In the last decade, research has provided a series of insights into how and why the use of social networking sites (SNSs) can be socially and psychologically beneficial for individuals. The present research extends this evidence by focusing on the concept of social closeness as a feeling experienced when using SNSs. In a laboratory setting, participants (N=60) spent 10 minutes on Facebook, and then reported their experiences during this session. Analyses of participants' usage behavior and their experiences revealed that the more time users spent interacting with other users (e.g., commenting on updates), the closer they felt to other people. Interacting with others also predicted users' positive emotional states after Facebook use; this effect may be explained by the perception of social closeness. This study is one of the first to employ momentary measures, offering a further theoretical link between active SNS use and well-being.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EllisonN, VitakJ, GrayR, et al.Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2014; 19:855–870.
2.
TrepteS, DienlinT, ReineckeL. Influence of social support received in online and offline contexts on satisfaction with social support and satisfaction with life: a longitudinal study. Media Psychology, 2015; 18:74–105.
3.
GrieveR, IndianM, WitteveenK, et al.Face-to-face or Facebook: can social connectedness be derived online?. Computers in Human Behavior, 2013; 29:604–609.
4.
LeeK-T, NohM-J, KooD-M. Lonely people are no longer lonely on social networking sites: the mediating role of self-disclosure and social support. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2013; 16:413–418.
5.
MauriM, CipressoP, BalgeraA, et al.Why is Facebook so successful? Psychophysiological measures describe a core flow state while using Facebook. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2011; 14:723–731.
6.
WiseK, AlhabashS, ParkH. Emotional responses during social information seeking on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2010; 13:555–562.
7.
SagioglouC, GreitemeyerT. Facebook's emotional consequences: why Facebook causes a decrease in mood and why people still use it. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014; 35:359–363.
8.
SheldonKM, AbadN, HinschC. A two-process view of Facebook use and relatedness need-satisfaction: disconnection drives use, and connection rewards it. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 2011; 100:766–775.
9.
RainieL, LenhartA, SmithA. (2012) The tone of life on social networking sites. Pew Internet & American Life Project. www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2012/Pew_Social%20networking%20climate%202.9.12.pdf (accessed July09, 2015).
10.
ShortJ, WilliamsE, ChristieB. (1976) The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley.
11.
BioccaF, HarmsC, BurgoonJK. Toward a more robust theory and social presence: review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 2003; 12:456–480.
12.
ShenKN, KhalifaK. Exploring multidimensional conceptualization of social presence in the context of online communities. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2008; 24:722–748.
13.
KorzennyF. A theory of electronic propinquity: mediated communication in organizations. Communication Research, 1978; 5:3–24.
14.
KorzennyF, BauerC. Testing the theory of electronic propinquity. Communication Research, 1981; 8:479–498.
15.
BaumeisterRF, LearyMR. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 1995; 117:497–529.
16.
DeciEL, RyanRM. (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
17.
CacioppoJT, PatrickB. (2008) Loneliness: human nature and the need for social connection. New York: W.W. Norton.
18.
FiskeST. (2009) Social beings: core motives in social psychology. New York: John Wiley.
19.
GangadharbatlaH. Facebook me: collective self-esteem, need to belong, and Internet self-efficacy as predictors of the iGeneration's attitudes toward social networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 2008; 8:5–15.
20.
KrämerNC, HoffmannL, FuchslocherA, et al. (2013) Do I need to belong? Development of a scale for measuring the need to belong and its predictive value for media usage. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, London.
21.
NadkarniA, HofmannSG. Why do people use Facebook?. Personality & Individual Differences, 2012: 52:243–249.
22.
ReichS, VordererP. (2013) Individual differences in need to belong in users of social networking sites. In MoyP, ed. Communication and community. New York: Hampton Press, pp. 129–148.
23.
UtzS, TanisM, VermeulenI. It is all about being popular: the effects of need for popularity on social network site use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2012; 15:37–42.
24.
BurkeM, KrautR, MarlowC. (2011) Social capital on Facebook: differentiating uses and users. In Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, pp. 571–580.
25.
BurkeM, MarlowC, LentoT. (2010) Social network activity and social well-being. In Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, pp. 1909–1912.
26.
EllisonNB, SteinfieldC, LampeC. Connection strategies: social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 2011; 13:873–892.
27.
HamptonKN, GouletLS, MarlowC, et al. (2012) Why most Facebook users get more than they give. Pew Internet & American Life Project. www.pewinternet.org/2012/02/03/why-most-facebook-users-get-more-than-they-give/ (accessed July09, 2015).
28.
TaddickenM, JersC. (2011) The uses of privacy online: trading a loss of privacy for social web gratifications? In TrepteS, ReineckeL, eds. Privacy online: perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the social web. Berlin: Springer, pp. 143–156.
29.
DetersF, MehlMR. Does posting Facebook status updates increase or decrease loneliness? An online social networking experiment. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 2013; 4:579–586.
30.
BazarovaNN, ChoiYH. Self-disclosure in social media: extending the functional approach to disclosure motivations and characteristics on social network sites. Journal of Communication, 2014; 64:635–657.
31.
DienerE, SuhEM, LucasRE, et al.Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 1999; 125:276–302.
32.
LeeG, LeeJ, KwonS. Use of social-networking sites and subjective well-being: a study in South Korea. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2011; 14:151–155.
33.
ValenzuelaS, ParkN, KeeKF. Is there social capital in a social network site? Facebook use and college students' life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2009; 14:875–901.
34.
ChouHT, EdgeN. “They are happier and having better lives than I am”: the impact of using Facebook on perceptions of others' lives. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2012; 15:117–121.
35.
KrossE, VerduynP, DemiralpE, et al.Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PLoS One, 2013; 8:e69841.
36.
ChenW, LeeK-H. Sharing, liking, commenting, and distressed? The pathway between Facebook interaction and psychological distress. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2013; 16:728–734.
37.
KimJ, LeeJE. The Facebook paths to happiness: effects of the number of Facebook friends and self-presentation on subjective well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2011; 14:359–364.
38.
ValkenburgPM, PeterJ, SchoutenAP. Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents' well-being and social self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2006; 9:584–590.
39.
ValkenburgPM, PeterJ. Social consequences of the Internet for adolescents: a decade of research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2009; 18:1–5.
40.
ErdfelderE, FaulF, BuchnerA. GPOWER: a general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 1996; 28:1–11.
41.
LearyMR, KellyKM, CottrellCA, et al. (2007) Individual differences in the need to belong: Mapping the nomological network. http://people.duke.edu/∼leary/scales.html (accessed July09, 2015).
42.
StumpfH, AngleitnerA, WieckT, et al. (1985) Deutsche Personality Research Form (PRF): Handanweisung. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
43.
WatsonD, ClarkLA, TellegenA. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1988; 54:1063–1070.
44.
PreacherKJ, HayesAF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 2008; 40:879–891.
