Jessica Vitak College of Information Studies University of Maryland jvitak@umd | @ jvitak

1. Facebook Makes the Heart Grow Fonder: Relationship Maintenance Strategies Among Geographically Dispersed and Communication-Restricted Connections Jessica Vitak College of Information Studies University of Maryland jvitak@umd.edu | @jvitak jessicavitak.com/cv Credit: Norebbo

2. Why relationship maintenance matters Credit: Photos_by_Lis #cscw2014 | @jvitak

3. But being near friends isn’t always easy…

5. Ways to connect distant ties What do we mean by “distant,” anyway? • Letters (pen pals!) • Phone (landline, mobile, texts) • Text-based CMC (email, IM) • Video-based CMC (Skype, Google Hangouts) • Social network sites

6. “ ” #cscw2014 | @jvitak I suspect that Facebook’s one great contribution has been to slow down that rate of relationship decay by allowing us to keep in touch with friends over long distances. --Robin Dunbar (2011, p. 83)

7. #cscw2014 | @jvitak How are people using Facebook to maintain relationships with different types of social ties? Is Facebook merely a supplementto to other forms of communication, or does it enhance relational quality for certain types of relationship?

8. Facebook Profile Layout October 2012 Participants were asked to log into site, go to their profile and select Friend in top left position. They entered name of person into a survey field. Questions were then tailored to the selected Friend (e.g., Closeness item: “John and I have a strong connection”). #cscw2014 | @jvitak

9. Why use this method? • Major weakness of relationship maintenance research is limited focus on strong tie relationships. • Many Facebook relationships are weak ties. • Furthermore, many Facebook relationships span significant geographic distance. Dibble et al. (2012)Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale #cscw2014 | @jvitak

10. # of respondents Reported Geographic Distance Between Friends (estimated driving distance) M=3.13 (2+ hour drive) SD=2.05 34% of sample 28% of sample #cscw2014 | @jvitak

11. Weak ties who live very far apart Strong ties who live near each other #cscw2014 | @jvitak

12. Facebook Relationship Maintenance • Supportive Communication (7 items): behaviors signaling social & emotional support; social grooming behaviors • Shared Interests (7 items): interactions on site surrounding shared likes, activities, etc. (e.g., TV show,sports team) • Passive Consumption (4 items): browsing Friend’s content without direct interaction • Social Information Seeking (5 items):mundane communication + discovering new things about Friend #cscw2014 | @jvitak

13. Facebook’s Impact on Relational Quality Two new measures assessed the extent to which Facebook users felt their use of Facebook impacted their relationship with a specific Friend: • Facebook’s Impact on Relational Closeness(5 items):Facebook helps me understand (person’s name) better. Facebook has positively impacted my relationship with (person’s name). • Facebook’s Impact on Relational Stability(4 items):Without Facebook, (person’s name) and I would fall out of touch. Facebook plays an important role in maintaining my relationship with (person’s name). #cscw2014 | @jvitak

14. RQ1: Examining variance in communication frequency based on geographic proximity #cscw2014 | @jvitak

15. T-tests with ANCOVAs controlling for relational closeness Non-Facebook Communication Frequency * * * * * * Facebook-Specific Communication Frequency * Statistically Significant Difference (t-test) Nearby Friends Far Away Friends

16. H1 & H2: Geographic proximity, relationship maintenance, & Facebook’s impact on relational quality #cscw2014 | @jvitak

17. Extent to which they agreed with statements about behaviors/outcomes (1-5 Likert type scale) #cscw2014 | @jvitak Nearby Friends Far Away Friends

18. H3 & H4: Facebook as primary form of communication, relationship maintenance, & Facebook’s impact on relational quality #cscw2014 | @jvitak

19. How do you operationalize Facebook as the primary form of communication between a dyad? • Want high engagement in Facebook communication (e.g., posting on wall, commenting on updates) and low engagement in all other forms of communication (e.g., face-to-face, phone, email) • Final variable included 12.8% of participants with TradComm scores below 2.25 & FBComm scores above 3. 21.8% of responses #cscw2014 | @jvitak

20. Extent to which they agreed with statements about behaviors/outcomes (1-5 Likert type scale) Facebook is Not Primary Form of Communication #cscw2014 | @jvitak Facebook is Primary Form of Communication

21. But what’s it all mean? Use of Facebook for relationship maintenance—and perceived relational benefits—vary by context • Suggested supplemental role of Facebook for closer (geographically & emotionally speaking) ties • Potential for enhancing role for weaker connections & keeping relationships from fading away See Vitak (2012): Keeping Connected in the Facebook Age #cscw2014 | @jvitak

22. But what’s it all mean? Facebook as a “virtual rolodex” • Role of affordances • Reduced transaction costs • Benefits of masspersonal communication Media multiplexity considerations • Is Facebook one or multiple communication channels? • How do newer communication technologies reshape our understanding of media multiplexity? Credit: arahinvegas #cscw2014 | @jvitak

23. Design Implications Encourage interactions between users after a profile visit Predicting Friends a user will want to interact with in the future • Look at interaction patterns with mutual friends • Customize News Feed content Focus on ways to notbe creepy when encouraging interaction

24. #cscw2014 | @jvitak Thanks! Jessica Vitak University of Maryland’s iSchool Email: jvitak@umd.edu | Twitter: @jvitak Find this paper at jessicavitak.com/cv This project was part of my dissertation research, so a big shout-out to my graduate advisor, Nicole Ellison, for her Yoda-like wisdom on the project.