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

CHI, pp. 4187-4196, 2014.

Cited by: 215|Bibtex|Views62|Links
EI
Keywords:
non-family relationshiptie strengthsocial network site useone-on-one communicationmeaningful interactionMore(7+)
Weibo:
The following tables are similar to Table 2 in the main paper and include tests for interaction effects with family status, frequent contact status, and new relationship status

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, ...More

Code:

Data:

Introduction
  • Human-Computer Interaction Institute mburke@fb.com
  • Carnegie Mellon University robert.kraut@cs.cmu.edu
  • SUPPLEMENTARY ONLINE MATERIAL
Highlights
  • The following tables are similar to Table 2 in the main paper and include tests for interaction effects with (S1) family status, (S2) frequent contact status, and (S3) new relationship status
  • All continuous variables are centered at their means
Results
  • The following tables are similar to Table 2 in the main paper and include tests for interaction effects with (S1) family status, (S2) frequent contact status, and (S3) new relationship status.
  • See http://tinyurl.com/burkechi2014 for the full paper.
  • General communication In-person contact Phone contact Online contact
  • Facebook communication Directed communication Passive consumption by ego Broadcasting Broadcasting
  • Interactions w/ family status Is family x directed communication Is family x passive consumption *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05
  • N=40,521 Egos=3,643 Alters=26,103 † Binary variable ‡ Continuous variable logged and standardized
  • All continuous variables are centered at their means.
  • (Intercept) Controls Reported tie strength last month Ego age Age difference Ego is male† Same gender† Ego’s friend count‡ Alter’s friend count‡ Number of mutual friends Is family† Same work† Same school† Same city† Is frequent contact†
  • Interactions w/ frequent contact status Is freq contact x directed communication Is freq contact x passive consumption *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05
  • FB communication than infrequent contacts are.
Conclusion
  • (Intercept) Controls Reported tie strength last month Ego age Age difference Ego is male† Same gender† Ego’s friend count‡ Alter’s friend count‡ Number of mutual friends Is family† In a relationship together† Same work† Same school† Same city†
  • Reported tie strength Value SE p-value 4.51 0.01 0.00***
  • Interactions w/ new relationship status Is new x directed communication Is new x passive consumption *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05
Summary
  • Human-Computer Interaction Institute mburke@fb.com
  • Carnegie Mellon University robert.kraut@cs.cmu.edu
  • SUPPLEMENTARY ONLINE MATERIAL
  • The following tables are similar to Table 2 in the main paper and include tests for interaction effects with (S1) family status, (S2) frequent contact status, and (S3) new relationship status.
  • See http://tinyurl.com/burkechi2014 for the full paper.
  • General communication In-person contact Phone contact Online contact
  • Facebook communication Directed communication Passive consumption by ego Broadcasting Broadcasting
  • Interactions w/ family status Is family x directed communication Is family x passive consumption *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05
  • N=40,521 Egos=3,643 Alters=26,103 † Binary variable ‡ Continuous variable logged and standardized
  • All continuous variables are centered at their means.
  • (Intercept) Controls Reported tie strength last month Ego age Age difference Ego is male† Same gender† Ego’s friend count‡ Alter’s friend count‡ Number of mutual friends Is family† Same work† Same school† Same city† Is frequent contact†
  • Interactions w/ frequent contact status Is freq contact x directed communication Is freq contact x passive consumption *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05
  • FB communication than infrequent contacts are.
  • (Intercept) Controls Reported tie strength last month Ego age Age difference Ego is male† Same gender† Ego’s friend count‡ Alter’s friend count‡ Number of mutual friends Is family† In a relationship together† Same work† Same school† Same city†
  • Reported tie strength Value SE p-value 4.51 0.01 0.00***
  • Interactions w/ new relationship status Is new x directed communication Is new x passive consumption *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05
Tables
  • Table1: Interactions between family status and types of Facebook use on changes in tie strength. Family members are less affected by FB communication than non-family members
  • Table2: Interactions between frequent contact status (including ties who are in a romantic relationship, live together, or report talking a few times per week or more via the phone, email, or in person) and types of Facebook use on changes in tie strength. Frequent contacts are less affected by
  • Table3: Interactions between new relationship status (ties marked as “someone I just met” or ties friended on Facebook in the last two months) and types of Facebook use on changes in tie strength. Facebook communication does not appear to affect new ties differently from longstanding ties
Download tables as Excel
Your rating :
0

 

Best Paper
Best Paper of CHI, 2014
Tags
Comments