourdieu, P.; Wacquant, L. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- De Silva, M.J.; McKenzie, K.; Harpham, T.; Huttly, S.R. Social capital and mental illness: A systematic review. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 2005, 59, 619–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poortinga, W. Social relations or social capital? Individual and community health effects of bonding social capital. Soc. Sci. Med. 2006, 63, 255–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Putnam, R.D.; Goss, K. Introduction. In Democracies in Flux; Putnam, R., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Stanton-Salazar, R.D.; Dornbusch, S.M. Social capital and the reproduction of inequality: Information networks among Mexican-origin high school students. Sociol. Educ. 1995, 68, 116–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halpern, D. Social Capital; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Pasek, J.; More, E.; Romer, D. Realizing the social Internet? Online social networking meets offline civic engagement. J. Inf. Technol. Polit. 2009, 6, 197–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valenzuela, S.; Park, N.; Kee, K.F. Is there social capital in a social network site?: Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2009, 14, 875–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vitak, J.; Zube, P.; Smock, A.; Carr, C.T.; Ellison, N.; Lampe, C. It’s complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2011, 14, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, W.; Johnson, T.J.; Seltzer, T.; Bichard, S.L. The revolution will be networked: The influence of social networking sites on political attitudes and behaviors. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2010, 28, 75–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Putnam, R.D. Bowling Alone; Simon & Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Granovetter, M.S. The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociol. Theory 1983, 1, 201–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellison, N.B.; Steinfield, C.; Lampe, C. The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2007, 12, 1143–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyd, D.M. Friendster and publicity articulated social networks. In Proceedings of the ACM Computer Human Interaction, Vienna, Austria, 24–29 April 2004.
- Burke, M.; Kraut, R.; Marlow, C. Social capital on Facebook: Differentiating uses and users. In Proceedings of the ACM Computer-Human Interaction, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011.
- Yoder, C.; Stutzman, F. Identifying social capital in the Facebook interface. In Proceedings of the ACM Computer-Human Interaction, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011.
- Donath, J.; Boyd, D. Public displays of connection. BT Technol. J. 2004, 22, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donath, J. Signals in social supernets. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2007, 13, 231–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwon, O.; Wen, Y. An empirical study of the factors affecting social network service use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 254–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hancock, J.T.; Toma, C.L.; Fenner, K. I know something you don’t: The use of asymmetric personal information for interpersonal advantage. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, San Diego, CA, USA, 8–12 November 2008.
- Bargh, J.A.; McKenna, K.Y.A. The Internet and social life. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2004, 55, 573–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Helliwell, J.F.; Putnam, R.D. The social context of well-being. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 2004, 359, 1435–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bargh, J.A.; McKenna, K.Y.A.; Fitzsimons, G.M. Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. J. Soc. Issues 2002, 58, 33–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tidwell, L.C.; Walther, J.B. Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Hum. Commun. Res. 2002, 28, 317–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zywica, J.; Danowski, J. The faces of Facebookers: Investigating social enhancement and social compensation hypotheses; Predicting FacebookTM and offline popularity from sociability and self-esteem, and mapping the meanings of popularity with semantic networks. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2008, 14, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKenna, K.Y.A.; Bargh, J.A. Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity “demarginalization” through virtual group participation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 75, 681–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burke, M.; Marlow, C.; Lento, T. Social network activity and social well-being. In Proceedings of the CHI 2010, Atlanta, GA, USA, 10–15 April 2010.
- Johnston, K.; Tanner, M.; Lalla, N.; Kawalski, D. Social capital: The benefit of Facebook ‘friends’. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2013, 32, 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, E.; Kim, Y.J.; Ahn, J. How do people use Facebook features to manage social capital? Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 36, 440–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brandtzæg, P.B. Social networking sites: Their users and social implications—A longitudinal study. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2012, 17, 467–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lampe, C.; Vitak, J.; Ellison, N.B. 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.
- Vitak, J.; Ellison, N.B.; Steinfield, C. The ties that bond: Re-examining the relationship between Facebook use and bonding social capital. In Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HI, USA, 4–7 January 2011.
- Ellison, N.B.; Steinfield, C.; Lampe, C. Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. N. Media Soc. 2011, 13, 873–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papacharissi, Z.; Mendelson, A. Towards a new(er) sociability: Uses, gratifications, and social capital on Facebook. In Media Perspectives for the 21st Century; Papathanassopoulos, S., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 212–230. [Google Scholar]
- Stutzman, F.; Vitak, J.; Ellison, N.B.; Gray, R.; Lampe, C. Privacy in interaction: Exploring disclosure and social capital in Facebook. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Dublin, Ireland, 4–7 June 2012.
- Ellison, N.B.; Vitak, J.; Gray, R.; Lampe, C. Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2014, 19, 855–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brooks, B.; Hogan, B.; Ellison, N.B.; Lampe, C.; Vitak, J. Assessing structural correlates to social capital in Facebook ego networks. Soc. Netw. 2014, 38, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lampe, C.; Gray, R.; Fiore, A.T.; Ellison, N. Help is on the way: Patterns of responses to resource requests on Facebook. In Proceedings of the CSCW, Baltimore, MD, USA, 15–19 February 2014.
- Ellison, N.; Gray, R.; Vitak, J.; Lampe, C.; Fiore, A.T. Calling all Facebook friends: Exploring requests for help on Facebook. In Proceedings of the ICWSM, Cambridge, MA, USA, 8–11 July 2013.
- Vitak, J. The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 2012, 56, 451–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gergen, K.J. Self and community in the new floating worlds. In Mobile Democracy, Essays on Society, Self and Politics; Nyiri, K., Ed.; Passagen: Vienna, Austria, 2002; pp. 103–114. [Google Scholar]
- Ling, R. New Tech, New Ties. How Mobile Communication is Reshaping Social Cohesion; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Conroy, M.; Feezell, J.T.; Guerrero, M. Facebook and political engagement: A study of online political group membership and offline political engagement. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 1535–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thorson, K. Facing an uncertain reception: Young citizens and political interaction on Facebook. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2014, 17, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smock, A.; Ellison, N.B.; Lampe, C.; Wohn, D.Y. Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratifications approach to unbundling feature use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 2322–2329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verplanken, B.; Orbell, S. Reflections on past behavior: A self-report index of habit strength. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 33, 1313–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basil, M.D. The use of student samples in communication research. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 1996, 40, 431–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).