Study: The Benefits of Facebook ‘‘Friends:’’ Social
Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites
By: Nicole B. Ellison Charles Steinfield &
Cliff Lampe.
Published in: Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, Volume 12, Issue 4, pages 1143–1168, July 2007.
Journals Impact factor: 1.778
JCMC 5 year impact factor: 4.748.
According to Google Scholar, it has been cited
3030 times.
The study examines the relationship between
Facebook and the formation (bridging and bonding) and maintenance of social
capital. Social capital is an elastic term with a variety of definitions but
one of them is being defined as the resources accumulated through the
relationships among people (Coleman, 1988)
286
undergraduate students at Michigan State University (MSU) completed a survey
where 268 (94%) where Facebook members. They where asked about their Facebook
intensity, usage, use of Facebook to meet new people, self-esteem, and
satisfaction with their life at MSU. Factors like bridging-, bonding-, and maintained
social capital were also measured from questions they answered. The results
from the survey were analyzed using regression analysis, and suggested a strong
association between Facebook and bridging-, bonding-, and maintained social
capital. Another finding was Facebook ability to influence psychological
well-being and it was suggested that users with low life satisfaction and low
self-esteem could benefit using Facebook to gain and maintain social capital.
The study is based on a single survey done on
mostly white college students. College is a time when you meet a lot of new
people and therefore the surveyees’ might be more prone to add new friends to
Facebook. A longitudinal study would be preferable to see if the results vary
after college. Maybe more surveys should be completed in different contexts.
It’s also not unthinkable that the surveyees’ misjudged how much they use
Facebook.
1. The meaning of theory differs in different
disciplinary areas but it strives to logically explain why and how something
occur. It also can in some cases give predictions about what the future holds.According to Sutton, data, lists of variables
and constructs, diagrams and hypotheses can be part of a theory but used
separately, they usually can’t support a theory by themselves.
2,3 The theory presented by N.B Ellison, C. Steinfield
& C. Lampe is that the use of social network sites can benefit individuals’
social capital. I would consider the theory to be of type 1 – Analysis. The
authors conclude their findings demonstrate a connection between the use of
Facebook and social capital. The study is conducted followed by an analysis of
the result, which makes it fit the template for type 1. Since the study is
based on one single survey it’s hard for the researcher to draw general conclusions
that could work universally, but they give advice to future research to use
multiple methodologies to overcome this studies limitations.
Hej Martin!
SvaraRaderaInteresting article you found. Facebook can be a great tool to maintain and keep up with friendships, but I am not so sure that I agree with recommendations of the authors to the students with low life-satisfaction and low self-esteem.
I have read articles in the newspaper about studies showing that Facebook can quite contrary make users feel even more isolated, and add social stress, as they read about all the cool and fun things their FB-friends do with other people.
Did they have any findings stating that these low-self esteem people did in fact gain friendships, connections and self-esteem using Facebook?
As you say yourself; college/university is a great place to meet new people, we just all need to try to push our confidence to reach out to some new people "In Real Life".
Hi Martin!
SvaraRaderaSince I chose the same paper, I was really interested in reading your blog post. I also argued that the theory type used in this paper is the analysis. But during the seminars we discussed that it is mainly analysis, and that it could also be explaining or prediction. Do you agree with that? Was it difficult for you to define what kind of theory type it was?