Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2014-8
Do online communication attitudes mitigate the association between Facebook use and relational interdependence? An extension of media multiplexity theory
Given Facebook’s popularity for the maintenance of interpersonal relationships, this investigation examined the extent to which frequency of Facebook communication with a specific friend predicts relational interdependence. The chief goal of the investigation was to extend media multiplexity theory by examining whether attitudes toward (a) online self-disclosure and (b) online social connection moderated this association. Results not only replicated previous findings that multiple media are associated with relational interdependence, but also supported the hypothesized moderation of online communication attitude. Based on these results, the manuscript explores how media multiplexity theory might be extended to account for communicator cognitions about communication media.
BanduraA (1977) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
BaymNKLedbetterAM (2009) Tunes that bind? Predicting friendship strength in a music-based social network. Information, Communication & Society12(3): 401–405.
3.
BerscheidESnyderMOmotoAM (1989) The Relationship Closeness Inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology57(5): 792–807.
4.
boyddmEllisonNB (2007) Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13(1): 210–230.
5.
ChanDK-SChengGH-L (2004) A comparison of offline and online friendship qualities at different stages of relationship development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships21(3): 305–320.
6.
CohenJCohenPWestSG. (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
DaftRLLengelRH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science32(5): 554–571.
8.
DaftRLLengelRHTrevinoLK (1987) Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly11(3): 355–366.
9.
EllisonNBSteinfieldCLampeC (2007) The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12(4): 1143–1168.
FarrowHYuanYC (2011) Building stronger ties with alumni through Facebook to increase volunteerism and charitable giving. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication16(3): 445–464.
12.
FletcherGJO (1993) Cognition in close relationships. New Zealand Journal of Psychology22(2): 69–81.
13.
FulkJ (1993) Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal36(5): 921–950.
14.
GranovetterMS (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology78(6): 1360–1380.
15.
HallJABaymNK (2012) Calling & texting (too much): Mobile maintenance expectations, (over)dependence, entrapment, and friendship satisfaction. New Media & Society14(2): 316–331.
HaythornthwaiteC (2000) Online personal networks: Size, composition and media use among distance learners. New Media & Society2(2): 195–226.
18.
HaythornthwaiteC (2005) Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information, Communication & Society8(2): 125–147.
19.
JohnsonAJWittenbergEVillagranMM. (2003) Relational progression as a dialectic: Examining turning points in communication among friends. Communication Monographs70(3): 230–249.
20.
KoernerAFFitzpatrickMA (2002) Toward a theory of family communication. Communication Theory12(1): 70–91.
21.
KrautRPattersonMLundmarkV. (1998) Internet paradox: a social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?American Psychologist53(9): 1017–1031.
22.
KrishnanA (2011) Individual differences in users of online networking sites: the interplay between personality traits, communication and social motives, attitudes, and level of activity. PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
23.
KunkelAHummertMLDennisMR (2006) Social learning theory: Modeling and communication in the family context. In: BraithwaiteDOBaxterLA (eds) Engaging Theories in Family Communication: Multiple Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 260–275.
24.
LedbetterAM (2008) Media use and relational closeness in long-term friendships: Interpreting patterns of multimodality. New Media & Society10(4): 547–564.
25.
LedbetterAM (2009) Measuring online communication attitude: Instrument development and validation. Communication Monographs76(4): 463–486.
26.
LedbetterAM (2010a) Content- and medium-specific decomposition of relational maintenance behaviors in friendships: Integrating equity and media multiplexity approaches. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships27(7): 938–955.
27.
LedbetterAM (2010b) Family communication patterns and communication competence as predictors of online communication attitude: Evaluating a dual pathway model. Journal of Family Communication10(2): 99–115.
28.
LedbetterAMKuznekoffJH (2012) More than a game: Friendship relational maintenance and attitudes toward Xbox LIVE communication. Communication Research39(2): 269–290.
29.
LedbetterAMBroeckelman-PostMAKrawsczynAM (2011) Modeling everyday talk: Differences across communication media and sex composition of friendship dyads. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships28(2): 223–241.
30.
LenhartAMaddenM (2007) Teens, privacy and online social networks: How teens manage their online identities and personal information in the age of MySpace. Report, Pew Internet & American Life Project, April. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/211/report_display.asp (accessed 22 June 2012).
31.
LeungLWeiR (2000) More than just talk on the move: Uses and gratifications of the cellular phone. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly77(2): 308–320.
32.
LittleTDCardNABovairdJA. (2007) Structural equation modeling of mediation and moderation with contextual factors. In: LittleTDBovairdJACardNA (eds) Modeling Contextual Effects in Longitudinal Studies. Mahwah, NJ: Hall House, pp. 207–230.
33.
LiuH (2007) Social network profiles as taste performances. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13(1): 252–275.
34.
MiczoNMarianiTDonahueC (2011) The strength of strong ties: Media multiplexity, communication motives, and the maintenance of geographically close friendships. Communication Reports24(1): 12–24.
35.
PapacharissiZ (2009) The virtual geographies of social networks: A comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society11(1–2): 199–220.
36.
PeñaJHancockJT (2006) An analysis of socioemotional and task-oriented communication in an online multiplayer video game. Communication Research33(1): 92–109.
37.
PostmesTSpearsRLeaM (1998) Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research25(6): 689–715.
38.
RawlinsWK (1992) Friendship Matters: Communication, Dialectics, and the Life Course. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
39.
RepinskiDJZookJM (2005) Three measures of closeness in adolescents’ relationships with parents and friends: Variations and developmental significance. Personal Relationships12(1): 79–102.
40.
ScottCRTimmermanCE (2005) Relating computer, communication, and computer-mediated communication apprehensions to new communication technology use in the workplace. Communication Research32(6): 683–725.
41.
WaltherJB (1992) Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research19(1): 52–90.
42.
WaltherJB (1994) Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research20(4): 473–501.
43.
WaltherJB (1996) Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research23(1): 3–43.
44.
WaltherJB (2008) Social information processing theory: Impressions and relationship development online. In: BaxterLABraithwaiteDO (eds) Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, pp. 391–404.
45.
WaltherJBParksMR (2002) Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In: KnappMLDalyJA (eds) Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 529–563.
46.
WaltherJBVan Der HeideBKimS-Y. (2008) The role of friends’ appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep?Human Communication Research34(1): 28–49.
47.
WohnDYLampeCWashR. (2011) The “s” in social network games: Initiating, maintaining, and enhancing relationships. In: Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Kauai, HI. Available at: https://www.msu.edu/~nellison/Wohn_et_al2011_HICSS.pdf (accessed 22 June 2012).
48.
ZywicaJDanowskiJ (2008) The faces of Facebookers: Investigating social enhancement and social compensation hypotheses; predicting Facebook™ and offline popularity from sociability and self-esteem, and mapping the meanings of popularity with semantic networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(1): 1–34.
