When interacting with different relationship types on Facebook, the users might not only adopt different
tools but also act differently. Disclosing more secrets and providing supports to friends seem treating friends
more seriously than just sending feedback. It is necessary to categorize users’ activities in terms of closeness
and intimacy. Little SNSs research is aware of it. However, in the users’ cross-media behaviors research, some
research has been investigating the relationship between relational quality and media use in relationships.
10
Cummings et al.14 and Baym et al.15 argue that online relationships are of a lower quality than offline
relationships. The researchers find that face-to-face and telephone communication predicts strong
relationships better than email. Although the activities on the Internet are taken as less relational strength, this
gives a hint that there should be some divergence in activities on the Internet per se. Some activities on the
Internet such as MSN are of higher relational strength than others, such as emailing.
Thus, this study would like to categorize users’ behavior by the degree of intimacy and closeness first
and then to examine their effects on perceived acquaintances of four different friends. In order to get more
acquaintanceships from new friends, users might act differently compared to getting acquaintanceships from
close friends.
In interpersonal communication research, closeness and intimacy are critical to have strong relationship.
Kelly et al. 16 refer that closeness is comprised of strong, frequent, varied and enduring relationships which
have be revised and used in the Internet settings17, 18. This study chooses frequency as measurement of
closeness which is proved as effective predictor of Internet users’ social relationships19. As for intimacy,
several researches have found that strong ties exist in high level of intimacy relationships connecting more
self-disclosure, shared activities, emotional as well as instrumental exchanges and long term internation17, 20.
This study adopts Monsour’s21 four dimensions of intimacy: self-disclosure, emotional expression, support,
and body touch. To fit the Facebook setting, body touch is altered by feedback quality. The respondents are
asked about their interaction frequency and if they have the following activities (personal information, sharing
secrets, confession, support, and feedback quality) with four different types of friends.
Based upon the above discussion, those who have more intimacy activities with their friends would
have more quality relationship. Therefore, research question and hypothesis is developed as followed:
11
Research Question 3: What are the relationship between users’ perceived acquaintanceships of four
different types of friends and different degree of intimacy and closeness activities on Facebook?
Research Hypothesis 2: Facebook users might have more intimacy activities with closer friends.
Methodology
The questionnaire was developed from in-depth interview with two heavy Facebook users and two
common users. Based upon their suggestions and the measurement of closeness and intimacy, the
questionnaire was pretested and revised. The Cronbach’s α is 0.931. One hundred sixty one users were
recruited from the biggest bulletin board system in Taiwan, named PTT. Of the participants, 73 (45.3%) were
men and 88 (54.7%) were women, with a mean age of 23.72 years (SD=3.208). In addition, the mean time of
using Facebook is 3.02 hours per day (SD=.2.826) and 6.58 days per week (SD=.991).
Result
By simply asking users perceived acquaintanceship towards 4 different friend categories before and after
using Facebook, this study finds that users interact more with their average friends (n=161) and close friends
(n=161), less with new friends (n=76) and acquaintance (n=84). Before using Facebook, the respondents’
perceive acquaintanceships in a descending order are close friends, average friends, acquaintances, and new
friends with significant differences tested by pair t-test. After using Facebook, their perceived
acquaintanceships all increase. Judging from the mean differences, this study finds out users gain more
familiarity with new friends and acquaintances, less with average friends, and least with close friends (see
table 1). It seems that Facebook is a mechanism for new friends to get more acquaintanceships but not as
much as for close friends. It is necessary to examine what kinds of activities users do toward different types of
friends and what the quality of interactions to each type.
12
Baym, Zhang and Lin10 find that young students choose different media to interact with local and distant
social circles. This study finds similar context that Facebook seems to be a media good for starting new
friendship but might not be as good as for closer friendship. Users might choose other media to interact with
closer friendship, such as face-to-face, MSN or telephone calls. The RQ1 is answered by that users gain
different acquaintanceships from interacting with different types of friends over Facebook. The closer the
relationship is, the less the perceived acquaintanceships are after using Facebook.
Table 1: The variances of perceived acquaintanceships towards 4 different friend categories before
and after using Facebook and the paired t-test
n. Before mean After mean Mean
differences
New friends
(nf)
76 1.67 2.96 1.28
Acquaintances
(ff)
84 2.73 3.88 1.14
Average friends
(af)
161 5.36 6.34 0.98
Close friends
(cf)
161 8.17 8.6 0.43
Pair t-test nf-ff** nf-af***,
nf-cf***,
nf-ff* nf-af***,
nf-cf***,
nf-cf*
ff-cf*
13
ff-af***, ff-cf***,
af-cf***
ff-af***,
ff-cf***,
af-cf***
af-cf*
***≦.000, **≦.01, *≦.05
The respondents are asked about frequencies of using Facebook tools to interact with the four
different friend categories (see table 2). The question is multiple-choice. Users who tend to interact with the
least degree of acquaintanceship friends (new friends) by means of games mostly, and then gifts, wall,
application and photos in a descending order. Users also interact with acquaintances, the second less degree of
acquaintanceship by means of games, wall, gifts, applications, and photos in a descending order. The last tool
to interact with new friends and acquaintances is photos. The most frequently used tool is games. It shows that
users do not use effort-consuming or privacy-concerned tools such as applications and photos to interact with
new friends and acquaintances but simply play games.
Unlike sending gifts or playing games, respondents need to pay more attention and time on writing
things down. This study finds that the respondents write more on their average and close friends’ walls. In
addition, the percentage of five activities towards average friends and close friends is distributed almost
evenly. As for new friends and acquaintances, respondents use more games, gifts, wall and less applications
and photos to interact with. The respondents share photos with close friends up to 20%, average friends up to
17%, and new friends and acquaintances nearly 10% separately. The study answers RQ2 that users do adopt
different tools to interact with different types of friends. And they tend to use more effort-consuming and
privacy-concerned tools with closer friends. Therefore, RH1 sustains. Users tend to share photos with closer
friends.
14
Table 2: Users’ main tools on Facebook according to 4 different friend categories
activities nf
% ff
% af
% cf
%
wall (w) 32 19 48 23 130 24 142 23
gifts (f) 42 25 42 20 99 18 116 19
games (m) 58 35 61 29 127 23 132 21
applications (a) 20 12 32 15 92 17 105 17
photos (p) 15 9 24 11 90 17 123 20
others 0 0 2 1 3 1 8 1
total 167 209 541 626
Descending
order
m-f-w-a-p m-w-f-a-p w-m-f-a,p w-m-p-f-a
This study proposes that when studying users’ social networking behaviors, researchers need to find
out what kinds of activities towards different types of friends make users have diverse perceive
acquaintanceship after using Facebook.
In order to know if users gain acquaintanceships when interact with closer friends by means of higher
relational quality, closeness and intimacy in this study, this study adopts stepwise regression analysis to see
the most powerful predictors of the perceived acquaintanceships towards four types of friends. The significant
predictors of new friends’ acquaintanceships are frequency, feedback quality, and personal information. Three
of six factors account for 51.8% variance (adjusted R2=.518, see table 3). It makes sense that spending time
interacting with new friends is a must. Giving away personal information is taken as a great step of mutual
15
trust. As for other types of friends, personal information is not a significant predictor at all as users already
know something about their friends. Feedback quality is important for newly –built friendship (new friends
and acquaintances).
In order to gain more acquaintanceships from acquaintances, users need to have quality feedback and
confession. The factors are account for 34.6% variance (adjusted R2=.346, see table 3). At this stage, the more
self-disclosure, the closer friendship. They are totally different cases for average friends and close friends. The
most significant predictor is support for average friends’ acquaintanceships. Frequency and confession are not
as powerful as support. Three are account for 21.2% variance (adjusted R2=.212, see table 3). But for close
friends, frequency, confession, and support are fair predictors account for only 14.5% variance (adjusted
R2=.145 see table 3). If shows that it is easier to get new friends’ acquaintanceships by closeness and
relatively lower intimacy behaviors on Facebook compared to other three counterparts. It also implies that for
gaining friendships from closer friends, interaction on Facebook is not enough. There should be more
interactions on other media or there should be other activities on Facebook to maintain closer friends’
networks. Therefore, RQ3 is answered. Users’ perceived acquaintanceships of four different types of friends
increase separately with closeness and different degree of intimacy activities. RH2 sustains. Facebook users
do not have more interaction with closer friends. They do have more intimacy activities with closer friends.
Table 3: The regression analyses of the perception of degree of acquaintanceships after using
Facebook with 4 different friend categories in terms of closeness and intimacy activities
nf (β) ff (β) af (β) cf (β)
Frequency .540*** - .206** .171*
16
Feedback
quality
.315*** .421*** - -
Personal
information
.271** - - -
Sharing secrets - - - -
Confession - .362*** .215** .174*
Support - - .290*** .261**
Adjusted R2 .518 .346 .212 .145
Discussion
This study proves that Facebook users do not interact more frequently with their closer friends, but
choose to use more relationship quality activities and tools. Users do not take tools provided by Facebook as a
whole as most research claims. They choose proper tools to interact with different types of friends. They tend
to choose less time and effort consuming tools to interact with newly met friends and more privacy-concerned
tools to closer friends. As Hsu suggests12, 13, users’ online behaviors differ according to the scenarios they
encounter.
In addition, users might answer that the perceived acquaintanceships toward four different types of
friends all increase, they increase in a different way and through different activities and tools though.
Facebook seems to be a good mechanism to get to know newly met friends. Frequency, feedback quality and
personal information disclosing will increase perceived acquaintanceships of new friends up to 51.8%
variance. Feedback quality and confession will increase perceived acquaintanceships of acquaintances almost
35% variance. However, it seems that those closeness and intimacy activities are not enough to increase
17
perceived acquaintanceships of closer friends. This is similar with previous research findings that face-to-face
or other media usage is also important for relational quality in interpersonal relationships10, 14, 15.
This study argues that when studying SNSs, researchers need to take context into consideration. The
later research should come up with more context to examine interactions on SNSs. Due to resources limitation,
this study only develop frequency measurement from closeness concept and five questions from intimacy
concept. The more profound measurement tools need to be built up. The sample of this survey is only 161 and
most of them are skilled Facebook users. The larger and random-sample studies are encouraged.
Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
Reference:
1 Joinson, A. N. (2008). ‘Looking at’, ‘Looking up’ or ‘Keeping up with’ People? Motives and Uses of Facebook. Online Social Networks, April 5-10. Florence, Italy.
2 Young S., Dutta D. Dommety G. Extropolating Psychological Insights from Facebook Profiles: A Study of Religion and Relationship Status. Cyber Psychology & Behavior. 2009; 12 (3):347-350.
3 Lenhart, A. (2009). Adults and Social Networking Websites. Pew Internet Project Data Memo. Accessed 24 November 2009, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Adult_social_networking_data_memo_FINAL.pdf.
4 Tufekci Z. Grooming, Gossip, Facebook and MySpace: What can we learn about these sites from those who won’t assimilate? Information, Communication & Society 2008; 11(4):544-564.
5 boyd DM, Ellison NB. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2007; 13(1):210-230.
6 Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Social Networking Websites and Teens. Pew Internet and American life project.
Accessed 27 November 2009, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Social-Networking-Websites-and-Teens.aspx.
7 Raacke J, Bonds-Raacke J. MySpace and Facebook: Applying the Use and Gratification Theory to Exploring Friend-Networking Sites. Cyber Psychology & Behavior 2008; 11(2):169-174.
8 Papacharissi Z. The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and A Small World. New Media & Society 2009; 11(1&2):199-220.
9 Buffardi LE, Campbell WK. Narcissism and social networking web sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2008; 34(10):1303-1314.
10 Baym NK, Zhang YB, Lin MC. Social interactions across media: Interpersonal communication on the Internet, telephone and face-to-face. New Media & Society 2004; 6:299 - 318.
18
11 boyd, D. (2006) ‘Friends, Friendsters and MySpace Top 8: Writing Community into Being on Social Network Sites’, First Monday 11(12), URL (consulted 25 March 2010): http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/boyd/
12 Hsu CW. Privacy concerns/ privacy practices: toward a situational paradigm. Online Information Review 2006; 30(5):569-586.
13 Hsu CW. Staging on the Internet: Research on online photo album users in Taiwan with the Spectacle/Performance Paradigm (SPP). CyberPsychology and Behavior 2007; 10(4):596-600.
14 Cummings J, Butler B, Kraut. R. The Quality of Online Social Relationships. Communications of the ACM 2000;
45(7):103–8.
15 Baym NK, Zhang YB, Kunke A, Ledbetter A, Lin MC. Relational quality and media use in interpersonal relationships.
New Media & Society 2007; 9(5):735-752.
16 Kelley HH, Berscheid E, Christensen A, Harvey JH, Huston TL, Levinger G, McClintock E, Peplau LA, Peterson DR.
(1983) Analyzing close relationships In Kelley HH, Berscheid E, Christensen A, Harvey JH, Huston TL, Levinger G, McClintock E, Peplan LA, Peterson RD, eds. Close Relationships. New York, N.Y.: Freeman, pp.20-44.
17 Mesch G, Talmud I.. The quality of online and offline relationships: the role of multiplexity and duration of social relationships. The Information Society 2006; 22:137-148.
18Parks MR, Floyd K. Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication 1996; 46:80–97.
19 McKenna KYA, Green AS, Gleason MEJ. Relationship formation on the Internet: What's the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues 2002; 58(1):9-31.
20 Haythornthwaite C. Strong, Weak and Latent Ties and the Impact of New Media’, The Information Society 2002;
18(5):385–401.
21 Monsour M. Meanings of Intimacy in Cross- and Same-sex Friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationship1992; 9:277-95.
19
Table 1: The variances of perceived acquaintanceships towards 4 different friend categories before and after
using Facebook and the paired t-test
n. Before mean After mean Mean
differences
New friends
(nf)
76 1.67 2.96 1.28
Acquaintances
(ff)
84 2.73 3.88 1.14
Average friends
(af)
161 5.36 6.34 0.98
Close friends
(cf)
161 8.17 8.6 0.43
Pair t-test nf-ff** nf-af***,
nf-cf***,
ff-af***, ff-cf***,
af-cf***
nf-ff* nf-af***,
nf-cf***,
ff-af***,
ff-cf***,
af-cf***
nf-cf*
ff-cf*
af-cf*
***≦.000, **≦.01, *≦.05
20
Table 2: Users’ main tools on Facebook according to 4 different friend categories
activities nf
% ff
% af
% cf
%
wall (w) 32 19 48 23 130 24 142 23
gifts (f) 42 25 42 20 99 18 116 19
games (m) 58 35 61 29 127 23 132 21
applications (a) 20 12 32 15 92 17 105 17
photos (p) 15 9 24 11 90 17 123 20
others 0 0 2 1 3 1 8 1
total 167 209 541 626
Descending
order
m-f-w-a-p m-w-f-a-p w-m-f-a,p w-m-p-f-a
21
Table 3: The regression analyses of the perception of degree of acquaintanceships after using
Facebook with 4 different friend categories in terms of closeness and intimacy activities
nf (β) ff (β) af (β) cf (β)
Frequency .540*** - .206** .171*
Feedback
quality
.315*** .421*** - -
Personal
information
.271** - - -
Sharing secrets - - - -
Confession - .362*** .215** .174*
Support - - .290*** .261**
Adjusted R2 .518 .346 .212 .145