Social Network Sites, Social Ties, and Social Capital

Randy Lynn and James C. Witte

Department of Sociology and Anthropology, George Mason University

Abstract
In this paper we present results from a national sample of American adults (N = 571) of all ages, who are
members of two online survey panels. The results show that social network sites (SNSs) are used to
maintain social ties at a comparable rate to face-to-face, phone, and e-mail, and moreover that SNSs are
used to maintain ties with close ties and family members as well as distant ties and friends. Based on
findings of the multitudinous processes (online and offline) by which actors maintain ties, the diversity of
uses and motives of Internet and SNS users, and the maintenance of strong as well as weak ties by SNS
users, we make theoretical and methodological suggestions for further SNS research.

Acknowledgements
The order of authorship reflects the authors relative contribution to the paper. We are grateful to Audrey
King, Vitalie Sprinceana, and Vicki Watson for their contributions to the construction of the survey
instrument. Direct correspondence to Randy Lynn, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, George
Mason University, MSN1H5, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444. Email: rlynn2@gmu.edu.

Lynn and Witte 1

Social Network Sites, Social Ties, and Social Capital

Many recent studies have explored the relationship between social capitalthe benefits inherent
in and arising from social relationships and networks (Portes 1998; Putnam 2000; Lin 2001)and new
media enabled by digital technologies, particularly those that claim to encourage the formation or
preservation of social ties. One central issue is whether these Internet uses have a positive effect upon
social capital by enabling new ties or facilitating the maintenance of existing ties, or whether these uses
decrease social capital by displacing other modes of communication that enable social capital, such as
face-to-face or phone interactions (Wellman et al. 2001).
Social network sites (SNSs) are an increasingly popular Internet technology, with recent data
indicating that 61 percent of adult Americans have created a SNS profile (Pew Internet & American Life
Project 2010). These broad studies of Internet use, however, do not often provide much detail about
specific SNS uses and behaviors. Several other studies have suggested that the use of SNSs increases
social capital, although many of these studies have argued that its primary benefits are associated with the
maintenance of weak ties (Donath and boyd 2004; Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe 2007; Lewis and West
2009). This latter category of studies, however, has focused almost exclusively on younger users, despite
the recent widespread SNS use among older adults as well.
This study will explore the relationship between individual social capital and the use of the most
popular SNS, Facebook, among a population of American adults. The use of Facebook to maintain social
ties and therefore to enable the benefits of social capital is situated in the contexts of Internet use as a
whole, specific uses and motives for using Facebook, and respondents broader patterns of maintaining
ties through SNS and non-SNS media.

The analysis attempts to correct for theoretical and

methodological limitations of previous studies and to determine whether findings of Internet use
supplementing social capital may be extended to include SNS use.

Lynn and Witte 2

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND THE INTERNET
Current conceptions of social capital largely derive from similarbut not identicalarticulations
by three influential theorists. Bourdieu defines social capital as the sum of the resources, actual or
virtual resulting from ones location in and maintenance of a durable network of more or less
institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:
14). Coleman (1988: S98) conceptualizes social capital as an aggregate of different entities, with two
elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain
actions of actorswhether persons or corporate actorswithin the structure. Productive and not
completely fungible, it is unique among forms of capital in that it inheres in the structure of social
actors and among actors. Putnam (1993:35) initially defines social capital as features of social
organization, such as networks, norms, and trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual
benefit [that enhance] the benefits of investment in physical and human capital. In Bowling Alone, he
defines it as connecting among individuals...social networks and norms of reciprocity and
trustworthiness that arise from them (Putnam 2000: 19).
Most broadly, then, social capital encompasses beneficial relational resources: assets inherent in
and arising from our social relationships and networks. Because relational processes enable social capital
(Portes 1998), social relations can be viewed as investments in which social capital is the return (Lin
1999; Resnick 2002). Although some theoristsespecially Bourdieuemphasize social capitals
prominent role in processes of domination (Coradini 2010), most interpretations construe social capital as
a positive phenomenon, associated with such wide-ranging benefits as increased health (Adler and Kwon
2002), employment (Lin 2001), and psychological well-being (Morrow 1999).
The relationship between Internet use and social capital has been a topic of considerable debate.
Studies arguing that Internet use negatively impacts social capital (Kraut et al. 1998; Nie 2001; Coget,
Yamuchi, and Suman 2002) usually ascribe to some variation of Putnams time displacement hypothesis,
in which increased Internet use is positively correlated with decreases in other modes of communication
(Williams 2006). These studies assert that the Internet is used largely for non-interactive purposes, such

Lynn and Witte 3

as employment-related tasks (Nie 2001) or interactions with weaker ties (Kraut et al. 1998; Coget et al.
2002), displacing more beneficial face-to-face interactions and ties to organizations or communities. The
result is increased social isolation and decreased psychological well-being (Kraut et al. 1998).
Most of these previous studies were conducted before the popularization of new interactive Webbased applications, although there are a few recent exceptions suggesting that time displacement and
social isolation are still salient phenomena in a Web 2.0 context (Leung and Lee 2005; Stern 2008).
Displacement arguments are often linked to a broader assertion of a recent historical or ongoing decline of
social capital or the size and quality of the social networks in which social capital is embedded (Putnam
2000; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Brashears 2006), although the methods and conclusions of these
broader studies have been subject to considerable scrutiny and criticism (Paxton 1999; Thomson 2005;
Wang and Wellman 2010). Most recently, Hampton, Sessions, and Her (2011) found that social isolation
has not increased in the past twenty-five years even as network size has decreased, and furthermore that
Internet use is positively correlated with network size.
Unlike other media linked to the decline of social capital (e.g., network television), there are ways
that the Internet may enable social interactions and the maintenance of social ties. Moreover, Internet
technologies may enable the formation of networks and new forms of social capital not possible in offline
contexts or from the use of other media (Lin 1999; Wellman et al. 2001; Resnick 2002). As a result,
researchers have called for a theoretical and methodological understanding of Internet use that is
multifaceted and acknowledges varied activities, motives, and gratifications (Shah, Kwak, and Holbert
2001; Bargh and McKenna 2004; Zhao 2006).
In fact, the preponderance of studies (especially those that acknowledge the multifaceted nature
of Internet uses) suggest that someif not mostInternet uses are positively correlated with social
capital. This phenomenon has been observed in a wide range of social and demographic populations,
including adolescents (Valkenberg, Peter, and Schouten 2006), college-age students (Ellison et al. 2007;
Lee and Lee 2010), adults (Rainie et al. 2011), senior citizens (Russell, Campbell, and Hughes 2008; Sum
et al. 2008; Hogeboom et al. 2010) and rural residents (Stern and Dillman 2006; Stern and Adams 2010).

Lynn and Witte 4

A positive relationship has also been observed when researchers have emphasized specific forms and
benefits commonly considered to fall within the category of social capital, such as democratic
participation (Kobayashi et al. 2006; Valenzuela, Park, and Kee 2009), community and group
involvement (Hampton and Wellman 2003; Boase et al. 2006; Rainie et al. 2011), social and interpersonal
trust (Best and Krueger 2006; Beaudoin 2008), and psychological contentment or well-being (Bargh and
McKenna 2004; Valkenberg et al. 2006; Ellison et al. 2007).
In sum, although the time displacement hypothesis retains some relevance and some reviews
suggest that the benefits of Internet use are minimal (Shklovski, Kiesler, and Kraut 2006), the extent to
which offline interactions that increase social capital are displaced by online activities that do not is
mitigated by two complementary aspects of the Internet use: on one hand, by the novel or enhanced
networking opportunities presented by digital technologies, and on the other hand, by positive
displacement effects whereby offline activities that do not increase social capital (e.g., watching
television) are displaced by online activities that do (Resnick 2002; Valenzuela et al. 2009). In this
context, online and offline interactions cannot be assumed to represent mutually exclusive categories:
online interactions may supplement other modes of communication that maintain social ties and
encourage social capital (Wellman et al. 2001; Quan-Haase et al. 2002; Quan-Haase and Wellman 2004;
Russell et al. 2008; Vergeer and Pelzer 2009), while ties that are initially formed in online contexts may
be continued in offline contexts (Hampton and Wellman 2003; Kavanaugh et al. 2005; Best and Krueger
2006; Goodsell and Williamson 2008). Situating online interactions in a broader context of social ties and
contexts is essential.

SOCIAL NETWORK SITES

Social network sites (SNSs) represent a recent and increasingly popular Internet use. The most
common of these, Facebook, was founded in 2004 as a SNS for Harvard students, later expanding to other
colleges and establishing itself as the preferred SNS for college students (boyd and Ellison 2007). Since
2006, Facebook has been open to anyone over the age of 13, slowly gaining in market share before

Lynn and Witte 5

soaring past MySpace in active U.S. users in May 2009 (Schonfeld 2009). As of January 2011, Facebook
claims 150 million U.S. users (Facebook 2011b) and a mission to give people the power to share and
make the world more open and connected (Facebook 2011a).
boyd and Ellison (2007: 211) define the SNS as a digitally mediated social space that [allows]
individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of
other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and
those made by others within the system. Since they posited their definition, however, a number of
developments have restricted its utility. Many other websites, such as commercial vendors and journalist
sources, have implemented profile and friend features to increase traffic, while SNSs have greatly
expanded their digital media offerings beyond these primary features. Additionally, other websites such
as LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube may be broadly classified as SNSs, but differ from SNSs such as
Facebook in their emphasis of a particular social medium, restricted memberships, or employment of
social media toward a more specific end.
Broadly, then, Facebook and competitors such as Bebo, Friendster, hi5, and Orkut can be
considered a subset of Web-based social media applications that seek to provide an open-ended portal for
social agents. Users of SNSs select from many types of social media to connect with other users with
whom they have recognized, identified, defined, or in some other way articulated a connection within a
system that might encompass much or all of ones online and offline social networks. Given the
popularity, stated mission, and wealth of social media through which users might interact on Facebook, it
is not surprising that Facebook and other SNSs have been found to be positively associated with various
forms of social capital (Valkenberg et al. 2006; Ellison et al. 2007; Lampe, Ellison, and Steinfield 2008;
Steinfield, Ellison, and Lampe 2008; Valenzuela et al. 2009; Ji et al. 2010), although to date these studies
have focused exclusively upon adolescents, college students, or young adults.
Because SNS users frequently interact with ties formed in offline contexts, studies of social
capital and SNSs often emphasize the distinction between bonding and bridging social capital. Bonding
social capital refers to the social and emotional benefits accrued from strong ties with close family

Lynn and Witte 6

members and friends (Putnam 2000). Bridging social capital, meanwhile, does not encompass the same
depth of social or emotional support, but since weak ties are more likely to enable access to other
networks, bridging social capital enables access to knowledge, opportunities, and other resources not
available in ones network of strong ties (Granovetter 1973; 1983).
Studies of SNS use have consistently argued that SNSs have a greater impact on bridging social
capital and the maintenance of weak ties (Donath and boyd 2004; Ellison et al. 2007; Lewis and West
2009), or else that only certain populations of SNS users exhibit increased bonding social capital (Tufekci
2008a). There are reasons to suggest, however, that the maintenance of strong ties on SNSs may be more
common than previously thought. First, Facebook users on average interact with less than 10 percent of
their friends (Economist.com 2009). It is possible, therefore, that users privilege strong ties through their
behavior onsite, interacting predominantly with these strong ties while simply monitoring the interactions
of most weak ties. Second, SNS use among older Americans has exploded in recent years. Between 2006
and 2010, the percent of U.S. adults who have used the Internet for social or professional networking
grew from 8 to 61 percent among 30 to 49 year olds, 4 to 47 percent among 50 to 64 year olds, and 1 to
26 percent among adults aged 65 and over (Pew Internet & American Life Project 2010). Similarly,
Facebook has nearly tripled in size since December 2008 (Arrington 2009; Facebook 2011b). Crosssectional studies conducted even as recently as two years ago have therefore measured significantly
different user bases than those that exist today. SNS users are more likely than ever to have access to
strong intergenerational ties in their SNS networks, and it is possible that the relative paucity of bonding
social capital in the SNS literature is the result of the tendency to focus upon young users and rely upon
rapidly obsolescing cross-sectional studies.
Furthermore, there is a pressing need to situate the maintenance of ties using SNSs in the broader
context of maintaining ties offline. Wellman et al. (2001) were among the first to extricate Internet use
from simplistic zero-sum constructions of social capital by demonstrating that e-mail supplemented rather
than replaced other modes of communication such as letters and cards, phone, or face-to-face interactions.
Baym, Zhang, and Lin (2004) demonstrated in a study of college students that the quality of online

Lynn and Witte 7

interactions was nearly as high as face-to-face or phone interactions, while Stern (2006) found that
respondents in all demographics considered e-mail an essential means of maintaining strong ties with
close family and friends living far away. SNSs, however, have been rarely considered in such
comparative analyses. Subrahmanyam et al. (2008) is an exception, although this study is limited to
college students, omits important modes of communication such as phone interactions, and is only
tangentially concerned with social capital.

METHOD
The analyses presented in this paper are drawn from an online survey of SNS use among adults
who grew up in the United States. Data collection was conducted in two waves using two different
sources: the first wave sampled participants in a study response panel maintained by a major American
university from March to June 2010, while the second wave sampled workers in Amazons Mechanical
Turk marketplace in January 2011.
The nonprobability sampling method yields results that should be interpreted cautiously. As the
recent American Association of Public Opinion Research Report on Online Panels notes, Nonprobability
online panels ...have proven to be a valuable resource for methodological research of all kinds
Researchers should nonetheless carefully consider any biases that might result due to the possible
correlation of survey topic with the likelihood of Internet access, or the propensity to join an online panel
or to respond to and complete the survey, and qualify their conclusions appropriately (Baker et al. 2010:
759). In the context of this particular study, researchers have argued that online surveys are likely to
overstate rates of SNS use (Hargittai 2007), while the results of a preliminary analysis suggests that
Mechanical Turk workers are more likely to be young, female, and have lower incomes than the overall
population of Internet users (Ipeirotis 2009). On the other hand, non-traditional sampling methods have
been successfully used in the past to reveal valuable relationships regarding Internet use and social capital
(Wellman et al. 2001), and the expanded scope of this study is likely to be more representative of overall
patterns of SNS uses and behaviors than previous studies limited to specific age groups.

Lynn and Witte 8

In addition to questions about respondents social and demographic characteristics, subjects were
asked to provide detailed histories of their experiences with the two most popular SNSs in the United
States: Facebook and MySpace. Respondents were asked if they had ever created a profile at either, if
they currently had a profile at either, how many friends they have, how often they are logged in, how
often they actively use the site, and reasons for changes in these variables over time.
Facebook and MySpace users were also asked to rate the importance of nearly two dozen uses of
SNSs, an instrument adapted from Joinsons (2008) study of Facebook uses and motives. Although about
80 percent of the original scale items were unchanged, some items were added, combined, or otherwise
modified to clarify question wording, simplify concepts, and account for recent changes in SNS use. The
items range from general gratifications, such as finding out what old friends are doing now and
communicating with people like me, to gratifications derived from specific features of the site, such as
playing games and seeing what other people have put as their status. Respondents rated the
importance of these items to their individual SNS experience using a Likert scale (1 = very
unimportant, 7 = very important), and items were presented in random order to eliminate question
ordering effects.
In addition, respondents were asked to specify the relative frequencies with which they engage in
specific uses of the Internet. These uses are adapted from the Pew Internet and American Life Projects
(2010) ongoing longitudinal study of Internet uses among American adults and Tufekcis (2008b) study
of SNS behaviors, which found that SNS use was positively correlated with other expressive uses of the
Internet, such as sending instant messages or creating a blog. Instrumental uses, such as searching for
information, were not correlated with SNS use, suggesting that Internet users differentially conceptualize
the Internet as a medium for performance, expression, and social activities. Respondents rated the
frequencies of these Internet uses using an ordinal scale (1 = never, 5 = daily), and items were
presented in random order to eliminate question ordering effects. As with the scale adapted from
Joinsons (2008) study, some items were added, combined, or otherwise modified to clarify question

Lynn and Witte 9

wording, simplify concepts, and account for recent changes in Internet use, although about 80 percent of
the items remained unchanged.
Respondents were also asked to specify the relative frequencies with which they use certain
modes of communication to maintain social ties. Following Wellman et al. (2001), ties were classified
into four groups: family members living within 30 miles of the respondent, family members living
beyond 30 miles, friends living within 30 miles, and friends living beyond 30 miles. For each of these
groups, respondents used an ordinal scale (1 = never, 6 = daily) to rate the frequencies with which
they communicated face-to-face, via phone, via letters or cards, via e-mail, and via SNSs.
Due to concerns about the length of the survey and the small financial incentive awarded to
participants, a filter item was inserted into the section on Internet uses, instructing respondents to respond
at least once per month for that item to ensure that they were paying attention to question wording
(Hargittai 2009). Respondents who did not select the correct answer to this item were removed from the
study. Here, analysis of SNS use is limited to Facebook, as it is currently the most popular SNS in the
U.S. (Prescott 2010) and past studies have demonstrated convincingly that SNSs should not be considered
identical with respect to user populations and their behaviors (Hargittai 2007; boyd 2008; Papacharissi
2009).
The main goals of this study, then, are to measure the extent to which Facebook is used to
maintain both strong and weak ties, to identify groups that are more or less likely to utilize Facebook for
these purposes. We then situate this particular use of Facebook in the broader contexts of Internet uses
and SNS uses. Finally, we consider SNSs in the context of the diverse meansboth online and offline
by which actors maintain social ties. In this regard, we provide an indirect measure of individual social
capital, which focuses upon the benefits derived from individual ties rather than broader community
benefits, such as increased political participation.

Lynn and Witte 10

INTERNET AND FACEBOOK USE
The sample of adults who grew up in the U.S. consisted of 571 respondents, of whom 482 (84
percent) had one or more Facebook profiles at the time of data collection. Descriptive statistics are
displayed in Table 1. Facebook users were younger (t = -2.49), more likely to have created a Facebook or
MySpace profile three or more years before data collection (t = 11.09), and more likely to belong to the
2010 wave (t = -3.21) than non-users, but the gender, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, guardian
educational attainment, and living arrangement of users and non-users did not vary significantly.
Women and white non-Hispanics were overrepresented in the sample, which was also notably
well-educated. Approximately four-fifths of respondents had at least some college experience, while over
one-third had obtained a graduate degree. The maximum educational attainment among respondents
parents and guardians were similarly elevated. Thus, our sample is clearly better educated than the U.S.
population at large and probably the population of Facebook users as well.
Over two-thirds of the sample were between the ages of 18 and 35, although nearly 20 percent of
the sample was aged 40 or older. A majority of respondents lived with a relationship partner, while
significant minorities lived alone, with one or more guardians, or with one or more roommates. Nearly
half of the sample had created their first Facebook or MySpace profile within two years of completing the
survey.
A factor analysis of Internet uses among all respondents (N = 571) is displayed in Table 2. Of
four components, two correspond to expressive Internet use. The first factor consists of several social or
expressive activities, while the fourth factor (consisting of instant messaging, text messaging using
cellular phones, and SNSs) likely reflects social or expressive activities disproportionately favored by
younger respondents. The other two components consist of instrumental uses. The second factor is
populated by uses tied to specific purposes not likely to occur on a daily basis, such as looking up
practical information or conducting research, while the third factor is comprised of uses that are
performed regularly, such as looking up information about politics or current events.

Lynn and Witte 11

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics by Percent
Facebook Users
(N = 482)

All Respondents
(N = 571)

55.0

54.0

White, non-Hispanic

79.9

80.1

18-24

22.7

20.6

25-29

23.6

24.0

30-34

22.5

21.9

35-39

13.9

14.5

40 and over

17.3

19.0

No college

19.9

20.0

Undergraduate

44.6

45.0

Graduate

35.5

35.5

No college

24.5

24.4

Undergraduate

45.1

45.0

Graduate

30.4

30.6

Lives alone

18.6

20.0

Lives with partner

54.2

53.8

Lives with guardian(s)

14.2

14.2

Lives with roommate(s)

9.2

8.7

Other

3.8

3.4

---

15.1

Less than 1 year ago

14.6

12.3

Between 1 and 2 years ago

34.9

29.6

Between 2 and 3 years ago

22.2

19.1

Between 3 and 4 years ago

13.1

11.0

More than 4 years ago

15.2

12.8

Gender
Women
Race/Ethnicity
Age

Respondent Education

Guardian Education

Living Arrangement

Date of First SNS Profile Creation

Not applicable

Lynn and Witte 12

Table 2: Factor Analysis of Internet Uses and Motives (N = 571)
Create or work on your own blog
Create or work on your own web page
Take part in chat rooms or online discussions with other
people
Post image, audio, or video files on public websites
Visit virtual worlds, such as Second Life
Post comments to an online news group, website, blog,
or photo site
Participate in multiplayer games online
Send or receive audio or video chats
Look for information about a health topic thats hard to
talk about, like drug use, sexual health, or depression
Get information about a college, university or other
school you are thinking about attending
Look for information about a job
Do school work or research
Look for religious or spiritual information
Look up information about events or activities in your
local community
Buy things online, such as books, clothing or music
Look for health, dieting, or physical fitness information
online
Go to web sites about movies, TV shows, music groups,
or sports stars you are interested in
Get news or information about current events
Look for news or information about politics
Send or read e-mail
Read someone elses online journal or blog
Send instant messages to someone whos online at
the same time
Send or receive text messages using a cell phone
Use a social networking site like MySpace, Facebook,
or LinkedIn.com

1
.81
.79
.76

Component
2
3
.21
.05
.29
.01
.15
.14

4
.07
.04
.07

.75
.74
.73

.15
.30
.03

.06
-.10
.29

.19
.10
.16

.66
.47
.42

.17
.45
.53

-.10
-.04
.20

.22
.38
.10

.38

.67

-.13

.14

.06
-.03
.39
.19

.62
.57
.56
.55

.03
.06
.14
.28

-.03
.26
-.13
.18

.26
.26

.50
.47

.21
.36

.23
-.09

.18

.31

.42

.24

-.07
.09
-.13
.49
.35

.17
.37
-.16
-.01
.19

.78
.67
.54
.52
.07

.03
-.10
.35
.13
.68

.06
.21

.20
-.05

-.02
.24

.67
.56

Note: Principal components analysis with orthogonal varimax rotations. Missing

cases replaced by unconditional mean imputation.

Descriptive statistics for Facebook uses and motives are displayed in Table 3. On one hand, the
four uses of Facebook with the greatest mean importance consisted of generalized statements of
maintaining ties; on the other hand, all four of these uses are associated with impediments of time (e.g.,
reconnecting) or place (e.g., contacting friends away from home). In this sense, the most important uses
of Facebook all imply a strengthening of otherwise weak or nonexistent ties. In general, the importance of
uses declined as they progressed further away from ones own social networks: uses involving friends

Lynn and Witte 13

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for Facebook Uses and Motives (N = 482)
Maintaining relationships with people I may not get to see very often
Reconnecting with people Ive lost contact with
Finding out what old friends are doing now
Contacting friends who are away from home
Viewing photos
Sharing and posting photos
Communicating with people like me
Seeing what people have put as their status
Adding new friends
Updating my status
Reading other peoples notes
Browsing my friends friends
Tagging or being tagged in photos
Organizing or joining events
Meeting new people
Joining groups
Writing notes
Playing games
Using advanced search to look for specific types of people
Looking at the profiles of people I dont know
Adding applications to my profile
Discovering new applications because my friends have added them
Taking quizzes

M
5.63
5.50
5.47
5.41
5.35
4.96
4.65
4.63
4.47
4.34
4.07
3.84
3.82
3.65
3.46
3.46
3.43
3.35
3.26
3.24
3.12
3.10
2.75

SD
1.59
1.60
1.51
1.69
1.52
1.84
1.84
1.83
1.83
2.01
1.91
1.94
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.00
2.04
2.23
2.02
1.98
2.13
2.05
1.98

were most important, followed by uses involving friends friends, while searching or browsing the
profiles of strangers was least important.
A factor analysis of Facebook uses among users (N = 482) is displayed in Table 4. Joinson
(2008), from whom we gathered many of the SNS uses employed in this survey, identified seven factors
in his subsequent analysis: social connection, shared identities, photos, content, social investigation,
network surfing, and status updates. In this study, however, Facebook uses clustered into two factors.
Factor loadings corresponded almost exactly to the mean importance attached to each use (Table 2), with
the least important uses comprising the first factor and the most important uses populating the second
factor. The first factor consists entirely of uses involving specific site features, such as notes, events,
games, groups, quizzes, applications, and using Facebooks search or browse functions to view profiles
outside of ones friend network. The second factorconsisting of generalized tie maintenance, photo
sharing, and status updatesseems to encompass tie maintenance and the primary ways by which tie
maintenance occurs.

Lynn and Witte 14

Table 4: Factor Analysis of Facebook Uses and Motives (N = 482)
Adding applications to my profile
Discovering new applications because my friends have added them
Taking quizzes
Meeting new people
Looking at the profiles of people I dont know
Joining groups
Using advanced search to look for specific types of people
Writing notes
Playing games
Browsing my friends friends
Organizing or joining events
Reading other peoples notes
Adding new friends
Tagging or being tagged in photos
Communicating with people like me
Updating my status
Seeing what people have put as their status
Viewing photos
Sharing and posting photos
Contacting friends who are away from home
Maintaining relationships with people I may not get to see very often
Reconnecting with people Ive lost contact with
Finding out what old friends are doing now

Component
1
2
.89
.10
.88
.12
.86
.07
.82
.20
.81
.15
.80
.18
.79
.20
.74
.31
.73
.10
.70
.32
.66
.30
.63
.43
.57
.53
.56
.46
.50
.51
.50
.62
.38
.69
.20
.74
.30
.77
.18
.78
-.01
.79
.10
.80
.09
.81

Note: Principal components analysis with orthogonal varimax rotations. Missing

cases replaced by unconditional mean imputation.

MAINTENANCE OF SOCIAL TIES

Descriptive statistics for maintaining ties among family and friends are displayed in Tables 5 and
6. Unlike other modes of communication, which displayed clear unimodal distributions, SNSs tended to
be used to maintain ties consistently or hardly at all. For example, 31.2 percent and 22.5 percent of
respondents said they rarely or never used SNSs to keep in touch with nearby family and friends, rates of
relative disuse which were surpassed only by letters and cards. But 40.6 percent used SNSs daily or
weekly to keep in touch with nearby family, a rate comparable to phone, face-to-face, and e-mail.
Meanwhile, 51.3 percent used SNSs daily or weekly to keep in touch with nearby friends, a rate which
surpassed phone and e-mail and was only narrowly exceeded by face-to-face (52.9 percent).

Lynn and Witte 15

Table 5: Descriptive Statistics by Percent for Maintenance of Social Ties Within 30 Miles

About Monthly

Several times per year

Rarely

Never

31.0

24.0

18.1

11.3

3.1

F2F

18.9

37.0

13.8

11.7

15.0

3.7

Phone

2.1

9.7

16.1

25.2

30.0

16.9

Letters

7.7

31.5

22.2

14.3

14.5

9.9

E-Mail

13.8

26.8

15.3

10.9

14.0

19.2

SNS

15.0

37.9

23.9

13.4

8.0

1.8

F2F

13.1

34.4

24.4

11.7

12.4

4.0

Phone

2.2

8.5

12.7

21.4

30.1

25.0

Letters

11.5

33.3

24.4

12.0

12.7

6.2

E-Mail

21.4

29.9

16.8

9.5

8.4

14.1

SNS

Friends (N = 552)

About Weekly

12.5

Family (N = 487)

Daily

Note: Respondents who selected not applicable for all media within each group of ties were excluded.

Lynn and Witte 16

Table 6: Descriptive Statistics by Percent for Maintenance of Social Ties Beyond 30 Miles

About Monthly

Several times per year

Rarely

Never

9.4

14.7

34.8

33.6

4.2

F2F

7.4

28.5

18.4

18.1

20.2

7.3

Phone

1.8

8.0

14.1

27.6

33.4

15.2

Letters

7.6

25.5

23.9

16.3

18.3

8.3

E-Mail

13.5

23.0

17.9

14.0

12.9

18.6

SNS

3.6

9.5

13.3

28.6

38.5

6.5

F2F

4.7

17.6

23.2

20.5

26.4

7.6

Phone

2.4

9.2

10.9

25.7

31.3

20.5

Letters

7.6

28.6

23.7

17.4

18.5

4.2

E-Mail

18.8

28.8

19.2

11.6

8.9

12.8

SNS

Friends (N = 556)

About Weekly

3.4

Family (N = 566)

Daily

Note: Respondents who selected not applicable for all media within each group of ties were excluded.

Lynn and Witte 17

Similarly, 31.5 percent rarely or never used SNSs to keep in touch with family living beyond 30
miles, a rate of relative disuse greater than e-mail and phone and less than face-to-face and letters or
cards. But SNSs were the most common daily or weekly means of interacting with faraway family
members (36.5 percent), exceeding the phone, e-mail, and face-to-face. Among faraway friends, SNS was
both the least likely mode of communication to be used rarely or never (21.7 percent) as well as the most
likely mode of communication to be used daily or weekly (47.6 percent).
Thus, the descriptive statistics seem to suggest that SNS use is the most variable mode of
communication and the most dependent upon context. Phone and e-mail were used frequently in all
contexts, while letters or cards were used infrequently in all contexts, and face-to-face interactions were
frequent among nearby family and friends and infrequent among faraway family and friends. Although
significant minorities eschewed SNSs to maintain ties, significant minorities also used SNSs at rates
comparable to face-to-face, phone, and e-mail. This trend was most salient among faraway ties and
among friend ties. Importantly, though, the use of SNSs to maintain ties applied to family as well as
friends, and nearby ties as well as faraway ties, suggesting that SNSs are used to maintain strong as well
as weak ties.
Table 7 summarizes the results of a factor analysis to identify distinctive patterns of tie
maintenance. Each of five factors captures a general pattern of tie maintenance. The first factor consists of
a pattern associated with respondents primarily focused on maintaining ties with those who are
geographically distant and using traditional means (face-to-face, phone, and letters or cards), although the
use of letters and cards carries over to nearby family and friends. The second factor, particularly
important for our purposes, consists solely of SNS use among all tiesnear or far, family or friends.
Despite the variability and context dependency suggested by the descriptive statistics (see Tables 5 and 6)
these findings indicate that respondents who use SNSs to maintain social ties are more distinguishable by
their SNS use itself than the distance or type of tie involved. The third factor focuses on the maintenance
of ties with faraway family and friends, whereby phone and email are used to stay in touch. The fourth

Lynn and Witte 18

Family

Friends

Family

.08
.06
.17
.22
.72
.14
.12
.11
.16
.85
.17
.08
.15
.22
.78
.19
.19
.11
.27
.86

.01
.19
.15
.44
.19
.03
.11
.09
.48
.03
.33
.68
.29
.80
.31
.19
.41
.21
.67
.17

.82
.85
.37
.59
.37
.23
.17
.04
.09
.02
.24
.25
.18
.21
.17
.09
.02
.03
-.03
-.03

.26
.17
-.03
.08
-.03
.81
.81
.15
.55
.30
.13
.08
-.01
.03
.02
.39
.39
.30
.30
.21

Component
.14
.15
.76
.22
.28
.06
.18
.86
.13
.09
.59
.32
.80
.28
.24
.65
.55
.88
.29
.13

Table 7: Factor Analysis of Maintenance of Social Ties (N = 571)

Within
30 mi

Beyond
30 mi
Friends

Face-to-face
Phone
Letters/Cards
E-mail
SNSs
Face-to-face
Phone
Letters/Cards
E-mail
SNSs
Face-to-face
Phone
Letters/Cards
E-mail
SNSs
Face-to-face
Phone
Letters/Cards
E-mail
SNSs

Note: Principal components analysis with orthogonal varimax rotations. Missing cases replaced by unconditional
mean imputation.

Lynn and Witte 19

factor focuses on maintaining ties with nearby family members, with a strong reliance upon face-to-face
and phone interactions and a lesser but still significant reliance upon e-mail. The fifth factor consists of a
pattern of responses focused upon nearby friends, with face-to-face and phone interactions as the most
important means to maintain ties.
To further explore the characteristics associated with the maintenance of social ties, two sets of
regression analyses were conducted. Ordinal scales of the use of face-to-face, phone, e-mail, and letters or
cards across all four categories of ties were summed to create a scale of non-SNS media for the
maintenance of ties. This scale demonstrated a high level of internal reliability, with a Cronbachs alpha
of .93. Regression analyses of the social, demographic, and behavioral predictors of this scale is displayed
in Table 8. Similarly, ordinal scales of the use of SNSs across all four categories of ties were summed to
create a SNS scale, with similarly high reliability (.90). Regression analyses of the social, demographic,
and behavioral predictors of this scale is displayed in Table 9.
Each analysis consists of three models. The first model examines the effects of basic social and
demographic variables as displayed in Table 1: the wave of data collection to which the respondent
belonged, age, sex, race/ethnicity, respondents educational attainment, guardians educational
attainment, living arrangement, and a dummy variable distinguishing respondents who have been using
SNSs for three or more years. The second model considers all of these social and demographic variables
as well as Internet use: ordinal scales of frequencies of expressive Internet uses (components 1 and 4 in
Table 2) and instrumental Internet uses (components 2 and 3 in Table 2) were summed to create two
scales of expressive and instrumental Internet use, both of which had high internal reliability (.88 and .77,
respectively).
The third model consists of all of the variables included in the first two models, as well as
additional variables specific to Facebook use. These include the respondents estimated amount of time
per week spent actively interacting with the site (in hours), the number of Facebook friends the
respondent reported, and two scales corresponding to the two factors of Facebook use displayed in Table

Lynn and Witte 20

Table 8: Effects of Social and Demographic Characteristics and
Internet and Facebook Uses on Maintenance of Social Ties Using
Non-SNS Media
1
-.22***
.09
-.03
-.04
.12**

2
-.12**
.12**
.04
.03
.01

3
-.08
.11*
.08
.02
-.03

Respondent Education
(Reference: Undergraduate)
No college
Graduate

-.01
.11*

.02
.08*

.01
.08*

Guardian Education
(Reference: Undergraduate)
No college
Graduate

-.16***
.02

-.14***
.03

-.14***
.03

Living Arrangement
(Reference: Lives with Partner)
Lives alone
Lives with guardian(s)
Lives with roommate(s)
Other

-.03
-.18***
-.08
-.08*

-.02
-.14***
-.03
-.04

-.04
-.17***
-.02
-.05

Internet Expressive Scale

Internet Instrumental Scale
Number of Facebook friends
Time spent on Facebook
Facebook Social Intimacy Scale
Facebook Application Emphasis Scale

-------------

.32***
.20***
---------

.15**
.16***
.06
.06
.06
.24***

N
Adjusted R2

548
.16

548
.33

464
.36

2011 Wave
Age
Female
White, non-Hispanic
Created first SNS profile more than 3 years
ago

Notes: Standardized beta coefficients. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

6. Ordinal scales of importance were summed to create a scale for the maintenance of ties (the social
intimacy scale) and a scale for engagement with Facebooks features (the application emphasis scale),
both of which had high internal reliability (.91 and .95, respectively).
The results of Table 8 demonstrate that older respondents and those with a graduate education
maintain social ties through face-to-face, phone, letters or cards, and e-mail media more frequently than
younger and less educated respondents. Conversely, respondents who live with one or more guardians and
whose guardians did not have any college experience used these media less frequently to keep in touch

Lynn and Witte 21

than those with other living arrangements and more educated guardians. These findings are congruent
with the expectation that younger respondents and those living with guardians would be less likely to
maintain their own ties because their guardians maintain some of these ties (especially family ties) for
them.
As expected, behavioral indicators tended to be better predictors of tie maintenance than social or
demographic characteristics. Both the expressive and instrumental scales of Internet use are positive and
significant in Model 2 of Table 8, although the magnitude of the standardized coefficient for the
expressive scale is 60 percent more powerful than the standardized coefficient for the instrumental scale.
In Model 3, which consists of Facebook users only, the magnitudes of these coefficients are positive and
roughly equivalent, suggesting that those who keep in touch with their social ties frequently using nonSNS media are using the Internet as a social tool as well as an informational resource. The most important
predictor of the use of non-SNS media to maintain ties among Facebook users, however, is the use of
Facebook for purposes other than the maintenance of tiesadding applications, playing games, browsing
the profiles of users not in ones social network, and using other features less associated with the
maintenance of ties.
As Table 9 shows, age and educational differences significant in the maintenance of ties using
non-SNS media are not significant with respect to SNS media. (It should be noted, however, that the
overrepresentation of younger and more educated respondents in our sample limits the degree of variance.
Accordingly, this finding does not necessarily constitute evidence of SNSs as ameliorators of social
inequalities.) Among all respondents (Model 2), expressive Internet use is by far the greatest predictor of
the frequency of maintaining ties through SNSs, with females and respondents who have been using
SNSs for three or more years also more likely to use SNSs to maintain ties. Among Facebook users
(Model 3), however, gender and date of SNS profile creation are not significant predictors, and expressive
Internet usewhile still positive and significantis a less important predictor. In fact, the effect of
instrumental Internet use among Facebook users is positive, significant, and nearly as noteworthy as that

Lynn and Witte 22

Table 9: Effects of Social and Demographic Characteristics and
Internet and Facebook Uses on Maintenance of Social Ties Using
SNSs
1
-.10*
-.09
.07
-.02
.29***

2
.02
-.05
.14***
.04
.17***

3
.02
-.03
.06
-.02
.00

Respondent Education
(Reference: Undergraduate)
No college
Graduate

-.06
.03

-.05
.01

-.06
-.01

Guardian Education
(Reference: Undergraduate)
No college
Graduate

-.05
-.04

-.04
-.03

-.07
-.04

Living Arrangement
(Reference: Lives with Partner)
Lives alone
Lives with guardian(s)
Lives with roommate(s)
Other

-.04
-.10*
-.12**
-.01

-.04
-.06
-.06
.03

-.02
-.09*
-.06
.01

Internet Expressive Scale

Internet Instrumental Scale
Number of Facebook friends
Time spent on Facebook
Facebook Social Intimacy Scale
Facebook Application Emphasis Scale

-------------

.47***
.05
---------

.12*
.10*
.12**
.18***
.41***
-.02

N
Adjusted R2

548
.12

548
.32

464
.42

2011 Wave
Age
Female
White, non-Hispanic
Created first SNS profile more than 3 years
ago

Notes: Standardized beta coefficients. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

of expressive Internet use. Facebook users who have more friends and spend more time active on the site
are also more likely to use SNSs to maintain ties.
Not surprisingly, Facebook users who say that their most important uses of Facebook consist of
maintaining ties and using the photo and status update features are significantly more likely to maintain
ties using Facebook. Users who display a pattern of preferring Facebooks other featuresnotes, events,
games, groups, quizzes, applications, and Facebooks search or browse functions to view profiles outside
of ones friend networkhowever, are no more or less likely to use SNSs to maintain ties, even though

Lynn and Witte 23

most of those activities are visible to or involve interactions with ones ties. On the other hand, those who
display this pattern of Facebook use are the most likely to use non-SNS media to maintain ties. These
results suggest that there is an attitudinal component to SNS use similar to that of Internet use. If SNSs
are constructed as media to maintain ties, users will do so; however, if SNSs are not explicitly constructed
as such and are instead conceptualized as a collection of semi-public features, users will not maintain ties
using SNSs but will instead be more likely to maintain ties using non-SNS media.

DISCUSSION
Empirically, this study supports the conclusion that using the Internetand SNSs specificallyis
not associated with a decline in social capital. In fact, both expressive and instrumental Internet uses were
positively correlated with the maintenance of ties by all media, whether by SNSs or other means.
Facebook users who have more friends, spend more time active on the site, and display a pattern of use
that emphasizes the maintenance of ties are neither more nor less likely to maintain ties using non-SNS
media, and at the same time are significantly more likely to maintain ties using SNSs. Facebook users
who emphasize using features of Facebook less associated with social intimacy, on the other hand, are
neither more nor less likely to maintain ties using SNSs, but are more likely to maintain ties using nonSNS media. Contrary to the time displacement hypothesis, these less social features are not distracting
users from maintaining their social ties; rather, users who choose not to rely on Facebook to maintain
their social ties are maintaining their ties using other media, such as face-to-face, phone, letters and cards,
and e-mail. In this sense, the thesis of Wellman et al. (2001)that Internet use tends to supplement social
capital, rather than increasing or decreasing itis reprised and extended to include SNSs, which are now
used at a frequency comparable to face-to-face and phone interactions without any evidence of decreases
in traditional means of communication. These findings underscore the need to conceptualize the Internet
and SNSs as complex, multifaceted extensions to offline environments. Within this comprehensive world,
actors choose among activities and means of communication that may or may not increase, decrease, or
supplement social capital.

Lynn and Witte 24

In addition, the data demonstrates that the maintenance of weak tieswhile importantis hardly
the only way by which SNSs may increase social capital. Our factor analysis showed that users who used
the site to increase social intimacy did so with all types of ties, regardless of distance and relation. SNSs
were unique among media in this regard: whereas face-to-face, phone, and email interactions were
implemented in patterns more dependent upon the type of tie (nearby family, nearby friends, or far away)
than the medium itself, SNS users were more distinguishable by the medium of SNSs than the audiences
with which they were interacting. Given that past studies have focused upon young SNS users and have
tended to find that SNSs increase bridging social capital to a greater extent than bonding social capital, it
is possible that the increasing numbers of older SNS users are changing the way users of all ages use
SNSs.
Aside from these empirical contributions, this paper adds to the theoretical and methodological
study of SNSs. Our results suggest a need for a more flexible definition of SNSs that is broad enough to
capture changes in technologies and user base. boyd and Ellisons (2007) definition accurately describes
the most elemental features of SNSs, but since its articulation, even commercial vendors such as Walmart
have added these basic features, while Facebook and other SNSs continue to innovate and implement new
media options within their bounded systems. It is clear that reducing the SNS to semi-public profiles and
friends no longer adequately encompasses the characteristics that distinguish these websites from others.
Although the full articulation of a detailed classification scheme lies outside the scope of this
paper, we posit that SNSs are less distinguishable by certain semi-public features than a particular
arrangement, implementation, and mobilization of multiple social media, of which profile and friend
features are two of the most prominent. We may speak broadly of social media applications as one or
more bundled social media to enable digitally mediated social interactions within its boundaries.
SNSs, then, are a subset of the many social media applications exploiting recent advances in
digital technologies.

Facebook and its competitors are distinguishable from other social media

applications in that they are expansive and Web-based, with a stated mission to provide a social portal to
an inclusive networked public. They provide multiple social media for users, including customizable

Lynn and Witte 25

semi-public profiles, the semi-public articulation of friends, public messages (walls), private messages,
instant messages, group formation, event coordination, media hosting and sharing, compilations of onsite
friend activity (news feed), blogs, forums, classifieds, games, third-party plugins, and widgets. Unlike
other social media applications, which are relatively limited in their social media offerings or may
emphasize one mode of social media over others (e.g., YouTube), Facebook and its competitors seek to
innovate, add, and integrate as many modes of social media as possible and let users determine which
social media they prefer. Within broadly stated Terms of Use, they do not attempt to regulate user
behavior by specifying the content of interactions or appropriating social media in the service of some
stated goal other than the interaction itself. They are inclusive such that besides a minimal age restriction,
anyone may join. They encourageeven aggressively insistthat users expand their friendship
connections and integrate online and offline social networks into the boundaries of the SNS. As portals
such as Yahoo! or Blackboard attempt to provide a navigable hub or point of entry for locating websites
and academic content, Facebook and its competitors attempt to provide a navigable hub or point of entry
for social actors and networks.
In addition, this study employs methods which should become commonplace in future studies of
SNSs. With the rise and fall of Friendster and MySpace, studies should distinguish between current and
past SNS use and identify changes in SNS behaviors (as well as their correlates and causes) over time.
With so many social media situated within the boundaries of a SNS, studies should acknowledge that
SNS uses are associated with different users, motives, and gratifications, much as past studies have
argued that Internet uses should be conceptualized as a collection of multiple activities and processes.
With rising numbers of SNS-using older adults, studies should broaden their scope beyond adolescents,
college students, and young adults. With malleable user bases and rapid rises and falls in popularity,
studies should eschew rapidly obsolescent cross-sectional models and use longitudinal frames to track
changes over time. And with 27 percent of respondents failing to correctly answer a simple filter question
to demonstrate that they are paying attention, online surveys should strongly consider similar mechanisms
of quality control (Hargittai 2009).

Lynn and Witte 26

There are several limitations to this study. The first and most conspicuous is its non-probability
sample and subsequent overrepresentation of respondents comfortable with the Internet. The online
survey mode ensured that all respondents were at least occasional Internet users, and the rate at which
respondents reported a current Facebook profile84 percentfar exceeds the rate of 61 percent
attributed to the overall population (Pew Internet & American Life Project 2010). Distributions of age,
race, gender, and education were similarly affected by the mode of data collection. As a result, these
results cannot be generalized to the national population, while generalization to Internet users as a whole
should be done cautiously.
An additional limitation is its indirect measurement of social capital. Although social capital
inheres in social networks, social ties and social capital are not identical: benefits do not materialize
simply from the existence of social ties. Most obviously, not all ties are equal in the benefits to which
they confer upon actors. A weak tie may confer enormous benefits, while a strong tie may not. Similarly,
while strong and weak ties are assumed to correlate with bonding and bridging capital, with family and
friends, and with nearby ties and faraway ties, these correlations are not explicitly measured and may vary
widely from individual to individual. Social capital is notoriously difficult to measure (Paxton 1999;
Williams 2006). The conclusions of this study should be properly interpreted as conclusions about SNSs
and the maintenance of social ties, suggestivebut not conclusiveof relationships between SNSs,
strong and weak ties, and bonding and bridging social capital. Future work should explicitly seek to
measure these relationships.
Finally, a third limitation is the lack of attention to the processes by which social capital may be
generated by maintaining ties on SNSs. This omission is most obvious in the context of what constitutes
tie maintenance using SNSs. Does it require interaction? Or merely observation? Do all users interpret
this distinction in the same manner? Why are photos and status updates so central to maintaining ties,
while other useswhich are no less social and publicare less so? What is the role of wall posts? These
questions and the limitations above will require further investigation.

Lynn and Witte 27

REFERENCES
Adler, Paul S. and Seok-Woo Kwon. 2002. Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept. The Academy
of Management Review 27(1): 17-40.
Arrington, Michael. 2009. Social Networking: Will Facebook Overtake MySpace in the U.S. in 2009?
TechCrunch, January 13. Retrieved March 27, 2010 (http://techcrunch.com/2009/01/13/socialnetworking-will-facebook-overtake-myspace-in-the-us-in-2009).
Baker, Reg, Stephen J. Blumberg, J. Michael Brick, Mick P. Couper, Melanie Courtright, J. Michael
Dennis, Don Dillman, Martin R. Frankel, Phillip Garland, Robert M Groves, Courtney Kennedy,
Jon Krosnick, Paul J. Lavrakas, Sunghee Lee, Michael Link, Linda Piekarski, Kumar Rao,
Randall K. Thomas, and Dan Zahs. 2010. Research Synthesis: AAPOR Report on Online
Panels. Public Opinion Quarterly 74(4): 711-781.
Bargh, John A. and Katelyn Y.A. McKenna. 2004. The Internet and Social Life. Annual Review of
Psychology 55: 573-590.
Baym, Nancy K., Yan Bing Zhang, and Mei-Chen Lin. 2004. Social Interactions across Media:
Interpersonal Communication on the Internet, Telephone, and Face-to-Face. New Media &
Society 6(3): 299-318.
Beaudoin, Christopher E. 2008. Explaining the Relationship between Internet Use and Interpersonal
Trust: Taking into Account Motivation and Information Overload. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication13: 550-568.
Best, Samuel J. and Brian S. Krueger. 2006. Online Interactions and Social Capital: Distinguishing
Between New and Existing Ties. Social Science Computer Review 24(4): 395-410.
Boase, Jeffery, John B. Horrigan, Barry Wellman, and Lee Rainie. 2006. The Strength of Internet Ties.
Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved January 5, 2010
(http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2006/PIP_Internet_ties.pdf.pdf).
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loc J.D. Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.

Lynn and Witte 28

boyd, danah. 2008. Taken Out of Context: American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Retrieved January 22, 2009
(http://www.danah.org/papers/TakenOutOfContext.pdf).
boyd, danah m. and Nicole B. Ellison. 2007. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and
Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1): 210-230.
Coget, Jean-Francois, Yutaka Yamauchi, and Michael Suman. 2002. The Internet, Social Networks and
Loneliness. IT & Society 1(1): 180-201.
Coleman, James S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of
Sociology 94: S95-S120.
Coradini, Odaci Luiz. 2010. The Divergences between Bourdieus and Colemans Notions of Social
Capital and their Epistemological Limits. Social Science Information 49(4):563-583.
Donath, Judith and danah boyd. 2004. Public Displays of Connection. BT Technology Journal 22(4):
71-82.
Economist.com. 2009. Primates on Facebook. The Economist. February 26. Retrieved December 13,
2010 (http://www.economist.com/node/13176775?story_id=13176775).
Ellison, Nicole B., Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe. 2007. The Benefits of Facebook Friends:
Social Capital and College Students Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication 12: 1143-1168.
Facebook. 2011a. Facebook: Info. Retrieved January 18, 2011
(http://www.facebook.com/#!/facebook?v=info).
------. 2011b. Press Room: Statistics. Retrieved January 18, 2011
(http://www.facebook.com/#!/press/info.php?statistics).
Goodsell, Todd L. and Owen Williamson. 2008. The Case of the Brick Huggers: The Practice of an
Online Community. City & Community 7(3): 251-271.
Granovetter, Mark. 1973. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 13601380.

Lynn and Witte 29

------. 1983. The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. Sociological Theory 1: 201-233.
Hampton, Keith N., Lauren F. Sessions, and Eun Ja Her. 2011. Core Networks, Social Isolation, and
New Media. Information, Communication & Society 14(1): 130-155.
Hampton, Keith and Barry Wellman. 2003. Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet Supports
Community and Social Capital in a Wired Suburb. City & Community 2(3): 277-311.
Hargittai, Eszter. 2007. Whose Space? Differences Among Users and Non-Users of Social Network
Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1).
------. 2009. An Update on Survey Measures of Web-Oriented Digital Literacy. Social Science
Computer Review 27(1): 130-137.
Hogeboom, David L., Robert J. McDermott, Karen M. Perrin, and Hana Osman. 2010. Internet Use and
Social Networking Among Middle Aged and Older Adults. Educational Gerontology 36(2): 93111.
Ipeirotis, Panos. 2009. Turker Demographics vs Internet Demographics. A Computer Scientist in a
Business School, March 16. Retrieved January 19, 2011 (http://behind-the-enemylines.blogspot.com/2009/03/turker-demographics-vs-internet.html).
Ji, Yong Gu, Hwan Hwangbo, Ji Soo Yi, P.L. Patrick Rau, Xiaowen Fang, and Chen Ling. 2010. The
Influence of Cultural Differences on the Use of Social Network Services and the Formation of
Social Capital. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 26(11-12): 1100-1121.
Joinson, Adam N. 2008. 'Looking at', 'Looking up' or 'Keeping up with' People? Motives and Uses of
Facebook. SIGCHI 2008: 1027-1036. Retrieved March 27, 2010
(http://people.bath.ac.uk/aj266/pubs_pdf/1149-joinson.pdf).
Kavanaugh, Andrea, John M. Carroll, Mary Beth Rosson, Than Than Zin, and Debbie Denise Reese.
2005. Community Networks: Where Offline Communities Meet Online. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication 10(4): 442-464. Retrieved January 5, 2010
(http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/kavanaugh.html).

Lynn and Witte 30

Kobayashi, Tetsuro, Kenichi Ikeda, and Kakuko Miyata. 2006. Social Capital Online: Collective Use of
the Internet and Reciprocity as Lubricants of Democracy. Information, Communication &
Society 9(5): 582-611.
Kraut, Robert, Michael Patterson, Vicki Lundmark, Sara Kiesler, Tridas Mukopadhyay, and William
Scherlis. 1998. Internet Paradox: A Social Technology That Reduces Social Involvement and
Psychological Well-Being? American Psychologist 53(9): 1017-1031.
Lampe, Cliff, Nicole Ellison, and Charles Steinfield. 2008. Changes in Use and Perception of Facebook.
Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Retrieved
January 26, 2009 (https://www.msu.edu/~nellison/LampeEllisonSteinfield2008.pdf).
Lee, Junghee and Hyunjoo Lee. 2010. The Computer-Mediated Communication Network: Exploring the
Linkage Between the Online Community and Social Capital. New Media & Society 12(5): 711727.
Leung, Louis and Paul S.N. Lee. 2005. Multiple Determinants of Life Quality: The Roles of Internet
Activities, Use of New Media, Social Support and Leisure Activities. Telematics and
Informatics 22(3): 161-180.
Lewis, Jane and Anne West. 2009. Friending: London-Based Undergraduates Experience of
Facebook. New Media & Society 11(7): 1209-1229.
Lin, Nan. 1999. Building a Network Theory of Social Capital. Connections 22: 28-51.
------. 2001. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and Matthew E. Brashears. 2006. Social Isolation in America:
Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades. American Sociological Review 71(3):
353-375.
Morrow, Virginia. 1999. Conceptualizing Social Capital in Relation to the Well-Being of Children and
Young People: A Critical Review. Sociological Review 47(4): 744-765.

Lynn and Witte 31

Nie, Norman H. 2001. Sociability, Interpersonal Relations, and the Internet: Reconciling Conflicting
Findings. American Behavioral Scientist 45(3): 420-435.
Nie, Norman H. and D. Sunshine Hilygus. 2002. The Impact of Internet Use on Sociability: Time-Diary
Findings. IT & Society 1(1): 1-20.
Norris, Pippa. 2003. Social Capital and ICTs: Widening or Reinforcing Social Networks? International
Forum on Social Capital for Economic Revival, March 24-25, Economic and Social Research
Institute, Cabinet Office, Tokyo, Japan.
Office of Communications. 2008. Social Networking: A Quantitative and Qualitative Research Report
into Attitudes, Behaviours and Use. Retrieved January 26, 2009
(http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/socialnetworking/report
.pdf).
Papacharissi, Zizi. 2009. The Virtual Geographies of Social Networks: A Comparative Analysis of
Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society 11(1&2): 199-220.
Paxton, Pamela. 1999. Is Social Capital Declining in the United States? A Multiple Indicator
Assessment. American Journal of Sociology 105: 88-127.
Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2010. Usage over Time. Retrieved January 18, 2011
(http://pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/Trend-Data/Usage-Over-Time.aspx).
Portes, Alejandro. 1998. Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology. Annual
Review of Sociology 24: 1-24.
Prescott, LeeAnn. 2010. 54% of US Internet users on Facebook, 27% on MySpace. VentureBeat,
February 10. Retrieved March 27, 2010 (http://digital.venturebeat.com/2010/02/10/54-of-usinternet-users-on-facebook-27-on-myspace).
Putnam, Robert D. 1993. The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life. American
Prospect 13: 35-42.
------. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon &
Schuster.

Lynn and Witte 32

Quan-Haase, Anabel, Barry Wellman, James C. Witte, and Keith N. Hampton. 2002 Capitalizing on the
Net: Social Contact, Civic Engagement, and Sense of Community. Pp. 291-324 in The Internet
in Everyday Life, edited by B. Wellman and C. Haythornthwaite. London, UK: Blackwell.
Quan-Haase, Anabel and Barry Wellman. 2004. How Does the Internet Affect Social Capital? Pp. 113132 in Social Capital and Information Technology, edited by M. Huysman and V. Wulf.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rainie, Lee, Kristen Purcell, and Aaron Smith. 2011. The Social Side of the Internet. Pew Internet &
American Life Project. Retrieved January 18, 2011
(http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/TheSocialSideoftheInternet.aspx).
Resnick, Paul. 2002. Beyond Bowling Together: SocioTechnical Capital. Pp. 247-272 in HCI in the
New Millennium, edited by J. Carroll. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Russell, Cherry, Andrew Campbell, and Ian Hughes. 2008. Ageing, Social Capital and the Internet:
Findings from an Exploratory Study of Australian Silver Surfers. Australasian Journal on
Ageing 27(2): 78-82.
Schonfeld, Erick. 2009. Facebook Finally Catches up to MySpace in the U.S. TechCrunch, June 15.
Retrieved March 27, 2010 (http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/15/facebook-finally-catches-up-tomyspace-in-the-us).
Shah, Dhavan V., Nojin Kwak, and R. Lance Holbert. 2001. Connecting and Disconnecting with
Civic Life: Patterns of Internet Use and the Production of Social Capital. Political
Communication 18(2): 141-162.
Shklovski, Irina, Sara Kiesler, and Robert Kraut. 2006. The Internet and Social Interaction: A MetaAnalysis. Pp. 251-264 in Computers, Phones, and the Internet, edited by R. Kraut, M. Brynin,
and S. Kiesler. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Shannon D., Gail Salaway, and Judith Borreson Caruso. 2009. The ECAR Study of Undergraduate
Students and Information Technology, 2009. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied
Research. Retrieved March 27, 2010 (http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EKF/EKF0906.pdf).

Lynn and Witte 33

Steinfield, Charles, Nicole B. Ellison, and Cliff Lampe. 2008. Social Capital, Self-Esteem, and Use of
Online Social Network Sites: A Longitudinal Analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology 29(6): 434-445.
Stern, Michael J. 2006. How Core Social Ties Are Maintained in the Information Age. Section on
Communications and Information Technologies [CITASA] Mini-Conference 2.0, Annual
Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
------. 2008. How Locality, Frequency of Communication, and Internet Usage Affect Modes of
Communication within Core Social Networks. Information, Communication, and Society 11(5):
591-616.
Stern, Michael J. and Alison E. Adams. 2010. Do Rural Residents Really Use the Internet to Build
Social Capital? An Empirical Investigation. American Behavioral Scientist 53(9): 1389-1422.
Stern, Michael J. and Don A. Dillman. 2006. Community Participation, Social Ties, and Use of the
Internet. City & Community 5(4): 409-424.
Subrahmanyam, Kaveri, Stephanie M. Reich, Natalia Waechter, and Guadalupe Espinoza. 2008. Online
and Offline Social Networks: Use of Social Networking Sites by Emerging Adults. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology 29: 420-433.
Sum, Shima, Mark R. Mathews, Mohsen Pourghasem, and Ian Hughes. 2008. Internet Technology and
Social Capital: How the Internet Affects Seniors Social Capital and Wellbeing. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 14: 202-220.
Thomson, Irene Taviss. 2005. The Theory That Wont Die: From Mass Society to the Decline of Social
Capital. Sociological Forum 20(3): 421-448.
Tufekci, Zeynep. 2008a. Gender, Social Capital And Social Network(ing) Sites: Women Bonding, Men
Searching. Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, July 31, Boston, MA.
------. 2008b. Grooming, Gossip, Facebook and Myspace: What Can We Learn About These Sites From
Those Who Wont Assimilate? Information, Communication, and Society 11(4): 544-564.

Lynn and Witte 34

Valenzuela, Sebastin, Namsu Park, and Kerk F. Kee. 2009. Is There Social Capital in a Social Network
Site?: Facebook Use and College Students Life Satisfaction, Trust, and Participation. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 14: 875-901.
Valkenberg, Patti M., Jochen Peter, and Alexander P. Schouten. 2006. Friend Networking Sites and
Their Relationship to Adolescents Well-Being and Social Self-Esteem. CyberPsychology and
Behavior 9(5): 584-590.
Vergeer, Maurice and Ben Pelzer. 2009. Consequences of Media and Internet Use for Offline and Online
Network Capital and Well-Being. A Causal Model Approach. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 15: 189-210.
Wang, Hua and Barry Wellman. 2010. Social Connectivity in America: Changes in Adult Friendship
Network Size from 2002 to 2007. American Behavioral Scientist 53(8): 1148-1169.
Wellman, Barry, Anabel Quan-Haase, James Witte, and Keith Hampton. 2001. Does the Internet
Increase, Decrease, or Supplement Social Capital?: Social Networks, Participation, and
Community Commitment. American Behavioral Scientist 45(3): 436-455.
Williams, Dmitri. 2006. On and Off the Net: Scales for Social Capital in an Online Era. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 11: 593-628.
Zhao, Shanyang. 2006. Do Internet Users Have More Social Ties? A Call for Differentiated Analyses of
Internet Use. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11: 844-862.