The aim of this research was to investigate the effects of online social networking use on bridging and bonding social relationships as well as on social capital effects. The study examined how the self-systems of users of the social networking website Facebook (where a self-system comprises four elements—self-efficacy, self-assertion, social presence, and self-esteem) and intensity of use affected the abovementioned social relations and social capital effects. Using data from a survey of Facebook users (n =306), the result revealed that Facebook users’ self-systems played an important role in the formation of bridging and bonding social relationships as well as in generating social capital effects. However, self-esteem did not affect bonding social relationships significantly. The study also found that Facebook users’ self-systems mediated the relationship between bridging and bonding social relationships and social capital effects.
AgarwalRKarahannaE (2000) Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly24: 665–694.
2.
AlbertiREEmmonsML (1978) Your Perfect Right: A Guide to Assertive Behavior. San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact Publisher.
3.
Amichai-HamburgerYVinitzkyG (2010) Social network use and personality. Computers in Human Behavior26: 1289–1295.
4.
BagleyCBolithoFBertrandL (1997) Norms and construct validity of the rosenberg self-esteem scale in Canadian high school populations: implications for counseling. Canadian Journal of counseling31(1):82–92.
5.
BagozziRPYiY (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science16(1): 74–94.
6.
BanduraA (1997) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Reports84: 191–215.
7.
BattleJ (1978) Relationship between self-esteem and depression. Psychological Reports42: 745–746.
8.
BeaudoinCEThorsonE (2004) Social capital in rural and urban communities: testing differences in media effects and models. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly81: 378–399.
9.
BoltonR (1983) How to Assert Yourself, Listen to Others and Resolve Conflicts. Woodinville, WA: PL Publishers.
10.
boydDMEllisonNB (2007) Social network sites: definition history and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13(1): 210–230.
11.
CoyleCVaughnH (2008) Social networking: communication revolution or evolution?Bell Labs Technical Journal13(2): 13–18.
12.
DavisFD (1989) Perceived usefulness perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13: 319–340.
DonathJboydD (2004) Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal22(4): 71–82.
15.
DuBoisDTevendaleHBurk-BraxtonC. (2000) Self-system influences during early adolescence: investigation of an integrative model. Journal of Early Adolescence20(1): 12–43.
16.
DunlapJCLowenthalPR (2009) Tweeting the night away: using Twitter to enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education20(2): 129–136.
17.
DurdenEDHillTDAngelRJ (2007) Social demands, social supports and psychological distress among low-income women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships24: 343–361.
18.
EllisonNHeinoRGibbsJ (2006) Managing impressions online: self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication11(2): 415–441.
19.
EllisonNSteinfieldCLampeC (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.
20.
EpsteinS (1980) The stability of behavior: implications for psychological research. American Psychologist35(9): 790–806.
21.
FornellCLarkerD (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research18(February): 39–50.
22.
GarrisonDRAndersonTArcherW (1999) critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education2(1): 87–105.
23.
GefenDStraubDW (2004) Consumer trust in B2C e-Commerce and the importance of social presence: experiments in e-products and e-services. Omega32(6): 407–424.
24.
GranovetterMS (1982) The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociological Theory1: 201–233.
25.
HairJFAndersonRETathamRL. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
26.
HarterS (1999) The Construction of the Self: A Developmental Perspective. New York: Guilford Press.
27.
HigginsET (1991) Development of self-regulatory and self-evaluative processes: costs benefits and tradeoffs. In: GunnarMRSroufeLA (eds) Self Processes and Development: The Minnesota Symposia on Child Development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp.125–166.
28.
HillTSmithDNMannMF (1987) Role of efficacy expectations in predicting the decision to use advanced technologies. Journal of Applied Psychology72(2): 307–314.
29.
KaplanAAHaeleinM (2010) Users of the world unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons53(2): 59–68.
30.
KleineREIIIKleineSSKernanJB (1993) Mundane consumption and the self: a social-identity perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology2(3): 209–235.
31.
LeeGLeeJKwonS (2011) Use of social-networking sites and subjective well-being: a study in South Korea. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking14(3): 151–155.
32.
LeeKM (2004) Presence, explicated. Communication Theory14(1): 27–50.
33.
LinN (1999) Building a network theory of social capital. Connections22(1): 28–51.
34.
LinN (2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
35.
McLeodJMScheufeleDAMoyP (1999) Community communication and participation: the role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication16: 315–336.
36.
MiddletonCALeithJ (2007) Intensity of Internet use in Canada: exploring Canadians’ engagement with the Internet. Paper presented at the Statistics Canada socio-economic conference, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 20 May.
37.
NunnallyJC (1978) Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
38.
PempekTAYermolayevaYACalvertSL (2009) College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology30: 227–238.
39.
PfeilUArjanRZaphirisP (2009) Age differences in online social networking – a study of user profiles and the social capital divide among teenagers and older users in MySpace. Computers in Human Behavior25: 643–654.
40.
PutnamRD (1993) The prosperous community: social capital and public life. The American Prospect13: 35–42.
41.
PutnamRD (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
42.
ShahDVKwakNHolbertRL (2001) Connecting and disconnecting with civic life: patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication18: 141–162.
43.
ShortJAWilliamsEChristieB (1976) The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: Wiley.
44.
SprecherSHendrickSS (2004) Self-disclosure in intimate relationships: associations with individual and relationship characteristics over time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology23: 857–877.
45.
StaplesDSHullandJSHigginsCA (1998) A self-efficacy theory explanation for the management of remote workers in virtual organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication3(4). Available at: http://wwwascuscorg/jcmc/vol3/issue4/stapleshtml
46.
SteinfieldCDimiccoJEllisonNB. (2009) Bowling online: social networking and social capital within the organization. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on communities and technologies. 25–27June, New York: ACM.
47.
SteinfieldCEllisonNBLampeC (2008) Online social network use self-esteem and social capital: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology29(6): 434–445.
48.
StevensV (2008) Trial by Twitter: the rise and slide of the year’s most viral microblogging platform. TESL-EJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language12(1). Available at: http://www.tesl-ej.org/ej45/int.html (accessed 24 September 2013).
49.
StraubE (2009) Understanding technology adoption: theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research79(2): 625–649.
50.
SujanHWeitzBAKumarN (1994) Learning orientation, working smart, and effective selling. Journal of Marketing58(July): 39–52.
51.
TrusovMRandolphEBPauwelsK (2009) Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: findings from an Internet social networking site. Journal of Marketing73(September): 90–102.
52.
ValenzuelaSParkNKeeKF (2009) Is there social capital in a social network site? Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction trust and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(4): 875–901.
53.
WellmanBHaaseAQWitteJ. (2001) Does the Internet increase, decrease or supplement social capital? Social networks participation and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist45(3): 436–456.
54.
WilliamsE (1977) Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and mediated communication: a review. Psychological Bulletin84(5): 963–976.
55.
WolpeJ (1958) Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
56.
WolpeJLazarusAA (1966) Behavior Therapy Techniques. New York: Pergamon Press.
57.
YoungLBagleyC (1982) Self-esteem, self-concept and the development of black identity: a theoretical overview. In: VermaGBagleyC (eds) Self-Concept Achievement and Multicultural Education. London: Macmillan, pp.41–59.
58.
ZinkhanGMJoachimsthalerEAKinnearTC (1987) Individual differences and marketing decision support system usage and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research24(2): 208–214.
59.
ZmudRW (1979) Individual differences and MIS success: a review of the empirical literature. Management Science25(10): 966–979.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
