skip to main content
10.1145/2531602.2531726acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Facebook makes the heart grow fonder: relationship maintenance strategies among geographically dispersed and communication-restricted connections

Published:15 February 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

The increasing ubiquity of information and communication technologies has dramatically impacted interpersonal communication and relationship maintenance processes. These technologies remove temporal and spatial constraints, enabling communication at a distance for low to no physical costs. Research has established that technologies such as email supplement other forms of communication in relationship maintenance, but to what extent do newer technologies--which contain a unique set of affordances--facilitate these processes? Furthermore, do SNS users engage in different practices through the site and obtain different relational benefits based on specific characteristics of the tie? Findings from a survey of adult Facebook users (N=415) indicate that geographically distant Facebook Friends, as well as those who rely on the site as their primary form of communication, engage in relationship maintenance strategies through the site to a greater extent and perceive the site to have a more positive impact on the quality of their relationships.

References

  1. Baym,N.K.,ZhangY.B.,Kunkel,A.,Ledbetter,A.,and Lin, M. Relational quality and media use in interpersonal relationships. New Media Society 9 (2007), 735--752.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Baym, N.K., Zhang, Y.B., and Lin, M.-C. Interpersonal communication on the internet, telephone and face-to- face. New Media & Society 6 (2004), 299--318.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Boneva,B.,Kraut,R.,andFrohlich,D.Usinge-mailfor personal relationships: The difference gender makes. American Behavioral Scientist, 45 (2001), 530--549.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Brandtzaeg,P.B.Socialnetworkingsites:Theirusers and social implications'a longitudinal study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 17 (2012), 467- 488. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Brenner,J.andSmith,A.72%ofOnlineAdultsAre Social Networking Site Users. Pew Internet Project, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Burke,M.Kraut,R.andMarlow,C.Socialcapitalon Facebook: Differentiating uses and users. In Proc. CHI, ACM Press (2011), 571--580. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Canary,D.J.,andStafford,L.Relationalmaintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs 59 (1992), 243--267.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Dainton,M.,andAylor,B.Patternsofcommunication channel use in the maintenance of long-distance relationships. Communication Research Reports 19 (2000), 118--129.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Dibble,J.L.,Levine,T.R.,andPark,H.S.The unidimensional relationship closeness scale (URCS): Reliability and validity evidence for a new measure of relationship closeness. Psychological Assessment 24 (2012), 565--572.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Dindia, K. Definitions and perspectives on relational maintenance communication. In D.J. Canary and M. Dainton, eds., Maintaining Relationships Through Communication: Relational, Contextual, and Cultural Variations. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2003, 51- 77).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Donath, J.S. Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2007), 231- 251.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Duck, S. Relating to Others. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Duck, S., and Pittman, G. Social and personal relationships. In M.L. Knapp and G.R. Miller, eds., Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (2nd ed.) Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994, 676--695.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Duggan, M., and Brenner, J. The Demographics of Social Media Users -- 2012. Pew Internet Project, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2011, June). How many 'friends' can you really have? IEEE Spectrum, 81, 83.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., and Lampe, C. The benefits of Facebook 'friends': Exploring the relationship between college students' use of online social networks and social capital. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12 (2007), 1143--1168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C. and Lampe, C. Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook- enabled communication practices. New Media & Society 13 (2011), 873--892.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Ellison, N., Vitak, J., Gray, R., and Lampe, C. Cultivating social resources: The relationship between bridging social capital and Facebook use among adults. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, (in press).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilbert, E. and Karahalios, K. Predicting tie strength with social media. In Proc. CHI, ACM Press (2011), 211--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Gunn, D. O., and Gunn, C. W. Electronic relationship maintenance processes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Internet Researchers, Lawrence, KS, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Hampton, K., Goulet, L.S., Rainie, L., and Purcell, K. Social Networking Sites and Our Lives. Pew Internet Project, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. 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, (2011), 1031--1049.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Hampton, K., and Wellman, B. Long distance community in the network society: Contact and support beyond Netville. American Behavioral Scientist 45 (2001), 476--495.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Haythornthwaite, C. Social networks and InternetGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. connectivity effects. Information, Communication & Society 8 (2005), 125--147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. 25.Johnson, A.J. Examining the maintenance of friendships: Are there differences between geographically close and long-distance friends' Communication Quarterly 49 (2001), 424--435.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. 26.Johnson, A.J., Haigh, M.M., Becker, J.A.H., Craig, E.A., and Wigley, S. College students' use of relational management strategies in email in long-distance and geographically close relationships. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008), 381- 404.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. 27.Johnson, A.J., Becker, J., Craig, E., Gilchrist, E., and Haigh, M. Changes in friendship commitment: Comparing geographically close and long-distance young-adult friendships. Communication Quarterly 57 (2009), 395--415.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. 28.Joinson, A.N. (2008). 'Looking at', 'looking up,' or 'keeping up with' people? Motives and uses of Facebook. In Proc. CHI, ACM Press (2008), 1027- 1036. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. 29.Lampe, C., Ellison, N., and Steinfield, C. A Face(book) in the crowd: Social searching vs. social browsing. In Proc. CSCW, ACM Press (2006), 167--170. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. 30.Ledbetter, A.M. Measuring online communication attitude: Instrument development and validation. Communication Monographs 76 (2009), 463--486.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. 31.Ledbetter, A. Assessing the measurement invariance of relational maintenance behavior when face-to-face and online. Communication Research Reports 27 (2010), 30- 37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. 32.Ledbetter, A.M., Mazer, J.P., DeGroot, J.M., Meyer, K.R., Mao, Y., and Swafford, B. Attitudes toward online social connection and self-disclosure as predictors of Facebook communication and relational closeness. Communication Research 38 (2011), 27--53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. 33.Lenhart, A. Adults and Social Network Websites. Pew Internet Project, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. 34.Metzger, M.J., Wilson, C., Pure, R.A., and Zhao, B.Y. Invisible interactions: What latent social interaction can tell us about social relationships in social network sites. In D. Comunello, ed., Networked Sociability and Individualism: Technology for Personal and Professional Relationships. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, 2012, 79--103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. 35.Miczo, N., Mariani, T., and Donahue, C. The strength of strong ties: Media multiplexity, communication motives, and the maintenance of geographically close friendships. Communication Reports 24 (2011), 12--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. 36.Rabby, M.K. Relational maintenance and the influence of commitment in online and offline relationships. Communication Studies 58 (2007), 315 3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. 37.Ramirez, A., and Broneck, K. "IM me": Instant messaging as relational maintenance and everyday communication. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26 (2009), 291--314.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. 38.Smith, A. Mobile Access 2010. Pew Internet Project, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. 39.Stafford, L. Maintaining Long-Distance and Cross- Residential Relationships. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. 40.Stafford, L. Measuring relationship maintenance behaviors: Critique and development of the revised relationship maintenance behavior scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 28 (2010), 278--303.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. 41.Stafford, L., and Canary, D.J. Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 8 (1991), 217--2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. 42.Stafford, L., Kline, S.L., and Dimmick, J. Home e-mail: Relational maintenance and gratification opportunities. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 43 (1999), 659--669.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. 43.Steinfield, C., Ellison, N.B., and Lampe, C. Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29 (2008), 434--445.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. 44.Tabachnick, G.G., and Fidell, L.S. Experimental Designs Using ANOVA. Duxbury, Belmont, CA, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. 45.Thelwall, M. and Wilkinson, D. Public dialogs in social network sites: What is their purpose? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Technology 61 (2010), 392--404.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. 46.Tong, S., and Walther, J.B. (2011). Relational maintenance and CMC. In K.B. Wright and L.M. Webb, eds., Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal Relationships. Peter Lang Publishing, New York, 98- 118.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. 47.Valkenburg, P.M., and Peter, J. The effects of instant messaging on the quality of adolescents? existing friendships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Communication 59 (2009), 79--97.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. 48.Viswanath, B., Mislove, A., Cha, M., and Gummadi, K. P. On the evolution of user interaction in Facebook. In Proc. ACM workshop on online social networks, ACM Press (2009) 37--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. 49.Vitak, J. Keeping connected in the Facebook age: The relationship between Facebook use, relationship maintenance strategies, and relational outcomes. PhD dissertation, Michigan State University. East Lansing, MI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. 50.Vitak, J. The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 56 (2012), 451--470.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. 51.Vitak, J., and Kim, J. "You can't block people offline": Examining how Facebook's affordances shape the disclosure process. In Proc. CSCW, ACM Press (2014). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. 52.Wright, K.B. Online maintenance strategies and perceptions of partners within exclusively Internet-based and primarily Internet-based relationships. Communication Studies 55 (2004), 239--253.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Facebook makes the heart grow fonder: relationship maintenance strategies among geographically dispersed and communication-restricted connections

    Recommendations

    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
      CSCW '14: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing
      February 2014
      1600 pages
      ISBN:9781450325400
      DOI:10.1145/2531602

      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: 15 February 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CSCW '14 Paper Acceptance Rate134of497submissions,27%Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

      CSCW '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader