 

2308

 

_LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Uses and gratiﬁcations of Facebook.com

presented by

Sarah Katherine Foregger

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph. D. degree in Communication

 

 

xﬂwdc WM

Major Professor’s Signature

00'0'17vc9063’

 

Date

MSU is an afﬁnnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K'lProlecc8Pres/CIRCIDateDueindd

 

USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF FACEBOOKCOM
By

Sarah K. Foregger

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Communication

2008

Professor Sandi W. Smith

ABSTRACT
USES AND GRATIFICATIONS OF FACEBOOKCOM

By

Sarah K. Foregger

This study explores undergraduate students’ uses and gratiﬁcations of a
popular social networking website, Facebookcom. F acebook has a high
penetration among college students in the United States, yet few academic studies
seek to theoretically understand its popularity. This study utilized the uses and
gratiﬁcations approach, which has long been employed to understand the
audience appeal of mass media and the assumptions of which are particularly
applicable to interactive media. Following methods similar to those used by
Greenberg (1974), Charney and Greenberg (2001), and Sherry, eta]. (2006) a
multi-stage design was used. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on data
collected online from 340 participants enrolled in communication courses at a
large Midwestern university. This study found 9 factors of F acebook use: Pass
Time, Connection, Sexual Attraction, Utilities and Upkeep, Establish/Maintain
Old Ties, Accumulation, Social Comparison, Channel Use, and Networking.
Frequency and duration of Facebook use was also found to differ by sex and year
in school. As Facebook is rapidly growing in popularity among other
demographic groups, including those over-25 and those in other countries, future
studies should explore whether the factors of Facebook use found in this study

apply to different groups of F acebook users.

DEDICATION

To my wonderful Advisor, Sandi Smith, who stuck with me. This dissertation

would not exist without her help. I hope to always make her proud.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A dissertation is a test of endurance. It is a marathon and I, by nature, am
a sprinter. I have been fortunate however, to have had the very best support from
people lined up at every mile-marker. They have cheered me on and believed I
could ﬁnish. I owe the completion of this dissertation to them.

My advisor, editor, and friend, Dr. Sandi Smith. She has helped me
complete three projects and two degrees. She has been inﬁnitely patient and
always supportive, even when I’ve been not such a great grad student. I’m so
lucky Sandi has been my advisor all of these years.

My committee members, who are simply awesome and who have shaped
my dissertation into the best possible project. I am thankful to Dr. Chuck Atkin,
Dr. John Sherry, Dr. Dennis Martel], and Dr. Timothy Levine — some of the
smartest people I know — for agreeing to serve.

My parents, Joe and Mary F oregger, who have let me move back home
and eat all their food this past year while I worked on this dissertation. They’re
quirky and funny and have always thought I was amazing. I didn’t want to let
them down. Thanks, Mom and Dad. Without you two, I wouldn’t have a PhD.

My ﬁance, Eric Grommon who has provided advice, hugs, and
encouragement. He was right — things aren’t nearly as hard as I perceive them to

be. Thank you for making me work on my projects when I would have preferred

to nap.

iv

My brother, Daniel Foregger, has been my number one fan since he was
born. You’re hilarious and so totally rad and your overwhelmingly positive
encouragement was always just a phone call away.

Marge Barkman — you knew I would ﬁnish all along! Without you, I
would have been unprepared and lost (and probably unregistered) many a time.
Thank you for all the tips and tricks over the years. I will miss you!

When I was in the pit of despair, Molly Rosso reminded me of the social
value of a Ph.D. and Sarah Lake soothed my writers’ block. Hillary Shulman and
Cat Kingsley talked me out of my conﬁrmatory factor analysis-induced panic.
Everyone should have such wise friends. These are but a few of the many who
have gotten me through this process. I am grateful to all of them.

A dissertation seems like an insurmountable task. But it’s really not. It’s
certainly not a fast process, but you can get through it — you just put one foot in
front of the other and take it as it comes. Thank you to everyone who helped me

take it one step at a time.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE .............................................................................................. 2
Facebook .............................................................................................................................. 2
History of F acebook ................................................................................................. 2
Facebook as a Social Networking Site ..................................................................... 4
Positive Potential in F acebook Connectivity ........................................................... 6
Problems from Information on F acebook ................................................................ 7
The Uses and Gratiﬁcations Approach ................................................................................ 9
Criticisms of Uses and Gratiﬁcations .................................................................... l7
Uses and Gratiﬁcations and the Internet ............................................................................ 18
General Internet Uses and Gratiﬁcations ............................................................... 20
Uses and Gratiﬁcations of Product Websites ......................................................... 23
Individual Differences in Internet Uses and Gratiﬁcations ................................... 25
Internet as a Functional Alternative ....................................................................... 28
Uses and Gratiﬁcations and Social Networking Sites ........................................... 31
Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 36
PRELIMNARY STUDY METHODS ............................................................................... 37
Participants ............................................................................................................. 37
Measures ................................................................................................................ 37
Methods .................................................................................................................. 39
Results .................................................................................................................... 43
PILOT TEST METHODS ................................................................................................. 45
Participants ............................................................................................................. 45
Measures ................................................................................................................ 45
Results .................................................................................................................... 46
PRIMARY STUDY METHODS ....................................................................................... 50
Participants ............................................................................................................. 50
Measures ................................................................................................................ 51
PRIMARY STUDY RESULTS ......................................................................................... 53
Demographics ........................................................................................................ 53
Research Question 1: Uses and Gratiﬁcations of F acebook for Students ............. 54
Research Question 2: Predicting Time Spent on Facebook from Uses and
Gratiﬁcations .......................................................................................................... 62
Research Question 3: F acebook as an Alternative to Other Communication
Channels ................................................................................................................. 63

vi

Research Question 4: Most Entertaining, Informative, and Useful Parts of the

Facebook Proﬁle .................................................................................................... 65
Research Question 5: Duration and Frequency of F acebook Use ......................... 69
Research Question 6: Difference in Duration and Frequency of Facebook Use by
Year in School and Sex .......................................................................................... 70
Hypothesis 1: Communication Factors Predicting Facebook Use ......................... 72
Hypothesis 2: Entertainment and Information Factors Predicting F acebook Use .72
Hypothesis 3: Campus Activity Involvement and Time Spent on Facebook ........ 73
DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... 74
Limitations ............................................................................................................. 80
Future Directions ................................................................................................... 80
Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 82
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 100
APPENDICES

Appendix A: Pre-Study Survey

Appendix B: Pre-Test and Second Survey

Appendix C: Items for Online Survey

Appendix D: Questions Posted in Online Survey

Appendix E: Standardized Factor Loadings, Means, and Standard Deviations for
Online Survey Items

Appendix F: Items in Descending Order of Means

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Factors Found in Selected Previous Uses and Gratiﬁcations Research ............. 11

Table 2: Factors found in Selected lntemet Uses and Gratiﬁcations Research ................ 32

Table 3: Responses to Closed-Ended Question, “I have used F acebook for the
following.” ........................................................................................................................ 38

Table 4: Categories of Self-Reported Facebook Uses ..................................................... 40

Table 5: Items’ Means, Standard Deviations and Factor Loadings Listed by Factor ....... 47

Table 6: Year in School by Sex ........................................................................................ 53
Table 7: Facebook Membership Before College by Year in School and Sex .................. 54
Table 8: A Priori Factor Reliabilities, Means, and Standard Deviations .......................... 55
Table 9: CFA Fit lndices for A Priori Factors .................................................................. 56
Table 10: Correlation Matrix of F acebook Uses and Gratiﬁcation Factors ...................... 60
Table 11: EPA Results for Online Survey Data ................................................................ 60

Table 12: Summary of Regression Analysis for Predicting Average Daily Time on
Facebook from Uses Factors .............................................................................................. 63

Table 13: Chi-Square Analysis of the Difference in Reported Channel Use ................... 65

Table 14: Frequency of Responses for Most Entertaining Proﬁle Sections by Proﬁle
Ownership .......................................................................................................................... 66

viii

Table 15: Frequency of Responses for Most Informative Proﬁle Sections by Proﬁle
Ownership ............................................. . ............................................................................. 67

Table 16: Frequency of Responses for Most Useful Proﬁle Sections by Proﬁle

Ownership .......................................................................................................................... 68
Table 17: Time Spent on Facebook During an Average Day in Minutes ......................... 71
Table 18: Frequency of Log-ins to F acebook During an Average Day ............................ 71
Table 19: Factors of Facebook Use by Sex ...................................................................... 76

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure A: Number of Times Students Report Logging on to Facebook in One Day ....... 70

Just four short years ago, the word “F acebook” was not part of the millennial
college student’s lexicon. Today, F acebook is not only an integral part of college
students’ vocabulary, but it has also become a verb. Students exclaim to new
acquaintances, “I’m going to facebook you!” They gossip about who has recently
“facebooked” them. They spend time “facebooking.” F acebook has become, like
Google before it, something to do and not just somewhere on the intemet to be.

Facebook has also become a major topic in the popular press: a recent Lexis
Nexus search retrieved over 1800 articles on the topic of F acebook. Academia, however,
has yet to theoretically study this website with humble Harvard dorm-room beginnings
that now claims over 42 million active users and over 85% market share of United States
universities (Facebookcom). In fact, PC Magazine columnist John Dvorak noted in 2006:
“academia, which should be studying this [facebook] phenomenon, is just as out of the
loop as anyone over 30” (Dvorak, 2006, 116).

Facebook is indeed a phenomenon that is becoming more entrenched in college
life as time goes on (Jones & Soltren, 2005). However this phenomenon is one that
parents, teachers, and administrators are scrambling to understand. Many are concerned
with how students are choosing to use Facebook. Since a student’s full proﬁle is not
viewable to anyone outside of their university without their approval, many students have
had a false sense of invulnerability and privacy, posting suggestive or drunken photos
without regard to long-term consequences. Yet this may not be typical of how the
majority of students are using F acebook. Studying Facebook with the uses and
gratiﬁcations approach (Blumler & Katz, 1974) may help address concerns of parents and

school officials and answer questions about student use.

The uses and gratiﬁcations approach has long been used as a tool to explain
people’s media choices. Quite simply, this approach emphasizes that people’s needs
inﬂuence their media selections; by seeking out and using speciﬁc media, people can
meet these individual needs. Furthermore, the uses and gratiﬁcations approach is
especially well suited for studying the intemet, as the interactive nature of the intemet
underscores the “core notion” of uses and gratiﬁcations; that of audience choice
(Ruggerio, 2000).

As F acebook grows in popularity and continues to increase its market share, it is
important and long-overdue to study Facebook from a theoretical perspective. Further, as
administrators and parents worry, it is important to explain the types of uses of F acebook
by students. Knowledge of how and why students use Facebook can help administration
and parents better inform their future educational efforts regarding Facebook. This study
seeks to ﬁll the current knowledge gap by explaining how college students are using
Facebook; the most common uses for Facebook; and what gratiﬁcations are derived from
F acebook by invoking the uses and gratiﬁcations approach. As such, the history of and
issues with Facebook will be discussed, an overview of the uses and gratiﬁcations
approach will be given, research questions and hypotheses will be presented, and results
from a qualitative pre-study with 185 college student respondents will be offered.
History of F acebook

In this section, the history of Facebook’ is provided, Facebook as a social
networking site is described, the positive potential in Facebook’s networks is explored,

and issues associated with F acebook are discussed.

F acebook could very well be the intemet phenomenon of this decade, and in fact,
‘phenomenon’ is a frequent descriptor of the website (Bumgarner, 2006; Charnigo &
Ellis, 2007; Dvorak, 2006; North Carolina State University, 2007). Although recently
disputed (Markoﬁ', 2007; Wired Campus, 2007), the F acebook history is as follows:
launched February 4, 2004 by then 19-year-old Mark Zuckerberg, a student at Harvard,
Facebook was originally designed to replace Harvard’s paper face books that helped
students identify students in other houses, course classmates and make new social
connections. The popularity of Facebook was immediate — within four days of
launching, 650 Harvard undergraduates had registered (Tabak, 2004). Within a month
F acebook expanded to include other colleges in the Boston area, and by the end of
March, other Ivy League schools were part of F acebook (facebook.com). By the end of
2004, Facebook had over 1 million active users, and by May of 2005 over 800 college
networks were included on F acebook.

Networks, as deﬁned by F acebook.com, are afﬁliations of proﬁles based around a
college, high school, workplace, or region. When members join Facebook they must
afﬁliate themselves with a network, a process that for education or workplace networks
occurs through the use of the corresponding .edu or .com email address. The viewing of a
member’s full proﬁle and not simply their name and thumbnail picture is restricted for
those outside of the member’s network. As Facebook grew in popularity, it continued to
expand rapidly increasing the number and type of networks available for membership. In
September 2005, F acebook became available to high school networks, and in May 2006,
it opened its virtual doors to workplace networks. Until September 2006, an email

address linked to a network, for example in the case of universities — one ending in .edu —

was required for membership. This prerequisite changed in September 2006, when
Facebook membership opened to the general public, allowing anyone with a valid email
address to become a member of F acebook (facebook.com), however proﬁles remained,
and continue to remain, restricted to ﬁll viewing only by those within the same network.

The rapid expansion of networks has led Facebook to become the 6th most popular
website on the intemet, just behind sites like Yahoo and Google (comscore, 2007). As of
today, F acebook counts 80 million active members, 55,000 networks, 6 million active
user groups, and over 1.7 billion photos — but these numbers change weekly, as almost
200,000 new registrations occur each day (facebook.com). Over half of users return daily
to spend, on average, 20 minutes logged into their F acebook account (facebook.com).
Although the fastest growing demographic of F acebook members are 25 and older,
Facebook maintains a high penetration among college-aged students. Not only does
F acebook claim 85% marketshare of US. colleges and universities, but a 2006 study by
Ellison, Steinfeld, and Larnpe found that on a campus with Facebook, 94% of the 286
surveyed were members. This echoes both Stutzrnan’s 2005 research, which found that
by the end of the ﬁrst semester, 94% of University of North Carolina freshmen had
Facebook accounts and Vanden Boogart’s 2006 thesis, which found 94% of Kansas State
University students had Facebook accounts.
F acebook as a Social Networking Site

Facebook is most often labeled as a social-networking site. Social networking
sites, according to Ellison, et.al. (2006) are “online spaces where individuals are allowed
to present themselves, articulate their social networks, and establish or maintain

connections to others.” Boyd (in press) states that proﬁles, friends, and public comments,

differentiate social networking sites and Zuckerberg himself describes Facebook as a
social utility, a way in which to communicate more effectively with friends, family, and
coworkers. Facebook is, as he states, a way to share information through the “social
graph” — a term that Zuckerberg deﬁnes as a digital map of our real-world connections
(F acebook.com; Levy, 2007).

On Facebook — similar to other social networking websites — users are allowed to
create and maintain a proﬁle of themselves — where they can include a proﬁle photo,
photo albums, lists of favorites such as books and movies, contact information, update
their relationship status and join groups, among other things. F acebook friendships are
mutually approved connections between two users and are an important part of this
Facebook proﬁle. The ‘Wall’ serves as a public space to post and display comments —
usually from friends, although Facebook users can post comments on their own Wall.
Private messages, like emails, can be sent from user to user and a new feature now allows
users to send messages to email addresses not associated with F acebook, expanding
Facebook’s capabilities as a communication technology.

While the Facebook search feature allows users to ﬁnd anyone with a F acebook
account, viewing the full proﬁle is restricted to those outside of the account holder’s
network. Thus, a search for ‘Jane Doe’ may provide many results, but only those results
within the searcher’s same network will be fully viewable. This can be quickly resolved
by either adding Jane Doe as a Facebook friend or by sending a private message. The
somewhat restrictive nature of the network shapes the nature of the friendships displayed
on Facebook, with many representing real-life acquaintances and friendships (Boyd,

2007). Indeed, this is a purposeful part of F acebook’s design and the F acebook website

encourages users to “join the networks that reﬂect your real-life communities”
(facebook.com). The network feature of F acebook distinguishes it from other social
networking sites where users typically meet new people online and then move toward
ofﬂine friendships (Ellison, et.al., 2006), the pattern of which was also found in online
friendships from older discussion group formats (Parks & Floyd, 1996). As both Ellison,
et.al. (2006) and Lampe (2006) note, Facebook is unique in that members seem to move
their offline connections — through class, work, or schools — into their online spaces.
Positive Potential in F acebook Connectivity

Some scholars have seen promise for administration and faculty in the connective
nature of these Facebook networks. In her article on integrating technology into student
affairs, Shier (2005) writes that F acebook could contribute to the academic social
community, helping students to connect and communicate, as well as become a part of a
larger community. Additionally, Shier believes professors and administrators could use
Facebook as a meaningful way to know and connect with students, especially at
institutions where teacher/student contact is limited.

In fact, Mazer, Murphy, and Simonds (2007) did ﬁnd that college teacher
F acebook membership has a positive inﬂuence on students. The authors examined
teachers who were members of Facebook and the effect of their online proﬁle self-
disclosure on student motivation, ﬁnding that students anticipated more motivation and
affective learning from teacher proﬁles with more self-disclosure (i.e.: favorite books and
movies listed, some personal information, photos of self with friends) as well as

perceived the potential classroom climate more positively with these higher self-

disclosure teachers.

Additionally, a study by Charrigo and Bamett-Ellis (2007) examined another
unique use of F acebook by college staff, in this case, librarians. Charrigo and Bamett-
Ellis (2007) looked at how Facebook impacted students’ library use through a survey of
college and university librarians and found that while most librarians were aware of
Facebook, a mere 3% were using Facebook as a way to connect the library with the larger
campus community. Despite the small percentage using Facebook to connect and
communicate, nearly one ﬁﬁh of the sample were concerned with privacy issues and the
long term effects of students’ making information public.

Problems ﬁom Information on F acebook

The librarians’ sentiment regarding information privacy is a legitimate concern
that has been echoed by colleges, universities, and parents nationwide (McElvain &
Smyth, 2006; Raskin, 2006; Steinbeck & Deavers, 2007). Additionally, college
administrators have struggled with whether to educate or punish students portrayed on
Facebook breaking campus rules or even simply whether or how to monitor information
on F acebook (McElvain & Smyth, 2006; Steinbeck & Deavers, 2007). In November
2005, Brown University’s campus newspaper, the Brown Daily Herald reported on
administrative actions against students nationwide as a result of Facebook information.
Among the sanctions mentioned were the cases of four Northern Kentucky University
students who received code of conduct violations for photos they posted on F acebook
showing them drinking alcohol, as well as the case of Cameron Walker, a student at
Fischer College in Boston who was found in violation of the campus code of conduct and
expelled for co-creating a Facebook group slandering a campus police sergeant (Woo,

2005). Nearly a year later, in 2006, USA Today reported in an article appropriately

titled, “What You Say Online Can Haunt You,” other instances of negative and
unexpected outcomes from information found on F acebook, including the expulsion of a
student from John Brown Christian University in Arkansas for pictures posted of himself
dressed in drag and the cutting of two Louisiana State University swim team members
because of their criticisms of their coach on Facebook (Kornblum & Marklein, 2006)

On the other hand, many schools and student affairs professionals have seen
F acebook as an opportunity and as part of their responsibility to educate students on
issues of intemet privacy and safety (McElvain & Smyth, 2006). Cornell University in
Ithaca, New York was one of the ﬁrst schools that chose to integrate an educational
segment of orientation to F acebook, and their Ofﬁce of Information Technology created
an information technology policy dedicated to this new technology entitled “Thoughts on
Facebook,” advising students to “act on behalf of their self 4-5 years in the future”
(Mitrano, 2006). Many schools have followed suit, warning students of the future
implications of their Facebook actions during freshman orientation.

Despite the possibility of negative consequences resulting from leaving a lasting
digital mark, students continue to ﬂock to F acebook and the fact remains that there is
simply not enough known about how students actually use the site. Misunderstandings of
Facebook may stem from the lack of quantitative academic research regarding F acebook.
Of the research that has been conducted and published in academic journals, the vast
majority of it focuses on privacy issues surrounding Facebook (Acquisti & Gross, 2006;
Govani & Pashley, 2005; Hewitt & Forte, 2006; Jones & Soltren, 2005; Steinbeck &
Deavers, 2007) although individual studies have been conducted to understand social

capital (Ellison, et.al., 2006), librarians’ perspectives of F acebook use (Charrigo &

Barnett-Ellis, 2007), and the effects of teachers’ Facebook self-disclosure (Mazer, et.al.,
2007). There are some qualitative scholars who examine F acebook from a critical
perspective (Boyd, 2007; Dickman, et.al., 2006) and Facebook has become a focal
concern of the popular press. Additionally, some researchers self-publish descriptive
reports regarding campus speciﬁc F acebook use on blogs or websites (Stutzman, 2005).
North Carolina State University and University of North Carolina have held symposiums
on the topic of F acebook designed to educate and inform both social network site
researchers as well as college officials. However, it remains that a topic where empirical
knowledge is most needed — students’ use of Facebook — has yet to be examined from a
theoretical perspective.

The current study proposes to examine Facebook from an empirical view, using
the uses and gratiﬁcations perspective. As F acebook is a new technology with popularity
that is unlikely to wane, it is important for communication scholars to begin addressing
the commentary of the popular press as well as investigating Facebook from an empirical
communication perspective. An appropriate theoretical approach for this investigation is
the uses and gratiﬁcations approach, which has often been used to understand the uses of
new media by individuals.

The Uses and Gratiﬁcations Approach

The uses and gratiﬁcations approach has long been used to study and understand
the audience appeal of mass media. Over time, scholars have used the uses and
gratiﬁcations approach to examine and explain use of media ranging from television and

videocassette recorders (VCRs) to video games and cell phones. From these studies,

many factors have come forthi (see Table l for a selection) providing researchers with
deeper insight to the medium studied.

By most accounts, what is now known as the uses and gratiﬁcations paradigm of
media research emerged from studies of radio program gratiﬁcations in the early 1940’s
(Katz & Foulkes, 1962; Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974; Rosengren, 1974; Rubin,
1994; Ruggerio, 2000). These early studies concentrated on describing audience motives
for media use and represented a sharp departure from previous mass media research,
which either focused solely on intended media effects or considered only the sender’s end
of the communication and ignored the audience’s motives (Katz, et.al., 1974; McLeod &

Becker, 1974; Rosengren, 1974; Rubin, 1994; Ruggerio, 2000).

 

' See Table l, p 340-342 in Dobos & Dimmick ( 1988) and Exhibit 1 in Parker & Plank (2000) for a review
of other selected uses and gratiﬁcations factors.

10

Table 1

Factors Found in Selected Previous Uses and Gratifications Research

 

Uses and Gratiﬁcations Factors

 

Authors Year Terminology Channel Found
TV (by Learning, habit, arousal,
British companionship, relaxation,
Greenberg 1974 Gratiﬁcations children) forget, pass time
Surveilance, vote guidance,
McLeod & TV (by anticipated communication,
Becker 1974 Gratiﬁcations voters) excitement, reinforcement
Information, inexpensiveness,
TV (by older entertainment, convenience,
Rubin & Rubin 1982 Motivations persons) companionship, relaxation
Exciting entertainment, pass
Rubin & Perse 1987 Motives TV — news time, information
Surveillance, companionship,
voyeurism, view by default,
TV social resource, entertainment
Bantz 1982 Factor Surveillance, companionship,
TV — exemplar, entertainment,
program voyeurism, social resource
Exciting entertainment,
TV — soap habit/pass time, information,
Perse 1986 Motives opera relax-escape, voyeurism
Library storage, music or
videos, exercise tapes, movie
rental, child viewing, time
shifting, socializing, critical
Rubin & Bantz 1987 Motives VCR viewing
Sherry, Lucas, Uses and Competition, challenge, social
Greenberg, Gratiﬁcations Video interaction, diversion, fantasy,
Lachlan 2006 Dimensions Games arousal
Dimmick, Sociability, instrumentality
Sikand & (“social coordination”),
Patterson 1994 Gratiﬁcations Telephone reassurance
Fashion/status,
affection/sociability, relaxation,
Gratiﬁcation mobility, immediate access,
Leung & Wei 2000 Items Cell Phone instrumentality, reassurance

 

ll

Traditional media effects research, as Rosengren (1974) notes, begins with media
consumption and content and attempts to ﬁnd either the long-term effects of exposure or
the persuasive goals intended by communicators (Katz, et.al, 1974). Uses and
gratiﬁcations research, on the other hand, begins with the individual and his or her needs
and problems and tries to understand the functions media serves for the individual media
consumer (Rosengren, 1974; Rubin, 1974; Ruggerio, 2000). Both perspectives seek to
explain outcomes of media consumption (Rubin, 1994) however the outcomes of interest
differ: media effects research investigates the effects intended by the sender whereas the
uses and gratiﬁcations perspective examines the effects consciously intended by the
media consumer (Rosengren, 1974).

Uses and gratiﬁcations is frequently contrasted with traditional media effects
(Rosengren, 1974), although study of media through the uses and gratiﬁcations approach
does not preclude the study of effects. Uses and gratiﬁcations research can lead to the
study of the effects of media from the traditional exposure-leads-to-effects view
(Rosengren, 1974; Rubin 1994) as media exposure can be predicted from media
gratiﬁcations (LaRose & Eastin, 2006; Vincent & Basil, 1997). Additionally, many
researchers ﬁnd that motives research is useful in predicting outcomes of media use
(Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000). Finally, some researchers contend that uses and
gratiﬁcations is merely a subset of traditional media effects (Ruggerio, 2000).

The following sections will illustrate that the uses and gratiﬁcations approach is
indeed one viable theoretical perspective from which to examine Facebook. In the
subsequent sections, the history of the uses and gratiﬁcations perspective will be

presented, key assumptions of the approach will be outlined, and criticisms of the

12

approach will be discussed. Next, an overview of the studies that have applied uses and
gratiﬁcations to various aspects of the intemet, organized by intemet application, will
occur. Finally, the few studies that have explored social networking websites through the
uses and gratiﬁcations approach will be reviewed.

History of Uses and Gratiﬁcations

While current studies provide evidence that ﬁndings from research employing the
uses and gratiﬁcations approach can inform the queries of traditional media effects, early
uses and gratiﬁcations research emerged as a distinct shift away from the traditional
media effects perspective toward a more functionalist approach (Katz, et.al., 1974; Rubin,
1994; Ruggerio, 2000). Over time, the uses and gratiﬁcations approach has evolved in its
focus and has become a staple of mass communication research. In the formative years
of uses and gratiﬁcations, however, scholars took their cue from the disciplines of
sociology and psychology. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, the trend in sociology and
psychology to account for individual social and psychological variables heavily
inﬂuenced uses and gratiﬁcations research (Rosengren, 1974; Rubin, 1994; Ruggerio,
2000). Uses and gratiﬁcations work from this period focused on the psychological or
social attributes of individuals and examined patterns of media use related to those
attributes (Katz & Foulkes, 1962; Ruggerio, 2000). In the 1970’s, as psychological
research shifted towards a cognitive approach, identifying the media use motivations of
receivers became important and from this many typologies emerged with the purpose of ‘
both describing and explaining media consumption (Rubin, 1994; Ruggerio, 2000). The
1970’s, however, was also a time when detractors of uses and gratiﬁcations began to put

forth many criticisms (Elliott, 1974; McLeod & Becker, 1974). Uses and gratiﬁcations

l3

 

studies in the 1980’s addressed many of these concerns through systematic research
focused on replication, comparison, reﬁned methodologies, and an integrated social
component (Rubin, 1994; Ruggerio, 2000).

Although conceptually strengthened, uses and gratiﬁcations seemingly fell by the
wayside until the last decade, when due to advances in telecommunication and
technology, it was revisited by communication scholars interested in understanding uses
of these new media (Ruggerio, 2000). In the past decade alone, uses and gratiﬁcations
has been used to look at new and popular media technology such as video games (Sherry,
et.al., 2006), cell phones (Leung & Wei, 2000), the intemet (Charney & Greenberg, 2001;
Ferguson & Perse, 2000; Kaye & Johnson, 2004; LaRose & Eastin, 2004; Lin, 1999;
Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000; Parker & Plank, 2000; Stafford & Stafford, 2004), speciﬁc
websites on the intemet (Eighmey & McCord, 1998), email (Recchiuti, 2003), intemet
chat (Leung, 2001; Recchiuti, 2003), and even the blogosphere (Li, 2005). As
technology rapidly advances and mediated communication options increase, the uses and
gratiﬁcations approach will become more important to laying an empirical foundation to
understand the appeal of these media. Indeed, many scholars believe that as interactive
media become more commonplace and central in our environment, the uses and
gratiﬁcations approach will become even more valuable in research due to the
assumptions of the uses and gratiﬁcations approach that are particularly applicable to
interactive media. (Lin, 1996; Lowery & DeFleur, 1995; Rubin, 1994; Ruggerio, 2000)

Assumptions of Uses and Gratiﬁcations

The uses and gratiﬁcations approach to studying media rests on several

assumptions that enhance the appropriateness of this approach in particular for intemet

14

media studies. Several scholars have articulated these assumptions including Katz,
Blumler & Guervitch (1974) and Rosengren (1974) in the classic text edited by Blumler
and Katz (1974), and more recently, Ruggerio (2000) and Rubin (1994).

Katz, et.al. (1974) stated the ﬁve elements in a uses and gratiﬁcations model as: a)
the audience is active, b) media choice depends on the audience’s link between media
and need gratiﬁcation, c) media compete with other sources, both interpersonal and other
media, for need satisfaction, (I) audience members can self-report their needs, and e)
value judgments of mass media content should be suspended until motives and
gratiﬁcations are understood. Although he does not explicitly list assumptions of the uses
and gratiﬁcations approach, Rosengren (1974) articulated many of these same beliefs in
the presentation of his “Outline for a paradigm of uses and gratiﬁcations research” (p.
270). In 1994, Rubin offered ﬁve similar assumptions in what he called “a contemporary
view of uses and gratiﬁcations assumptions” which are: a) communication behavior is
goal-directed, purposive, and motivated, b) people select media, c) many factors guide
our media selection, d) media compete with other channels for messages, and e) people
are typically more inﬂuential than media. These assumptions —- and speciﬁcally that of
audience activity — further the appropriateness of using this approach in new media
research.

The concept of an active audience — as active receivers with purposive media uses
— is the core tenet of the uses and gratiﬁcations perspective and augments the utility of
applying uses and gratiﬁcations to the study of the intemet. An early criticism of uses
and gratiﬁcations debated this idea of audience choice — but was countered with the

conceptualization of audience members existing on a continuum of activity from passive

15

to active (Rubin, 1994; Ruggerio, 2000). Additionally, the claim has been made that uses
and gratiﬁcations approach becomes exceedingly valuable when audiences have a choice
to make use of media for intended purposes (Ruggerio, 2000). Further, Ruggerio also
stated that as technology becomes increasingly interactive in nature, the lines between
sender and receiver become blurred. This is indeed the case with F acebook, as members
are both senders — posting and maintaining their proﬁles — and receivers, visiting and
reading other’s proﬁles.

The emphasis on viewing audience media choice as a product of biological,
sociological, and psychological variables leads uses and gratiﬁcations to garner the label
of a psychological communication perspective. In the uses and gratiﬁcations model as
outlined by Rosengren (1974), basic human needs of both higher and lower ordersZ for
example, self-esteem and safety (p. 270), respectively, combined with individual and
societal characteristics inﬂuence audience members to seek out the available media they
believe will alleviate perceived problems. Katz, et.al. (1974) stated that an individual
audience member’s speciﬁc uses of media resulted from the interaction between
psychological dispositions, sociological factors, and environmental conditions.
Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) labeled uses and gratiﬁcations as a psychological
communication perspective simply due to the assumption that people seek out
communication to gratify needs and wants and, congruent with Rosengren’s (1974)

paradigm, stated that motives — general dispositions that inﬂuence people’s actions —

 

2 While Rosengren refers to the ﬁrst item in Figure l of his paradigm as “Certain basic human needs of
lower and higher order” (1974, p. 270), he does not provide the reader with an explication of what these
needs are, instead stating, “It can hardly be the task of uses and gratiﬁcations research to clarify the human
need structure at this underlying level.” However, he does refer the reader to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
as providing an example of basic needs that give structure to his argument. See Rosengren, p. 270 for this
reasoning.

l6

result from the desire to fulﬁll these needs and wants. Despite accounting for
psychological and social variables, it remains that uses and gratiﬁcations is, as Lin (1996)
asserted, “a bona-ﬁde home-grown communication theory” (p. 574) and a valuable tool
for scholars wanting to examine media phenomenon.

Criticisms of Uses and Gratiﬁcations

Although uses and gratiﬁcations approach is fast becoming more popular in
research, criticisms of the approach do exist, many of which were voiced during the
1970’s (Elliott, 1974) and have since been addressed through research (Rubin, 1994).
Critics’ qualms with uses and gratiﬁcations fell into ﬁve main concerns: ﬁrst, that uses
and gratiﬁcations research struggled with generalizability beyond the sample. Second,
studies using the approach were too compartmentalized, with too many separate
typologies and not enough synthesis. Third, clarity among the central concepts was
lacking, with scholars deﬁning these concepts differently; further, and fourth on the list,
many detractors of uses and gratiﬁcations disputed the idea of an active audience,
rationally/capable of making media choices. Finally, many disliked the dependence on
self-report data (Elliott, 1974; McLeod & Becker, 1974; Rosengren, 1974; Rubin, 1994;
Ruggerio 2000).

Rosengren (1974) addressed some of these concerns through the clariﬁcation of
key terms and the provision of a uses and gratiﬁcations paradigm. The concept of a
super-rational active audience was also revisited, with audience choice reconceived as
existing on a continuum (Ruggerio, 2000). Replication and secondary analysis of data
also occurred, as well as comparison of motives across media channels. Further,

elements of the uses and gratiﬁcations model -— including motives, gratiﬁcations,

17

psychological, and social variables — have been explored through research (Rubin, 1994).
It is because of these advances that Lin (1996) contends that despite its critics and
criticisms, uses and gratiﬁcations is a strong and versatile theory that remains one of the
most inﬂuential theories in communication.

Uses and Gratiﬁcations and the lntemet.

Many researchers believe that uses and gratiﬁcations approach is well suited for
studying the intemet (Eighmey & McCord, 1998; Johnson & Kaye, 2003; Kaye &
Johnson, 2004; K0, et.al, 2005; Ruggerio, 2000; Stafford & Stafford, 2004). Indeed,
many communication scholars have employed the uses and gratiﬁcations approach to
understand the intemet (Charney & Greenberg, 2001; Eighmey & McCord, 1998;
Ferguson & Perse, 2000; Kaye & Johnson, 2004; LaRose & Eastin, 2004; Lin, 1999;
Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000; Parker & Plank, 2000; Stafford & Stafford, 2004) and the
ﬁndings from these studies are informative for the present proposed study.

Although focused on different aspects of the internet, user demographics, or
intemet content, these studies have several similarly-labeled motives in common for use
of intemet-based applications, including entertainment (Charney & Greenberg, 2002;
Ferguson & Perse, 2000; Kaye & Johnson, 2004; K0 et.al., 2005; Papacharissi & Rubin,
2000; Ruggerio, 2000), information seeking (Ferguson & Perse, 2000; Johnson & Kaye,
2003; Kaye & Johnson, 2004; K0, et.al, 2005; Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000; Parker &
Plank, 2000), social interaction/interpersonal utility (Bumgarner, 2005; Charney &
Greenberg, 2002; Kaye & Johnson, 2004; K0, et.al., 2005; LaRose & Eastin, 2004;
Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000; Parker & Plank, 2000; Ruggerio, 2000,), convenience (Kaye

& Johnson, 2004; K0, et. al., 2005; Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000;), surveillance (Parker &

l8

Plank, 2000; Ruggerio, 2000), relaxation/escape (Ferguson & Perse, 2000; Parker &
Plank, 2000; Ruggerio, 2000), and diversion/to pass time (Bumgarner, 2005; Charney &
Greenberg, 2002; Ferguson & Perse, 2000; Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000; Ruggerio, 2000).
Many of these similarly-labeled factors can also be seen in the selected uses and
gratiﬁcations research of other mass medium listed earlier in Table 1. While a number of
similarly-labeled factors exist both across and within mediums studied, caution should be
used when interpreting them as “identical,” since for the majority of studies, standard
items and scales for assessment were not used to determine factors. Despite this, factors
discovered in uses and gratiﬁcations research, and speciﬁcally research applying the
approach to a new medium such as the intemet, are still valuable for explanation and
description. Thus, the main research question is proposed:

RQl: What are the uses and gratiﬁcations of Facebook for students?

Uses and gratiﬁcations has grown in its application to the intemet over time. As
the intemet has become more available and popular, multiple uses of the intemet have
developed. It is important to note that the uses and gratiﬁcations approach has provided a
theoretical basis for studying these advances and helping scholars understand the vast
appeal of the intemet. The following reviews of intemet uses and gratiﬁcations studies
detail the application of the approach to various facets of the intemet, demonstrating both
the versatility of the approach as well as a universal appeal of intemet channels as shown
through similarly labeled motives and gratiﬁcations found in these studies. The sections
that follow detail the speciﬁc focus, ﬁndings, and relevant methods of these studies with

similar studies organized together under the appropriate sub-heading.

19

General lntemet Uses and Gratiﬁcations

In an early study applying uses and gratiﬁcations to the intemet, Parker and Plank
(2000) sought to determine through factor analysis the gratiﬁcations obtained from online
sources. Based off of data collected in 1997 from 204 college students and using
statements adapted from previous uses and gratiﬁcations studies, Parker and Plank found
three motivations for using the intemet that they called: companionship/social
interaction, surveillance/entertainment, and relaxation/escape. Companionship/social
interaction explained the most variance (41%), but regression analysis of the factors onto
online use found relaxation/escape best predicted intemet use. Aside from these factors,
Parker and Plank also asked students to rank sources of information and found that in
1997, print media and television were still the number one and two information sources
for college students, although the intemet did rank just below print media for the purpose
of job searching.

This study took a very general approach to studying the uses and gratiﬁcations of
the intemet and used data gathered in the formative years of intemet popularity among
college students. Further, Parker and Plank did not call for future research to direct
attention towards speciﬁc web site gratiﬁcations. However, this study does demonstrate
the application of uses and gratiﬁcations to an emerging medium and also provides
general intemet gratiﬁcations that perhaps later evolved as website use became more
widespread and speciﬁc. It seems some of these gratiﬁcations are still applicable: many

other more recent studies of the intemet site ﬁnd common motives, such as

‘entertainment’ or ‘escape.’

20

Charney and Greenberg (2002) produced one of the ﬁrst studies on uses and
gratiﬁcations of the intemet based on data collected from undergraduate students in 1996,
with over 50% of their respondents reporting using the intemet for 11 months or less.
Following the method of Greenberg’s (1974) classic uses and gratiﬁcations study of
British children and television, Charney and Greenberg initially collected open-ended
data regarding uses of the intemet from a small sample and following content analysis,
created a survey of statements with which respondents indicated agreement or
disagreement. Initially, the authors began with 10 gratiﬁcations inﬂuenced by previous
media gratiﬁcation research. Following analysis, they found what they called eight
gratiﬁcation factors, slightly more than Parker and Plank (2000); among them: keep
informed, diversion/entertainment, peer identity, good feelings, communication,
sights/sounds, career, and coolness. Frequency of intemet activities was also measured
with 88% of respondents reporting using the intemet for email. In contrast, just 16% of
participants reported using the intemet for shopping in 1996. Just half of the student
participants in this study reported owning a computer, and 60% of the sample reported
using the computer less than ﬁve hours per week. These statistics illustrate the level of
penetration the intemet had in the college population in 1996; while these numbers are
likely much different today, methods in this study are a good example of how best to
utilize uses and gratiﬁcations for exploring a new media, such as Facebook. The current
study will use the methods put forth by Charney and Greenberg (2001) among others as
exemplars.

LaRose and Eastin (2004) took a different approach to their study of the intemet

and attempted to integrate social cognitive theory and uses and gratiﬁcations research

21

into a theory of media attendance. In an attempt to explain more variance regarding
media exposure, LaRose and Eastin construed gratiﬁcations as expected outcomes and
placed them a priori into social cognitive incentive categories. Further, they looked
beyond a college sample and collected data from 172 adult users. Despite these
differences, they found results similar to previous intemet uses and gratiﬁcations studies:
the expected outcomes paralleling entertainment, social interaction, information, and
‘pass time’ motivations all signiﬁcantly related to intemet use. Further, they found
monetary and status motivations as well as the independent factor of simple habit were all
predictors of intemet use. This study, according to the authors, both supported the uses
and gratiﬁcations perspective and successfully extended it within the social cognitive
framework. Additionally, the comparative recency of the study provides updated general
intemet uses and gratiﬁcations that shows similar gratiﬁcations as found in earlier works.
Thus as the intemet has developed, some gratiﬁcations of use — such as entertainment —
seem to remain, indicating that for Facebook, some of the gratiﬁcations found should be
congruent with those discovered in previous intemet studies.

While not the main focus of their study, LaRose and Eastin (2004) did analyze
which factors were predictors of intemet use. Determining the predictors of Facebook
use may be beneﬁcial to understanding Facebook’s wide appeal. Therefore, a research
question is proposed in this vein.

RQ2: What uses and gratiﬁcations predict time spent on F acebook?

In their 2004 study, Stafford and Stafford asserted that intemet uses and
gratiﬁcations research was incomplete. Using an online survey of America Online (AOL)

customers, Stafford and Stafford set forth to fully identify intemet-speciﬁc gratiﬁcations.

22

Their two-stage research design was comprised of an initial study of open-ended
questions designed to gather an inventory of intemet use descriptors followed by a survey
with factor analysis. This research led them to conclude that three factors of intemet
gratiﬁcations existed: process gratiﬁcations, which include items related the movement
through the intemet such as clicking or searching; content gratiﬁcations which
encompass items regarding information or learning obtained from the intemet; and social
gratiﬁcations, which consist of items indicating interest in other people accessible from
the intemet. Stafford and Stafford’s set of intemet gratiﬁcations differ in that they
represent what could be conceived of as a macro-level of intemet gratiﬁcations as
compared to other studies, which use as factors what Stafford and Stafford used as items.
However, Stafford and Stafford’s conclusions regarding the social nature of the intemet
are similar to those echoed in other studies (Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000; Parker & Plank,
2000).

Uses and Gratiﬁcations of Product Websites

Another study undertaken in the early years of web browsers and the World Wide
Web, examined ﬁve websites of popular brands in various industries (i.e.: athletic shoes,
candy) from the uses and gratiﬁcations perspective. Eighmey and McCord (1998) had
subjects view the websites on the then-new Netscape 1.0 browser and rate their
experiences using statements adapted from previous uses and gratiﬁcations studies as
well as pre-test interviews. Factor analysis revealed that the majority of variance was
accounted for in the entertainment value, personal relevance, and information
involvement factors although factors of personal involvement and continuing relationship

led Eighmey and McCord to conclude that “information becomes a relationship on the

23

World Wide Web” (p. 193, 1998). Eighmey and McCord also suggested that the website
medium may represent an intersection of entertainment and information, something that
may apply to a website such as F acebook.

Like Eighmey and McCord (1998), K0 and his colleagues (2005) were also
interested in examining the relationship between interactivity on a product website and
consumer motives. Ko, et.al. proposed a structural model wherein motives-)time spent
at a website -)interactivity-)attitude toward the site-)attitude towards the
brand-)purchase intention. Using Papacharissi and Rubin’s (2000) set of motives, Ko,
et.al., collected data over the intemet from 385 Korean and American college students
who were asked to view a real website marketing a popular printer. Conﬁrmatory factor
analysis provided support for the model and revealed that three of the four motives —
information, social interaction, and convenience — inﬂuenced the amount of time spent on
the web site. Also similar to Eighmey and McCord (1998), K0, et.al. found that social
interaction motives can ultimately effect attitudes towards both the website and the brand,
with more human to human interactivity — often in the form of feedback opportunities
such as message boards — leading to more positive attitudes towards the site.

Although they examined product or brand websites, ﬁndings from the studies by
Eightmey and McCord (1998) as well as Ko, et. al. (2005) show motives -— such as social
interaction, information, and entertainment likely to be reported by respondents in the
present proposed study of F acebook.com. Further, these studies report that intemet users
responded positively to social interaction factors available on these commercial websites,

which, in Ko, et.al.’s study, led to more positive attitudes towards the site.

24

The sites studied by K0, et. a1. (2005) and Eightmey and McCord (1998) were
simple commercial websites for the purpose of promoting a product, with a limited
amount of human-to-human interactive features. Facebook, on the other hand, is a
website created with the stated sole purpose of facilitating human-to-human interaction
on the intemet and providing an interface for the self-presentation of information;
therefore, it could be expected that motives related to human interaction reported by
respondents in this survey could predict use of Facebook.

H1: Communication/keep in touch uses and gratiﬁcations will predict F acebook
use.

Individual Differences in lntemet Uses and Gratiﬁcations

Ko, et. a1. (2005) and Eightmey and McCord (1998) studied the intemet from one
aspect, that of speciﬁc websites. Two studies by Kaye and Johnson (2004) and Johnson
and Kaye (2003) also examined a niche of intemet use, although instead of focusing on
product websites, they assessed the intemet motives of politically interested individuals.
Both studies used data collected online after the 2000 presidential election from a
convenience sample of 442 individuals who participated in online political arenas. In the
2004 study, Kaye and Johnson discovered and compared the motives of politically
interested individuals for using the World Wide Web (WWW), bulletin boards, and chat
forums ﬁnding that the four factors of political guidance, entertainment/social utility,
convenience, and information seeking of speciﬁc political information differed in
importance for the three intemet-based communication options. This ﬁnding reveals that
even among a subset of intemet users —— in this case, politically interested individuals —

motives for using different web-based channels (bulletin boards, chat forums, WWW)

25

differ in importance by channel. It should then be expected that the importance of and
motives for using Facebook would be different than other previously studied intemet
channels, hence the importance of the current study.

In 2003, Johnson and Kaye’s study related motives of intemet use for political
information to use of the web for other purposes, such as shopping or entertainment, and
found that politically interested individuals prioritized more ‘informational’ uses, such as
email, news access, bulletin boards, and search for work or school above more
‘entertainment’ uses such as downloading music or playing games. Although
entertainment uses were not highly ranked by politically interested users, entertainment
motives were found by Johnson and Kaye (2003) to better predict intemet activities than
informational motives, a ﬁnding which may be especially informative in the study of
Facebook motives, thus the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: Entertainment motives will better predict time spent on F acebook than
information motives.

While both of these studies investigated a speciﬁc demographic and the motives
for seeking political information from particular intemet-based sources, the utilization of
the uses and gratiﬁcations perspective, ﬁndings related to the importance of motives,
predictive nature of speciﬁc motives, and use of a convenience sample method, all help to
inform the present study.

Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) also sought to understand the motives for intemet
use among those with a shared individual difference — in this case, those individuals high
and low in unwillingness to communicate, a term deﬁned by Burgoon (1976, as cited in

Papacharissi and Rubin, 2000) as being a chronic tendency to avoid or devalue oral

26

communication. Adapted statements derived from previous computer mediated
communication research were placed a priori in categories and, following survey
responses from subjects, were then subjected to principal components analysis, which
yielded the ﬁve motive factors (in rank order) of: interpersonal utility, pass time,
information seeking, convenience, and entertainment. Further, correlations revealed
relationships between these motives and psychological and social variables, such as
unwillingness to communicate, which suggests that individual differences may inﬂuence
the rank and report of motives.

Results of these correlations led Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) to also infer that
individuals who are satisﬁed with their real-life interpersonal interactions tend to use the
intemet for more instrumental purposes, such as information seeking. Those who are
unsatisﬁed with their interpersonal encounters in real-life tend to use the intemet as a
functional alternative and spend more time online engaging with others or passing time.
From these ﬁndings, Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) contend that the intemet could be a
functional alternative for individuals who do not ﬁnd other mass medium rewarding.
This postulation by Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) occurred long before the appearance
of social networking sites such as Facebook.com and may be even more applicable for
individuals high in unwillingness to communicate today. Additionally, exploring
whether F acebook, a social networking site that provides opportunity to socially interact
without oral communication, is serving as an alternative to other channels of
communication may be a valuable in understanding its appeal.

The motives for intemet use by individuals high and low in unwillingness to

communicate variable reported by Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) are similar to those

27

reported in other uses and gratiﬁcations studies reviewed here. In regard to the
correlations between certain motives and the unwillingness to communicate variable
however, the ﬁndings of Papacharissi and Rubin do suggest to scholars examining other
aspects of the internet that motives of use reported by respondents for the channel under
investigation may be driven by psychological individual difference variables. It is
therefore important to keep this ﬁnding under consideration when drawing a sample and
inferring conclusions in uses and gratiﬁcations studies of the intemet, including the
present study on Facebook.

lntemet as a Functional Alternative

Based on some of their ﬁndings, Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) proposed that the
intemet may serve as a functional alternative to other communication channels. In 2000,
Ferguson and Perse did question whether the intemet could be a functional alternative to
another medium, speciﬁcally, television. Ferguson and Perse (2000) examined uses and
gratiﬁcations of the intemet through an online survey comprised of statements adapted
from television uses and gratiﬁcations research. Ferguson and Perse found three major
and two minor motives for intemet use; in order they are: entertainment, pass time,
relaxation/escape, social information, and learning, with entertainment alone accounting
for a large portion (41%) of the variance. Ferguson and Perse compared these motives as
well as intemet uses reported by respondents to recorded uses and gratiﬁcations of
television and concluded that television and the World Wide Web have more similarities
than differences, thus the intemet could serve as a functional alternative for television at
that time. Now, however, as the intemet has evolved it might be more appropriate to

question whether the intemet serving as a functional alternative to other communication

28

channels such as telephones, email, or face to face communication. Perhaps Facebook’s
interactive platform offers users many ways in which to substitute F acebook
communication for other channels, therefore the following research question is proposed:

RQ3: Do Facebook users report using Facebook as an alternative to other
communication channels such as email, 1M, text, phone, and face to face communication?

Uses and Gratiﬁcations of Speciﬁc Software

As can be seen from the previously discussed studies, scholars have applied the
uses and gratiﬁcations approach to various aspects of the intemet. In yet another type of
application, some scholars have studied aspects of the intemet from a uses and
gratiﬁcations perspective in an effort to understand the popularity of speciﬁc software,
many with results that suggest that the intemet is more interpersonally focused than any
other mass medium. Leung’s (2001) research found interpersonal gratiﬁcations to be
more prevalent and inﬂuential in his study of college student motives for engaging in
ICQ(‘I seek you’) chat. Leung was interested in college student motives for engaging in
ICQ chat, one of the ﬁrst world-wide intemet instant messaging programs. His research
revealed three instrumental and four intrinsic motives which were: relaxation,
entertainment, fashion, and inclusion, affection, sociability, and escape, respectively; and
he found that heavy users of ICQ were driven by motives of affection and sociability with
light users merely using ICQ to be fashionable. These results led him to conclude that
the intemet as a communication medium, speciﬁcally considering ICQ chat, is more
social and interpersonally-communication focused than television. Leung also postulates

that once ICQ software develops further and includes more entertainment features, the

29

medium should begin to represent a blend of mass and interpersonal communication
channels.

Recchiuti (2003) also examined an instant messaging system as well as email and
online chat rooms and found social antecedents impacted computer mediated
communication choices by college students. Similar to Papacharissi and Rubin’s (2000)
ﬁnding regarding individuals’ unwillingness to communicate, Recchiuti found that those
who were less satisﬁed with their real-life interpersonal communication spent more time
online seeking out interpersonal communication through online chat rooms. Conversely,
those students who were involved with on-campus student activities, and, as Recchiuti
presumed, more interpersonally involved in real-life, spent most of their time emailing.
Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H3: Students who report greater involvement with campus activities will spend
less time on Facebook.

In Recchiuti’s (2003) study, although motives for use differed between instant
messenger, email, and chat rooms, the motives of entertainment, information seeking, and
interpersonal utility were shared by all three suggesting that perhaps within computer
mediated communication, common motives can be found.

In her 2005 thesis, Li explored the uses and gratiﬁcations of blogging with data
collected using a two-step method inﬂuenced by Greenberg (1974). From her analysis of
288 blogger responses, Li found seven motives for blogging including: self-
docurnentation, improving writing, self-expression, medium appeal (i.e.: blog tools such
as hyperlinks), provide information, pass time, and socialization. As Li notes, several of

these motives indicate that bloggers write for both intra and interpersonal reasons, and

30

many bloggers noted that blogging provides information and allows them to interact with
friends online.

The aforementioned research illustrates the application of the uses and
gratiﬁcations approach to study various aspects of the lntemet. Much of this research has
revealed similar factors, such as entertainment and information seeking and some studies
have produced factors unique to the medium studied, as in the case of ‘improving
writing’ reported by bloggers. For clarity, Table 2 presents the factors found by the
intemet studies reviewed here. In all cases, use of the approach has helped scholars
understand and explain the popularity of many diverse intemet media options, and
therefore should be valuable for studying a social networking site such as Facebook.

Uses and Gratiﬁcations and Social Networking Sites

Although many studies have applied the uses and gratiﬁcations approach to the
lntemet, few researchers have examined the uses and gratiﬁcations derived from speciﬁc
websites. Even fewer have looked at the uses and gratiﬁcations of social networking
sites (SNS). As mentioned previously, social networking sites (SNS) are “online spaces
where individuals are allowed to present themselves, articulate their social networks, and
establish or maintain connections to others” Ellison, et.al. (2006, p. 6). Further, Boyd (in
press) states that the elements of proﬁles, friends, and public comments differentiate

social networking sites from other interactive websites.

31

Table 2

Factors Found in Selected Internet Uses and Gratiﬁcations Research

Uses and Gratiﬁcations Factors

 

Authors Year Terminology Channel Found
Entertainment value, personal
relevance, information involvement,

Eighmey & personal involvement, continuing
McCord 1998 Factors Product website relationship
lnforrnation, social interaction, and
K0, et.al. 2005 Motivations Product website convenience
Bulletin boards, Political guidance,
Kaye & Chat forums, entertainment/social utility,
Johnson 2004 Motives WWW convenience, information seeking
Companionship/social interaction,
Parker & surveillance/entertainment, and
Plank 2000 Motivations General intemet relaxation/escape
Keep informed,
diversion/entertainment, peer identity,
Charney & Gratiﬁcation good feelings, communication,
Greenberg 2002 Factors General intemet sights/sounds, career, and coolness
Interpersonal utility, pass time,
Papacharissi information seeking, convenience,
& Rubin 2000 Motives General internet and entertainment
Entertainment, pass time,
Ferguson & relaxation/escape, social information,
Perse 2000 Motives General intemet and learning
Entertainment, social interaction,
LaRose & Expected information, ‘pass time’, monetary,
Eastin 2004 Outcomes General intemet status motivations, and habit
Stafford & AOL/General Process gratiﬁcations, content
Stafford 2004 Gratiﬁcations intemet gratiﬁcations, and social gratiﬁcations
Relaxation, entertainment, fashion,
and inclusion, affection, sociability,
Leung 2001 Motives ICQ Chat and escape
Instant Entertainment, information seeking,
messaging, Chat and interpersonal utility (for chat
Recchiuti 2003 Motives rooms, Email room, IM, and email)
Self-documentation, improving
writing, self-expression, medium
appeal, provide information, pass
Li 2005 Motives Blogs time, and socialization

 

32

Recall that Katz, et.al. (1974) in describing the elements of a uses and
gratiﬁcations model, stated that ‘the media compete with other sources, both
interpersonal and other media, for need satisfaction’. Ironically, in the present-day
lntemet age, SNS have blended interpersonal interaction and media, perhaps easing
competition among these sources and contributing to the vast popularity of such sites.
Despite this possibility, and the interesting intersection of SNS and uses and
gratiﬁcations, research in this area is meager.

One study that does examine SNSs is by Nyland and Near (2007). Nyland and
Near (2007) were interested in how religiosity, an individual difference variable,
mediated use of social networking software. Drawing their sample from users of a
variety of SNSs, they correlated scores on a measure of religiosity with the number of
SNS friends, time spent on SNS, and uses of SNS. They adapted 23 uses and
gratiﬁcations from previous intemet studies and used exploratory factor analysis to
determine factors. Five factors were found: to meet new people, to entertain, to maintain
relationships, to find out about social events, and for media creation, an element unique
to SNS. Overall they found that those who are more religious use SNS to connect with
friends or family members rather than to meet new people. Women tended to use SNS
more for ﬁnding information about social events, and youth (18-24) primarily used SNS
to maintain friendships and also to ﬁnd out about events. While respondents of the online
survey in this study could have been members of any SNS, the majority of the 184
respondents were myspace members with a small percent reporting F acebook or other
SNS membership. Because of this, Nyland and Near were unable to compare uses and

gratiﬁcations across social networking sites. Nyland and Near’s study mirrors the uses

33

and gratiﬁcations studies discussed above; the authors studied a subset of the intemet,
SNS, to determine the uses and gratiﬁcation factors related to SNS and the individual
difference variable, religiosity. While their results are interesting, they can not be
extrapolated to the general SNS user, including those who use Facebook.

Baumgamer’s 2006 undergraduate thesis similarly focused on SNS uses
and gratiﬁcations, although like the present study, his study speciﬁcally focused on
F acebook.com. Using an online survey, University of North Carolina undergraduates
ranked statements about F acebook motivations on a 1-5 Likert-style scale. The ranked
statements provided were based on a model created from a combination of McQuail’s
four motivations for uses and gratiﬁcations and Reiss’ 16 desires proposed by
Baumgamer in the literature review. Using principal components analysis, Baumgamer
found 8 factors and 9 motivations conﬁrming a proposed model of motivations for using
Facebook created from Reiss’ Sensitivity Theory, a psychology-based theory of
motivation that attempts to explain all human and animal motivation, both intrinsic and
extrinsic, in a set of 16 motives that are derived from what Reiss states are ‘basic desires’
(Reiss, 2004). Reiss claims that deviations in these motivations leads to mental health
issues or impairment in cognitive functioning (Reiss, 2004). However, this theory is not
speciﬁc to media use or selection.

Following conﬁrmation of a created model, Bumgamer examined his data for
other information and found that among his respondents, the ‘groups’ application of

Facebook does not rank very highly in importance; the friend and personal information

functions however, are highly important, ranking number one and two, respectively.

34

Baumgamer also concludes that people, mainly white women, use F acebook primarily to
gossip.

While this study does examine F acebook.com speciﬁcally, it does not follow the
methodology of uses and gratiﬁcations research as laid forth by Greenberg (1974) and
since replicated by researchers such as Charney and Greenberg (2000), Li (2005),
Papacharissi and Rubin (2000), and Sherry, et.al. (2006). Instead this study conﬁrms a
model created from Reiss’ Sensitivity Theory, a psychologically orientated theory not
created for the purpose of explaining media use, and void of the key assumptions that
make the uses and gratiﬁcations approach valuable to studying this new medium and the
communication possibilities it presents. It is therefore important to approach the study of
F acebook from the method popularized by Greenberg (1974), which in the ﬁrst stage,
allows for contributions from actual users to inform the subsequent typology through the
creation of gratiﬁcation statements.

Rationale

This study proposes to create a typology of F acebook motives following the uses
and gratiﬁcations methods of Greenberg (1974) and more recently, Charney and
Greenberg (2000), Li (2005), Papacharissi and Rubin (2000), and Sherry’s (2006)
exemplars. Although they have been criticized, it remains that typologies are still
important to uses and gratiﬁcations research, and further, to media research, as Ruggerio
states, “a typology of uses fumished a benchmark base of data for other studies to further
examine media use” (Ruggerio, 200, p. 12). Further, scholars (Lin, 1996; Ruggerio,
2000) note it is still the case that typologies of media in general, and certainly new media,

remain valuable in inquiry.

35

As discussed in the literature review, the uses and gratiﬁcations approach has
frequently been used in the study of both new and popular media and has been noted as a
“cutting edge” approach for studying and understanding the impact of new technologies
(Ruggerio, 2000, p. 27). Facebook is a complexly coded website that enables millions to
communicate daily in a multitude of ways. Understanding why people choose to use this
new media must come before determining the impact of messages available on F acebook.
The uses and gratiﬁcations perspective could serve to explain what motivates those who
use F acebook and in turn, perhaps shed light on F acebook’s immense popularity among
college students. As such, the following research questions and hypotheses were
proposed in the previous discussion:

Research Questions

RQI .' What are the uses and gratiﬁcations of F acebook for students

RQ2: What uses and gratiﬁcations predict time spent on F acebook?

RQ3: Do F acebook users report using F acebook as an alternative to other

communication channels?

Additionally, in order to further explain student use of the F acebook medium three
additional research questions related to the Facebook proﬁle, duration and frequency of
Facebook are proposed. They are as follows:

RQ4: What are the most important parts of the Facebook proﬁle?

RQ5.‘ What is the duration and frequency of Facebook use?

RQ6: Does duration and frequency of use differ across demographics of gender

and year in school?

Finally, hypotheses previously proposed in the manuscript are reviewed below.

36

Hypotheses:

H1: Communication/keep in touch uses and gratiﬁcations will predict F acebook

use.

H2: Entertainment uses and gratiﬁcations will better predict Facebook use than

information uses and gratiﬁcations.

H3 : Students with greater involvement with campus activities will spend less

time on F acebook.
Following the exemplar of Greenberg’s (1974) classic uses and gratiﬁcations research, a
two-stage method was used.

Preliminary Study Methods

Participants

Students in a basic level communication course at a large Midwestern university
completed an in-class self—administered survey on F acebook for course research credit.
Respondents’ majors represented all university colleges that enroll undergraduate
students. Out of the 195 surveys completed, 2 surveys were incomplete and 8 students
were not members of Facebook. These responses were not included in this preliminary
study. Of those surveyed, 185 students, or 96%, indicated they were members of
Facebook and were thus included in this preliminary study.

Measurement

Uses and Gratiﬁcation Categories

Following the methods of Sherry, et.al. (2006), Greenberg (1974), and Charney &
Greenberg (2002), this pre-study attempted to determine the self-reported reasons why

respondents like and use the medium in question, Facebook. These reasons will then be

37

used when creating items and dimensions for the main study. In this pre-study, a
combination of one closed-ended and two open-ended questions were asked. The closed-
ended question asked respondents to indicate what they have used F acebook for by
placing an ‘x’ on the line next to any of the applicable 13 statements of potential
Facebook uses based on observation of student use by other students, the researcher, and
university employees, as well as functions inherent in the software (i.e.: “to meet new
friends”, “to ﬁnd a date”, “add more photos”); this question and the accompanying
statements can be found in Appendix A. For the closed-ended questions, summary
ﬁgures and percentages were calculated and can be seen in Table 3. From the percentage
response information, the base statement was either placed in a category created from the

open-ended question analysis, for inclusion on the survey, or not.

 

Table 3
Responses to C losed-Ended Question, “I have used F acebook for the following. ”
Response Option Male Female Total

N % N % N %
Find out about a party 32 48% 70 59% 102 55%
Meet new friends 35 53% 61 51% 96 51%
Find out about campus events 24 36% 44 36% 68 36%
Adjust my proﬁle content 47 71% 100 84% I47 79%
Announce a party 22 33% 45 37% 67 36%
Contact someone for an ID 19 28% 30 25% 49 26%
Check facebook friends’ proﬁles 57 86% 1 13 94% 170 91%
Find a date 5 7% l .8% 6 3%
Find other people in my classes 45 68% 83 69% 128 69%

Find people who have taken my class previously 9 13% I9 16% 28 15%

Add more photos to my photo album 40 60% 96 80% 136 73%

 

38

Table 3 Continued

 

Lookup future roommate(s) proﬁles 19 28% 41 34% 60 32%

Check up on an ex-boyfriend/girlfriend 31 47% 85 71% 116 62%

 

The open-ended question that followed asked students what might be missing from this
list of uses and directed respondents to report other uses for which they have used
Facebook that were not already covered in the closed-ended question. The second open-
ended question related to liking of Facebook and asked, “What do you like about
Facebook?” Responses to these open-ended questions were analyzed following
unitization to determine the prevalent themes of Facebook motivations reported by
respondents.

Two coders were trained to unitize the open-ended content. Each coder unitized
the entire dataset. Rater reliability for this unitization was measured by calculating
Guetzkow’s U (1950) and was 0.012. In Guetzkow’s U, numbers closer to zero indicate
more agreement among coders, thus, the inter-rater reliability for unitizing was very
good, with coders agreeing on 96% of cases.

Categories were created with a method similar to that used by Sherry et.al. (2006)
and is as follows: each unit was written onto an index card; following this, a coder
independently read and sorted the units into prevalent themes, noting the themes
generated on a separate sheet of paper. The index cards were shufﬂed and the above
sorting process repeated by each of the three coders. The thematic lists generated by each
individual coder were then compared and inconsistencies were resolved through
discussion. Deﬁnitions for each proposed category were thoroughly discussed and

communally approved. Thus, the categories and their deﬁnitions were created. Although

39

this method is based on the principle of reliability, numerical assessments were not able
to be calculated.

Of the two open-ended questions, only 56% , or 105 respondents, provided one or
more statements for the ﬁrst question, “what else do you use Facebook for?” and nearly
all of the participants — 98%, or 182 respondents — provided one or more statements to
the second question, “why do you like Facebook?” The coder analysis described above
was performed for each question separately and revealed that responses for the ﬁrst and
second question were thematically alike. This could mean either that respondents are
unable to cognitively separate reasons why they use Facebook from reasons why they
like Facebook or that respondents were unable to comprehend the question as it was
worded. During coder analysis, responses by individual participants were not, however,
mutually exclusive, meaning some respondents could - and did — give the same response
for both questions. Due to these concerns, only the responses to the second question,
which had a 98% response rate, were used to create categories with the previously
described method. Statements from the closed-ended question were coded into these
categories based on the percentage of student response.

The resulting categories included directory function, diversion, communicate and
keep in touch, connect with network community, fun, surveillance, maintenance,
information, and functional replacement. These categories and example responses can be

seen in the following table. Deﬁnitions follow in the table below.

 

Table 4
Categories of Self-Rgmrted F acebook Uses.
Directory Function “It’s convenient if I need to ﬁnd someone’s contact info.”

40

Table 4 Continued

“Searching for someone you’ve just met, and liked, but
didn’t get a chance to get their number or screenname.”

“I can search people’s AIM name to ﬁnd their proﬁle (if I
don’t know their name)”

“If you can’t remember someone’s name, but you know an

organization they belong to or one of their friends.”

 

Diversion

“It takes me away from studying/”
“It wastes my time when it needs to be wasted.”
“It gives me something to do instead of being bored.”

“To procrastinate on homework or other activities.”

 

Communication/Keep in

Touch

“It lets me keep in touch with people I graduated from
high school with or met in class, but don’t see anymore.”
“To keep in contact with my loved ones that I’m not
around.”

“It keeps me connected with friends not just at MSU, but
all over the US.”

“[I use F acebook to] send messages on walls.”

“It’s an easy way to contact others without too much
commitment.”

“Lets me say a quick hello.”

 

Connect with Network

“It’s a way to grow closer as an MSU community.”

“Great way to be connected to students at your school.”

41

Table 4 Continued

“Keeps people networked who don’t get to see everyone
everyday.”

“Helps you meet or see others on campus because of how
the six degrees of separation are working.”

“See how other people know people you know.”

 

Entertainment

“It’s ” ...fun ....interesting ...entertaining ...cool

 

Surveillance

Maintenance Functions

“This seems stalkerish CD but to see what everyone else is
doing and compare my level of fun. . .to theirs.”

“You can see a lot about people’s lives, people who you
are curious about, but would never ask.”

“To see what my guy friends’ girlfriends are like.”
“Checking up on my ex’s new girlfriend.”

“I use Facebook to gain a better understanding of who
someone really is! By combining what they think of
themselves and their pictures, plus their comments, it
gives me a close representation of who the individual is.”
“To look up people you don’t like to see how bad they are
doing. Ex: ‘I don’t like her, good, she’s still single.”
“Seeing how people look from their pictures.”

“Add pictures to my photo album.”

“For me, updating my proﬁle is somewhat like trimming a

42

bonsai tree. Everyone I like knows roughly what I am up
to and that relaxes me.”
“Check my messages. I can’t describe the feeling I get

when I learn I have new messages.”

 

Information “To ﬁnd out what music everyone is listening to.”

“Sell tickets.”

 

Functional Replacement “I use Facebook in lieu of AOL IM.”

 

Directory. Many students in the closed-ended question — over 69% — reported using
Facebook as it was originally designed to be used: as a way to match faces to names and
ﬁnd contact information of classmates. F acebook may also be a middleman for
matchmaking: a few students reported using Facebook to ﬁnd the name of a cute
classmate.

Diversion. F acebook is a way to pass time. It helps many a student (n=31) put off doing
their homework for a little while longer. It was also reported by respondents that
Facebook can prevent boredom and aids in time wasting.

Communication/Keep in Touch. Keeping in touch with ﬁiends, whether they are old,
new, long-lost, from high school, middle school, and elementary school, in different
states, or at MSU, was overwhelmingly (n=51) the most cited reason for using Facebook.
F acebook offers a variety of communication methods, all of them ‘easy’ and ‘effortless,’
for students to use to keep in touch and make new ﬁ’iends.

Entertainment. Some students (n=26) report using and liking Facebook simply because

‘it’s fun,’ ‘interesting,’ or ‘entertaining.’ Facebook seems to provide an engaging

43

experience that is described by quite a bit as “addicting, like crack.” Entertainment is
also a commonly reported factor in previous intemet uses and gratiﬁcations studies.
Surveillance. The number of students reporting using Facebook for surveillance is
second only to keeping in touch. Many students readily volunteer that they use Facebook
to ‘check up’ on others — both people they know and those they don’t. In response to the
closed-ended questions, over 62% of students report using Facebook to learn more about
whom their ex-boyfriend/ girlfriend is dating. Facebook allows students to observe what is
going on in the lives of those also on Facebook. . .and 91% of students admit to watching
their friends in response to the closed-ended question, “I use Facebook to check up on my
friends”.

Maintenance Functions. Many students feel a F acebook proﬁle must be carefully
cultivated. In response to close ended questions, nearly 73% of students reported logging
onto Facebook to upload photos to their albums and 79% of respondents log on in order
to adjust their proﬁle information. Checking new messages was also reported to be a
reason for using Facebook.

Information. A few of the closed-ended questions asked whether students used Facebook
to ﬁnd out or provide information such as campus events or party announcements, and
several students wrote informational purposes, such as listing items on the classiﬁeds, or
ﬁnding out the latest book or music selections in their open-ended questions. Over 55%
of students reported using Facebook to ﬁnd out about a party but only 36% are using

F acebook to announce their parties.

Functional Replacement. Only one student mentioned using Facebook ‘in lieu of AOL

IM’. However, as reviewed earlier, some scholars (Ferguson & Perse, 2000) have used

44

the uses and gratiﬁcations approach to examine how then-new technologies replaced
older ones (i.e.: intemet replacing television). Thus this response, while unique, was
thought provoking and a category to query the functional replacement of Facebook was
created.

Students report using and liking Facebook for many diverse reasons, some of
which echo categories previously reported in other uses and gratiﬁcations studies of the
intemet such as entertainment, information, diversion, and communication. Some
categories found in this pre-study, however, show that Facebook allows students to
engage in behaviors previously unavailable to them, such as surveillance of friends,
former romantic partners, and family; and maintaining an interactive and public intemet
proﬁle of themselves. That some of the uses and gratiﬁcations reported by students in
this pro-study are unique to Facebook emphasizes the importance of studying this new
and popular aspect of the intemet through a theoretical perspective. The primary study
described below seeks to ﬁll the current knowledge gap by explaining how college
students are using Facebook; the most common uses for F acebook; and what
gratiﬁcations are derived from F acebook by invoking the uses and gratiﬁcations
approach.

Pilot Test Methods and Results
Pilot Test

The uses and gratiﬁcations Likert-style questions listed in Appendix B were pilot
tested and analyzed with exploratory factor analysis to determine factor structure and
item validity prior to inclusion in the online primary survey.

Participants

45

Students in a large lecture communication course at a big Midwestern university
completed an in-class self-administered survey comprised of the Facecbook uses and
gratiﬁcations items listed in Appendix B for course research credit. Respondents’ also
reported demographics. Of the 189 students surveyed, 27.5% (n=52) were males, and
69% (n=130) were females and 4% (n=7) did not provide their sex. The average age of
the sample was 20.03 (SD=1.65), 22% of the sample were Freshmen, 28% Sophomores,
28.5% Juniors, and 20% seniors, 1.5% did not provide their year in school.
Communication was cited by 68% percent of students as their major. Finally, the
majority of the students surveyed (64.5%) joined Facebook before they were in college.
Exploratory Factor Analysis

Data collected from participants was subjected i0 exploratory factor analysis
using SPSS data reduction. A 9-factor Principal Components Factor extraction method
with Varimax rotation was found to be the best ﬁt for the data. Factors retained had
Eigenvalues greater than 2.00 and items that loaded two or more times higher on a single
factor were retained. There were 48 items that met these requirements; 10 items did not
load highly or cleanly and thus were removed from inclusion in the future survey; 10
items loaded moderately on two or more factors and so were re-worded for the future
survey.

The nine factors that emerged from this analysis are as follows: pleasurable way
to spend time, social information, utilities and upkeep, channel use, marketplace,
maintain/establish old ties, social comparison, sexual attraction and interconnectedness.
The table below lists the items that loaded on these factors, their means and standard

deviations. These factors and item groupings helped inform the primary study and were

46

considered the a priori factors in analysis discussion. For some of these factors,

additional items were created for the future survey in order to ensure four or more items

for factor analysis, a complete listing of the items used in the subsequent online survey

are listed under their factor in Appendix C.

 

 

 

 

£2321: ’SMeans, Standard Deviations and Factor Loadings Listed by Factor
Factor
Item Loading Mean SD
FACTOR l Pleasurable way to spend time
I use Facebook just to waste time. .690 3.67 1.07
Using Facebook is enjoyable. .626 3.77 .987
I use Facebook because it’s interesting. .655 3.66 1.00
When I’m using Facebook, I’m entertained. .648 3.39 1.05
For me, Facebook prevents boredom. .673 3.31 1.13
When I’m on Facebook, time ﬂies by. .647 3.33 1.09
I use F acebook because it’s fun. .585 3.73 .976
I use F acebook when I don’t want to study. .521 3.95 1.10
I use F acebook to pass the time. .661 3.86 .985
FACTOR 2 Utilities and Upkeep
I log onto F acebook to see my photo comments. .543 3.51 1.06
I log onto F acebook to check messages. .668 3.41 1.12
I use Facebook to post photos in my album. .504 3.24 1.36
I log onto Facebook to add more applications to
my proﬁle. .458 2.13 1.05
I log onto Facebook to update my proﬁle. .554 3.06 1.06
I log onto F acebook to read my wall comments. .605 3.81 1.07
I use F acebook to send a message. .599 3.41 .977
I log onto Facebook to check my messages from
other people. .686 3.50 1.05
FACTOR 3 Channel Use

47

Table 5 Continued

I use F acebook to keep in touch with family

 

 

 

members. .540 2.54 1.10

I use Facebook instead of texting. .633 2.48 1.00

I use F acebook instead of the phone. .524 2.40 1.05

I use Facebook to let people know I’m thinking

about them. .505 2.99 1.10

I use F acebook instead of email. .569 2.74 1.09

Instead of talking to someone face to face, I just

use Facebook. .571 2.62 1.10
FACTOR 4 Maintain/Establish old ties

Using F acebook is a great way to contact out-of-

state ﬁ'iends. .653 4.14 .960

I use F acebook to ﬁnd out what high school

classmates are up to now. .657 3.34 1.06

I use Facebook to keep in touch with High

School friends. .720 3.47 1.05

I use F acebook to keep in contact with old

friends. .661 3.68 1.09
FACTOR 5 Interconnectedness

I use Facebook to look at pictures of my friends’

friends. .657 3.24 1.13

I like to see if my friends and I have friends in

common. .489 3.1 1 1.06

I use F acebook to look at the photo albums of

people I kind of know. .499 3.24 1.02

I use F acebook to help me put faces to names. .433 3.00 1.07

I like to see who knows who on Facebook. .420 2.98 1.02
FACTOR 6 Social Comparison

I use Facebook to see if others are doing better

than me. .699 2.32 1.03

48

Table 5 Continued

 

I use F acebook to check up on an ex-

 

 

 

 

boyfriend/girlﬁ'iend. .535 2.80 1 .27

I use Facebook to get gossip about others. .510 2.94 1.19

I learn about how much other students drink

from Facebook. .434 2.54 1.18

I use Facebook to see if others are having more

funthanlam. .641 2.15 1.10

I use Facebook to see if others are doing worse

than me. .719
FACTOR 7 Marketplace

Through F acebook, I’ve made new friends. .543 2.49 1.18

I use Facebook for the classiﬁed ads. .726 1.55 .938

I use F acebook to sell stuff. .709 1.49 .993

I use F acebook to buy stuff. .666 1.29 .746

I use F acebook to collect a large number of

“friends”, even if they are people I don’t know. .499 1.81 .989
FACTOR 8 Social Information

I use Facebook to ﬁnd email addresses or

screennames. .550 2.88 1.14

I use F acebook to see who lives by me. .531 1.98 .928

I use Facebook to ﬁnd a classmates’ contact

information. .441 2.96 l .08
FACTOR 9 Sexual Attraction

I use Facebook to look at the proﬁle of someone

I ﬁnd attractive. .596 3.44 1.03

I use Facebook to look at the proﬁle of someone

I hooked up with. .536 2.89 1.20
CROSS-LOADING ITEMS

I get ideas about what everyone is watching, reading or

listening to from F acebook. 2.28 .995

49

Table 5 Continued

 

 

I use F acebook to look at friends’ photo albums. 4.18 .921
I use Facebook instead of IM. 3.10 1.18
I use F acebook to leave a wall comment. 3.95 1.00
F acebook is a good way for me to network with others. 3.22 1.15
I use Facebook to ﬁnd old friends I’ve lost touch with. 3.23 1.06
I log on to check my messages from other people. 3.50 1.05
I use F acebook to ﬁnd out about a party. 3.22 1.08
I use Facebook to know more about people I just met. 3.33 1.19
I keep tabs on my friends through F acebook. 3.19 1.06
REMOVED ITEMS

I use F acebook to announce a party 2.89 1.18
Facebook makes it easy to contact others without too

much commitment. 3.47 .987
I use F acebook to congratulate, wish ‘happy birthday’ or

say ‘good luck’ to my friends. 3.81 1.02
I use Facebook to leave comments for people I don’t see

often. 3.26 1.01
I use Facebook to ﬁnd other people in my classes. 2.74 1.00
Facebook makes it simple to maintain friendships. 3.28 .964
Facebook is an easy way to contact people without much

effort. 3.50 1.08
Facebook brings people together. 3.25 1.04
I use Facebook to ﬁnd out about campus events. 2.96 1.09
F acebook is a good way to connect with others at MSU. 3.50 1.10

 

Participants

Primary Study Methods

Participants were students enrolled in communication courses at a large,

Midwestern university. Participation in the online survey was voluntary and students

50

were solicited using an online research management program, Experimetrix. This
program provided participants with a secure link to the survey hosted by Survey Monkey
(www.5urveymonkey.com), an online data collection website from which students
completed their survey. Online data collection and management software is highly
appropriate for this study, as those who are members of an online SNS such as Facebook
would be familiar with using an interactive website.

Using this method, 346 responses were collected. Of these responses, 1
respondent indicated they did not grant consent for participation, and 5 respondents had
completed less than 15% of the survey questions. As a few students had reported to the
researcher issues with intemet connection in their initial attempts at the survey, it could
be possible that these 5 responses indicated the ﬁrst failed attempt, followed by a later
successful attempt. These responses were therefore not included in the data analysis,
bringing the total sample size used in analysis to 340.

Measurement
Uses and Gratiﬁcations

Results from the pilot test exploratory factor analysis were used to create the
online survey for the primary uses and gratiﬁcations study. These items are listed by
factor in Appendix C. For each item, respondents indicated how often they use F acebook
for that reason on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 =
all the time).

Most Entertaining/Informative/ Useful Part of Proﬁle
Previous media research has suggested that three overarching motives for media

use exist: entertainment, information, and usefulness. In order to determine which parts

51

of the Facebook proﬁle ﬁt these motives created from conventional media, six total
questions were asked of students. Each question asked students to identify the ﬁve parts
of the F acebook proﬁle that they believe are the “most” entertaining, informative, or
useful to them. Three of the questions asked this in relation to their own proﬁle; three
asked this in relation to others’ Facebook proﬁles.
Time Spent on F acebook

To assess the amount of time participants spend on F acebook, four questions were
asked: ﬁrst, an open-ended item requesting participants to estimate the number of times
they log onto Facebook within an average day was asked. The second open-ended
question asked participants to report the average amount of time spent on F acebook one
log-in session. The next question asked participants to report the single longest span of
time they have ever spent on Facebook in one session, in order to provide a description of
the full range of time that students can and have spent on Facebook. Students selected
their answer to this question using a drop down menu for hours and minutes. Possible
options for hours were in excess of 25, and minute selections were in 10-minute
increments. Finally, students were asked how much time they spend on F acebook during
an average day, again using drop-down menus with options for hours (0-15 hours) and
minutes (in lS-minute increments).
Involvement with Campus Activities

To determine involvement with campus activities, respondents were ﬁrst asked to
estimate the number of campus activities they participated in during the previous
semester. Students were asked to count activities ranging from volunteer groups and

research teams to intramural sports clubs and Greek memberships. Two separate

52

questions using drop-down menus asked students to estimate the time spent, in hours, on
their activities and working at a job per week.
Demographic Questions

Demographic questions included year in school, sex, age, major, whether they
live in on/off campus housing, and Greek membership.

Results

Demographics

Respondents’ majors represented all university colleges that enroll undergraduate
students, however more than half of the sample, or 51%, reported a major within the
College of Communication Arts and Sciences. The 340 respondents ranged in age ﬁ'om
18 — 32, with a mean age of 20.26 (SD=1.69); 122 (35%) were males and 214 (62%)

were females (4 unknown). Table 6 below shows respondents’ year in school by their

 

 

 

sex.
Table 6
Year in School 1;}! Sex
Sex

Year in School Male Female Total
Freshman 42 52 94
Sophomore 25 43 68
Junior 31 51 82
Senior 23 66 89
Total: 121 213 333+

 

+4 “no responses” for sex were not included in this table: 2 juniors, l freshman, 1 ‘other’;
3 students did not provide their year in school.

The majority of respondents were not afﬁliated with Greek organizations (n=288, 84.7%)

and lived off campus (n=184, 54%).

53

All respondents were members of Facebook, with 69% joining before coming to
college. The percentage of students who were not members of F acebook before coming
to college increased by the year in school, with Freshmen having the lowest percentage
(3%) and Seniors having the greatest (75%). The following table shows Facebook

membership before college by year in school and sex.

 

 

 

Table 7
F acebook Membership Before College by Year in School and Sex
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
Before
College Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Male 39 3 l6 9 23 8 4 19
Female 52 0 38 5 42 9 18 47
97% 3% 79% 21% 79% 21% 25% 75%
n=332

RQI : What are the uses and gratiﬁcations of F acebook for students?

Results for this research question were analyzed in stages following the exemplar
of Charney and Greenberg (2002). First, the reliability of the a priori factors found from
the pre-test EFA (see Appendix C for item by factor listing) was examined. Reliabilities
calculated for the a priori factors were found to create generally reliable groupings, with
alpha reliabilities ranging from .83 to .91. In addition, means of these factors and items
were examined to determine what participants report most often using Facebook for.
Table 8 below contains the alpha reliabilities for the a priori factors as well as the means
and standard deviations for these factors, listed in descending order of factor mean, with
the highest being pleasureable way to spend time, (M=3.87, SD=.72). A complete list of

individual item standardized factor loadings, means, and standard deviations listed by

factor can be found in Appendix E.

54

Table 8

A Priori Factor Reliabilities, Means, and Standard Deviations

 

 

A Priori Factor a M SD
Time .917 3.87 .72
Utilities and Upkeep .871 3.56 .68
Maintain/Establish old ties .858 3.64 .67
Social Information .834 3.23 .70
Interconnectedness .853 3. 14 .72
Sexual Attraction .898 3.06 1.04
Channel Use .833 2.79 .78
Social Comparison .863 2.24 .79
Marketplace .828 1 .48 .58

 

Secondly, these a priori factors were subjected to conﬁrmatory factor analysis in

AMOS to conﬁrm whether the items associated best with the factors. The resulting

measures of ﬁt for each factor are presented in Table 9 below. The presented measures

of ﬁt were based on the suggestions from Klein (2005) who states that chi-square, the

Steger-Lind root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with 90% conﬁdence

interval, Bentler’s comparative ﬁt index (CFI), and standardized root mean square

residual (SRMR) are the minimal indices that should be reported in CFA. In a lecture on

structural equation modeling and CF A, Dr. Alexander Von Eye (lecture, October 20,

2005) recommends reporting additional ﬁt indices: the goodness-of—ﬁt index (GFI, range

0-1 .0), adjusted GFI (can range outside 0-1.0, higher values equal better ﬁt), normed ﬁt

index (N FI, sample based), and relative chi-square (CMIN/df, values greater than 2 and

up to 5 are considered best). As Klein (2005) notes that model ﬁt is often assessed based

on the values of multiple measures of ﬁt, all of the aforementioned indices were reported

in the table below. As can be seen from this table, some of the a priori factors, such as

time, utilities and upkeep, marketplace, old ties, and sexual attraction do not ﬁt the data

55

very well while others, such as interconnectedness, channel use, and social comparison,
have many acceptable indicators of ﬁt. Thus, it was necessary to respecify these factors

in an attempt to better ﬁt the data.

 

 

Table 9
CFA F it lndices for A Priori Factors
A Priol‘i P RMSEA
Factor x2 (dj) val. CMIN/df GFI AGFI NFI CFI RMSEA 90% (:1
Sexual 29.27 .088-
Attl'action (5) .000 5.85 .963 .890 .972 .976 .120 .163
66.03 .080-
Old Ties (14) .000 4.72 .946 .892 .931 .948 .105 .131
51.89 .088-
Marketplace (9) .000 5.77 .946 .873 .926 .938 .l 19 .151
46.33 .039-
Interconnected (20) .001 2.32 .969 .944 .959 .976 .062 .086
145.19 .1 16-
Social Info (20) .000 7.26 .907 .832 .838 .856 .136 .157
34.92 .039-
Channel Use (14) .002 2.49 .970 .941 .953 .971 .066 .094
Social 3494 .077-
Comparison (20) .000 4.25 .93 8 .889 .925 .941 .098 . 120
333.08 .166-
Time (27) .000 12.34 .754 .590 .840 .851 .183 .20]
Utilities and 150.42 .098-
Upkeep (27) .000 5.57 .908 .847 .883 .901 .116 .135

 

In his text, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Klein (2005)
states that respeciﬁcation in CFA should be guided more by substantive considerations
than by empirical considerations. With the exception of the Utilities and Upkeep factor
(new ﬁt statistics: {(14) = 47.74, p<.00, CMIN = 3.41, GFI = .961, AGFI = .922, NFI =
.951, CF I = .965, RMSEA = .084), factor models were unable to be respeciﬁed to more
acceptably ﬁt the data as substantive reasoning to make changes suggested by AMOS’

modiﬁcation indices was lacking. Factor models with the poorest ﬁts across many

56

indices, Time and Social Information, could not be changed as advised by the
modiﬁcation indices without substantive reasoning for the changes. As this is an
exploratory study, limited substantive reasoning exists for changing factor structure. It
could be that items were incorrectly modeled to their factors.

Thus, to determine item groupings on factors, a 9-factor principal components
extraction with Varimax rotation EFA of the data was conducted in SPSS to determine
item and factor patterns. All 9 factors had Eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and an item’s
factor loading must have been at least 1.5 times greater for inclusion on a factor. This
criterion resulted in a minimum factor loading of .53 for most items, with three
exceptions (two items on Factor 9 and one item on Factor 8) that can be seen in the table
below. The factors that emerged from this EFA had generally reliable scales, ranging
from .80 - .91, with the exception of the Network factor (a = .60) which was excluded
from further analysis. Results from this EF A can be seen in Table 10. Klein (2005)
notes that it is “not entirely appropriate to conduct a CFA following an EF A using the
same data” because of calculation properties of both methods (p. 204), therefore CFA
was not run on the factors that emerged from this second EF A.

The ﬁrst and largest factor, Pass Time, had an eigenvalue of 21 .85, explained
32.61% of the variance, and had a reliability of .91. This factor had 6 items with an
average loading of .759. The mean score for items on this factor was 3.84 on a 5-point
scale with items ranging from 3.55 (make time ﬂy by) to 3.88 (don’t want to study, to
pass time). All items originally comprised the a priori factor, pleasureable way to spend
time, but since items indicating “fun”, “enjoyment”, and “interesting” were dropped in

the EF A, the factor was relabeled Pass Time.

57

Connection was the second strongest factor, with an eigenvalue of 5.27 and
accounted for 7.87% of the variance. This grouping had 7 items with an average loading
of .628 and an alpha reliability of .90. The mean score for items on this factor was 3.21,
with items ranging from 3.05 (see where people know each other from) to 3.67 (know
more about people I just met). The majority of items on this factor came from the a priori
Interconnectedness factor, with 2 items coming from the a priori Social Information
factor.

Romantic and Sexual Attraction was the next strongest factor, with an eigenvalue
of 3.36 accounting for 5.01% of the variance. Six items comprised this factor, with an
average loading of .683 and an alpha reliability of .90. The average score for items on
this factor is 2.99, making it just below the scale midpoint of 3. Item means for this
factor ranged from 2.43 (look at the proﬁle of someone I’d like to make outwith) to 3.50
(look at proﬁle of someone attractive). All but one item: to check up on an ex-
boyfriend/girlfriend, were part of the a priori Sexual Attraction factor.

The fourth strongest factor in terms of eigenvalue (2.17) and percent variance
explained (3.24%) was Utilities and Upkeep. This factor was comprised of 5 items, with
an average loading of .559 and a reliability of .80. Most items on this factor came from
the a priori factor of the same name, the exception being an item coming from the a priori
Channel Use factor. The mean score for items on this factor is 3.06, and item means
ranged from 2.25 (add more applications) to 3.50 (see my photo comments).

To Establish/Maintain Old Ties was the ﬁfth strongest factor with an eigenvalue
of 1.97 and accounting for 2.94% of variance. This factor however, had the second

highest mean score, M=3.67, with item averages ranging from 3.51 (track down old

58

friends) to 3.81 (contact out-of-state friends). The Establish/Maintain Old Ties factor is
consists of 6 items with an average loading of .682 and with a=.82. All items from this
factor came from the a priori grouping of the same name.

Accumulation was the sixth strongest factor, with an eigenvalue of 1.77 and
accounting for 2.65% of the variance, however this factor had the lowest mean score
across all 5 items, M=1.46, with individual item means differing little from this number.
On a 5-point scale, this mean score indicates that students do not use Facebook very
frequently for Accumulation reasons but that their scores identify it as a coherent factor in
their minds. The average loading for the items on this factor was .703 and alpha
reliability was .83. All items on this factor came from the a priori grouping of the same
name.

The seventh strongest factor, Social Comparison, accounted for 2.52% of the
variance and had an eigenvalue of 1.69. This factor contained 5 items with an average
score for items on this factor of 2.04, ranging from 1.96 (see if others are doing worse
than me) to 2.33 (see if others are looking better than I am). Average factor loading for
the items on this factor was .677 and reliability for this factor was .83. With the
exception of one item which came from the a priori Marketplace grouping, all items on
this factor were from the a priori grouping of the same name.

Channel Use was the eighth strongest factor, with an eigenvalue of 1.35 and
accounting for 2.02% of the variance. This factor consisted of 5 items, with the mean
score for items on this factor of 3.08, and individual item means ranging from 2.45

(instead of the phone) to 3.19 (instead of email). The average factor loading for items on

59

this factor was .624 and reliability for this factor was .88. All items on this factor were

from the a priori grouping of the same name.

As mentioned previously, a ninth factor, Network emerged with an eigenvalue of

1.20 and accounting for 1.78% of the variance. The 3 items that comprised this factor

had an average score for items of 3.08 but had a low reliability of .599, excluding it from

regression analyses in future RQ2, H1, and H2. A correlation matrix of these 9 factors

can be seen below.

 

 

Table 10 .
Correlation Matrix of Facebook Uses and Gratiﬁcations Factors
Util. & Old Social Channel

Connect. Attract. Upk. Ties Accum. Comp. Use Network
Time .539 " .483 " .482 " .375 " .074 .329 " .416” .328 "
Connection .622 " .628" .504" .352 " .557 " .529 " .524"
Attraction .492 " .370 ” .305 " .592 " .406 " .505"
Utilities & ﬁt #0 #0 ﬁt it
Upkeep .515 287 51 1 .563 472
Old Ties 214 ” 328 " 471 " 431 “
Accumulation 463 " .322 " 356 "
Social " ..
Comparison 476 .443
Channel Use .465 ..

 

Thus 8 factors emerged as the basic uses and gratiﬁcations for Facebook use. The

research questions and hypotheses that follow further explore Facebook use.

 

 

Table 11
EFA Resultsfor Online Survey Data

Factor Item Mean Loading 0. Eigen % Var
Factor 1 Pass Time 3.84 .905 21.85 32.61
Pl. Time to pass the time .872
P1. Time to make time ﬂy by. .793
P1. Time just to waste time. .777

60

Table 1 1 Continued

Pl. Time
Pl. Time
Pl. Time

Factor 2
Interconn
Interconn
Interconn
Interconn
Interconn
Soc. Info

Soc. Info

Factor 3
Attract
Attract

Attract

Attract

Attract

Soc.Comp

Factor 4
U & U
U & U
U & U
Channel

U&U

Factor 5
Old Ties
Old Ties

when I'm bored.
when I don’t want to study.

to be entertained.

Connection 3 .2 1

to see how everyone is connected.

to see where people know each other from.

to see if my friends and I know the same people.
to see who knows who.

to see who my friends and I have in common.

to know more about people I just met.

to help me put faces to names.

Sexual Attraction 2.99

look at the proﬁle of someone I'd like to date.
to look at the proﬁle of someone I think is hot.

to look at the proﬁle of someone I'd like to make

out with.

to look at the proﬁle of someone I hooked up with.

to look at the proﬁle of someone I think is

attractive.

to check up on an ex-boyfriend/girlfriend.

Utilities and Upkeep 3.06

to update my proﬁle.

to add more applications to my proﬁle.

to see my photo comments.

to let people know I’m thinking about them.

to post photos in my album.

Establish/Maintain Old Ties 3.67

to keep in touch with High School friends.
to keep in contact with old friends.

61

.760
.757
.595

.690
.664
.659
.612
.610
.590
.576

.756
.754

.726
.687

.617
.563

.649
.554
.538
.532
.525

.817
.810

.899

.898

.800

.817

5.27

3.36

2.17

1.97

7.87

5.01

3.24

2.65

Table 1 1 Continued

Old Ties
Old Ties

Old Ties
Old Ties

Factor 6
Market
Market
Market
Market
Market

Factor 7

Soc.Comp
Soc.Comp
Soc.Comp

Soc.Comp
Market

Factor 8
Channel
Channel
Channel

Channel
Channel

Factor 9
Interconn
Interconn

Soc. Info

to maintain old friendships.
to track down old friends.
to contact out-of-state friends.

to ﬁnd out what high school classmates are up to

now.

Accumulation l .46

to list or buy used textbooks.
to sell stuff.

to ﬁnd a place to live.

for the classiﬁed ads.

to buy stuff.

Social Comparison 2.04

to see if others are doing worse than me.

to see if others are doing better than me.

to see if others are having more fun than I am.
to see if others are looking better than I am.

to "friend" people I don't know, just to have a

large number of Facebook friends.

Channel Use 3.08

instead of the phone.

instead of texting.

instead of Instant Messenger.
instead of email.

instead of talking to someone face to face

Network 3.08

to make new friends
to network with others.

to ﬁnd a party.

.679
.612
.596

.581

.824
.780
.653
.646
.615

.752
.729
.644
.639

.622

.696
.680
.675
.630
.439

.609
.503
.432

.828

.825

.878

.599

1.77

l .69

1.35

1.20

2.65

2.52

2.02

1.79

 

62

RQ2: What uses and gratiﬁcations predict time spent on F acebook?

The 8 factors from the EFA with reliable scales were used in multiple regression
analyses to determine which, if any, factors predict time spent on F acebook. Items within
each factor were summed to create 8 individual scales. These 8 factors were regressed
onto the dependent variable of average time spent on F acebook per day (r = .441) and the
model was signiﬁcant, F (9)=9.52, p<.00, R2 = .194. Tolerance and VIF statistics were
within an acceptable range for all variables, indicating no issues with multicollinearity
among the independent variables. Results shown in the regression table below indicate
that frequency of Facebook use for the purposes of simply passing time (B=.130) and
exploring social connection (B=.213) have signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the amount of time, in
minutes, spent daily on F acebook. Both frequency of F acebook use for Channel
selection ([3=.128) and the purpose of using utilities or updating proﬁle, Utilities and
Upkeep (B = .128), are close to signiﬁcant inﬂuences on time spent daily.

Table 12

Summary of Regression Analysis for Predicting Average Daily Time on F acebook ﬁom
Uses Factors

 

Variable B SE B B t p

Pass Time 2.07 1.03 .130 2.01 .045‘
Connected 2.92 1.09 .213 2.67 0013’
Sexual Attr. -1.27 .924 -.098 -1.37 .172
Utilities and Upkeep 2.62 1.37 .139 1.90 .058
Old Ties -.520 1.16 -.028 -.450 .653
Accumulation -.258 1.52 -.010 -.170 .865
Soc. Compare .601 1.21 .036 .498 .619

2.30 1.20 .128 1.92 .056

 

Channel
j indicates signiﬁcance

63

RQ3: Do F acebook users report using Facebook as an alternative to other
communication channels?

Chi-square analysis was used to determine if a difference existed between the
number of users reporting frequent use of Facebook instead of other communication
channels and the number of users who reported rare or no use of Facebook instead of
other channels. For each of the ﬁve “functional alternative” uses items (“I use Facebook
instead of . . .” text, phone, instant messenger, email and face to face communication),
responses indicating “often” and “all the time” use of F acebook for the item were
combined into a “frequent use” category. Responses indicating that F acebook was used
“rarely” or “not at all” as an alternative to the speciﬁed channel were combined into a
“rarely” category. For each item, the number of students reporting frequent or rare use
was compared using Chi-square tests.

As can be seen in Table 13 below, Chi-square analysis revealed that respondents
rarely replaced text messaging, phone calls, Instant Messenger or face to face
communication with Facebook (see table for x2 values). However, a Chi—square analysis
indicated that the difference between the number of students reporting frequent and rare
use of Facebook instead of email was signiﬁcant, x2(l , N=239)=.11.75, p<. 00, such that

students report frequently using Facebook instead of email.

64

TABLE 13
Chi-Square Analysis of the Diﬁkrence in Reported Channel Use

 

 

 

Channel n Rarely Frequently (if x
Text 232 176 56 1 62.01‘
Phone 223 171 52 1 6350’
Instant Messenger 230 138 92 1 920‘
Email 239 93 146 1 11.75"
Face to Face 209 127 82 1 969‘

indicates signiﬁcance at p<.05

RQ4: What are parts of others’ F acebook proﬁles do students consider most entertaining,
informative and useﬁll? Conversely, what parts of their own proﬁles do students
consider most entertaining, informative, and useful?

To determine which parts of their own and others’ proﬁles students considered
most entertaining, informative, and useful, six separate questions in the survey asked
students to indicate as answer choices the ﬁve sections of a Facebook proﬁle they found
to be “most” entertaining, informative, or useful for both their own and others’ proﬁles.
See Appendix D for these six questions. In the online survey program, it was not
possible to prevent students ﬁom choosing duplicate responses within one question.
Therefore, in the online survey, it was possible for a respondent to have provided the
same response choice (for example, “the Wall”) ﬁve times for one question (for example,
“On others’ proﬁles, what ﬁve sections do you ﬁnd most entertaining?”). In order to
provide a clear picture of the data it was important to ensure that no duplicate responses
on a question by an individual were calculated in the frequencies. Before frequency

counts were calculated, data were combed and duplicate responses for an individual

65

respondent on a question were removed. The number of duplicate responses removed
ranged from 6-15 for the six questions. In this manner, the remaining responses from
those individuals were able to be retained without losing respondents’ other answer
choices. Frequencies for the number of people selecting sections as one of the “most”
across the qualities of entertainment, informative, and usefulness and proﬁle ownership

(others’, own) as well as percentage of cases can be seen in Tables 14-16 below.

 

 

 

Table 14
Frequency of Responses for Most Entertaining Proﬁle Sections by Proﬁle Ownership
Entertaining
Section of Proﬁle 9m O_wn_
n % cases 11 % cases

Proﬁle Photo 264 77.9 204 60.4
Status 162 47.8 114 33.7
Networks 12 4. l 1 6 4.7
Hometown 20 5.9 l 2 3 .6
Rel. Status 148 43.7 34 10.1
Looking For 34 10.0 16 4.7
Groups 35 10.3 88 26.0
Application 51 15.0 13 5 39.9
Wall 267 78.8 232 68.6
Friends Else 17 5.0 21 6.2
MSU Friend 53 15.6 34 10.]
Photo Album 251 74.0 245 72.5
Mini Feed 73 21.5 73 21.6
Work Info 13 3 .8 10 3.0
Ed Info 10 2.9 10 3.0
Activities 21 6.2 62 18.3
Interests 57 l 6.8 8 1 24.0
Fave Quote 52 15.3 92 27.2
Fave Books 4 1.2 12 3.6
Fave Movies 8 2.4 19 5.6
Fave TV 5 1.5 13 3.8
Fave Music 17 5.0 32 9.5
About Me 91 26.8 99 29.3

 

66

Table 14 Continued

 

 

 

 

Contact Info 7 2.1 1 1 3.3
N Cases 339 338
N Responses 1674 1665
Table 15
Frequency of Responses for Most Informative Proﬁle Sections by Proﬁle Ownership
Informative
Section of Proﬁle Q_tl‘1_e1_'§ gum
n % cases it % cases

Proﬁle Photo 73 21.5 160 47.5
Status 122 36.0 127 37.7
Networks 60 1 7.7 63 18.7
Hometown 77 22.7 64 19.0
Rel. Status 122 36.0 113 33.5
Looking For 31 9.1 18 5.3
Groups 31 9.1 42 12.5
Application 10 2.9 24 7. 1
Wall 132 38.9 154 45.7
Friends Else 8 2.4 7 2.1
MSU Friend 29 8.6 43 12.8
Photo Album 87 25.7 1 10 32.6
Mini Feed 95 28.0 69 20.5
Work Info 68 20.1 64 19.0
Ed Info 108 31.9 92 27.3
Activities 109 32.2 76 22.6
Interests 148 43 .7 134 39.8
Fave Quote 29 8.6 38 11.3
Fave Books 24 7.1 12 3.6
Fave Movies 21 6.2 20 5.9
Fave TV 12 3.5 12 3.6
Fave Music 32 9.4 29 8.6
About Me 174 51.3 122 36.2
Contact Info 80 23.6 77 22.8
N Cases 339 337
N Responses 1682 I670

 

67

 

Table 16
Frequency of Responses for Most Useful Proﬁle Sections by Proﬁle Ownership

 

 

 

Useful
Others O_wn
Section of Proﬁle n % cases n % cases

Proﬁle Photo 133 39.5 1 10 31.5
Status 128 38.0 1 16 34.5
Networks 63 I 8.7 74 22.0
Hometown 43 12.8 41 12.2
Rel. Status 112 33.2 65 19.3
Looking For 46 13.6 19 5.7
Groups 45 13.4 45 13 .4
Application 28 8.3 50 14.9
Wall 185 54.9 178 53.0
Friends Else 15 4.5 29 8.6
MSU Friend 60 17.8 72 21.4
Photo Album 110 32.6 103 30.7
Mini Feed 78 23.1 83 24.7
Work Info 60 17.8 70 20.8
Ed Info 75 22.3 95 28.3
Activities 76 22.6 76 22.6
Interests 93 27.6 106 3 1 .5
Fave Quote 17 5.0 20 6.0
Fave Books 12 3.6 16 4.8
Fave Movies 5 1.5 9 2.7
Fave TV 6 1.8 5 1.5
Fave Music 12 3.6 19 5.7
About Me 122 36.2 1 10 32.7
Contact Info 140 41.5 155 46.1
N Cases 337 336

N Responses 1664 1662

 

As can be seen in Table 14 above, for other’s proﬁles, the Wall (78.8%) was most
frequently ranked by respondents (n=339) as one of the most entertaining sections, with
proﬁle picture (77.9%), and photo album (74%) coming close behind. In terms of their
own proﬁles, the majority of respondents (72.5%, n=338) named their photo album as

one of the most entertaining sections with the Wall (68.6%) and proﬁle picture (60.4%)

being nearly as popular responses.

68

A little over half of respondents selected the “About Me” section (51.3%, n=339)
as one of the most informative sections on others’ proﬁles, with the interests section
(43.7%) and the Wall (38.9%) being second and third most selected sections. On their
own proﬁles, the proﬁle picture was selected by the greatest number as one of the most
informative sections (47.5%) with the Wall being almost as popular as a selection
(45.7%) among respondents.

The most useful sections for both one’s own proﬁle and others’ proﬁle had
similar frequency of selections. The Wall was the most frequently selected section, with
more than half of respondents selecting it as one of the most useful sections for both own
and others’ proﬁles (54.9% and 53%, respectively). Likewise, the contact information
section was the second most selected section for usefulness in both own and others’
proﬁles, with 46% of respondents indicating it as a most useﬁll section in their own
proﬁle and 41.5% of respondents noting it as a most useful section in others’ proﬁles.
The “About Me”, proﬁle photo, status, and photo album sections also had similar
selection percentages across others’ and own proﬁles by respondents, with 31 — 40%

indicating these were one of the most useﬁll sections.

RQ5: What is the duration and frequency of F acebook use?

Two open-ended questions were used to assess the duration and frequency of
typical F acebook behavior. For frequency, students reported logging into F acebook an
average 5.56 times per day (n=339, SD=5.45), with the reported number of log-ins per
day ranging from 0-50. See Figure A below for a bar graph illustrating this range. In
terms of duration, 17.4 minutes (n=339, SD=16.8) was the average time spent on

Facebook during one log-on session, with responses ranging from 0-180 minutes.

69

 

70

 

 

 

Count

MissingO12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101215202550
Times logged on to Facebook

Figure A. Number of times students report logging on to Facebook in one day.

 

RQ6: Does duration and frequency of use differ across demographics of gender and year
in school?

Research question six queried whether the duration and frequency of Facebook
use varied by sex and year in school. Results of a between-subjects factorial ANOVA
found a signiﬁcant main effect for duration of F acebook use in minutes during an average
day by sex, F (l ,33 l)=14.66, p<.00, n2=.042, such that male students report spending less
time on F acebook during a typical day, in minutes, (M=67.75, SD=63.85) than female
students (M=96.16, SD=79.70). There was also a signiﬁcant main effect for year in
school, F (3,332)=4.02, p=.OO8, n2=.034, indicating that the amount of time spent on

Facebook during a typical day is different for students with different year classiﬁcations.

70

The direction of means seen in Table 13 below shows that time spent on
Facebook decreases as year in school advances. Results of the ANOVA did not indicate
an interaction effect for year in school by sex, F (3,332)=.239, p=.869, n.s. However, post
hoc contrasts in ANOVA showed that students grouped into three different levels of use.
Female freshmen, female sophomores, and female juniors were the highest users
(M=105.68) and differed signiﬁcantly from the next highest user group consisting of
male Freshmen, male Sophomores, and female Seniors (M=79.81), F (1 ,323)=7.89,
p<.01. Male Juniors and male Seniors were the lowest daily users of F acebook
(M=48.91), with their average daily use differing signiﬁcantly from the middle group of
male Freshmen, Sophomores, and female Seniors, F(l,323)=5.98, p=.015.

See Table 17 below for means and standard deviations of use by sex and year in

 

 

school.
Table 17
Time Spent on F acebook During an Average Day in Minutes
Milt“; male L031!

n M SD n M SD n M SD
Freshman 42 80.71 58.14 52 1 10.77 100.61 94 97.34 85.24
Sophomore 25 82.80 93.39 43 105.70 71.26 68 97.28 80.19
Junior 31 57.58 46.65 51 100.59 75.67 82 84.33 69.15
Senior 22 40.23 43.27 65 75.92 65.59 87 66.90 62.47
Total 120 67.75 63.85 212 96.16 79.70 332 85.89 75.51

 

Analysis of Variance was also used to determine if the frequency of daily
F acebook log-ons varied by year in school or sex. Results revealed a signiﬁcant main
effect for year in school, F(3,331)=4.215,p<.01, n2=.037. Post hoc Tukey test at p=.05
showed that Freshmen have the highest daily Facebook log on rates (M=6.49, SD=6.20)

and Seniors have the lowest (M=4.06, SD=3.42), and speciﬁcally that male Seniors log-

71

onto Facebook the least of all (M=2.48, SD=1.54). There was not a main effect for sex,
F(l,331)=3.18, ns, indicating that overall, males and females do not differ in their
frequency of daily log-ons; nor was there an interaction effect between sex and year in
school, F(3,331)=.827, ns. Table 18 below shows all means and standard deviations for

log-ons by sex and year in school.

 

 

 

Table 18
Frequency of Log-ins to Facebook During an Average Day
Male Female Mal

n M SD n M SD n M SD
Freshman 42 6.55 8.05 52 6.44 4.24 94 6.49 6.20
Sophomore 25 5.40 4.78 43 5.88 3.70 68 5.71 4.10
Junior 31 4.81 8.76 51 6.71 4.91 82 5.99 6.64
Senior 23 2.48 1.54 65 4.62 3.73 87 4.06 3.42
Total 121 5.09 6.96 211 5.83 4.22 332 5.56 5.38
Hypotheses:

H1: Communication/keep in touch uses and gratiﬁcations will predict F acebook use.

The ﬁrst hypothesis predicted that communication/keep in touch factor would predict

F acebook use, as measured in time spent on the website. Following the EFA, a
communication/keep in touch factor did not exist. However, many of the communication
and keep in touch items fell into the Utilities and Upkeep or Establish/Maintain Old Ties
factors. Therefore, a regression analysis was conducted to determine if these factors
predicted average daily time spent on F acebook. Results of this regression showed that
the Establish/Maintain Old Ties factor did not predict time spent on Facebook, (B=.O70)
but that the Utilities and Upkeep factor was a signiﬁcant predictor of time spent on

F acebook, (B=.333, t=5.60, p<.000). The Utilities and Upkeep factor contains items that

are more speciﬁc than the Establish/Maintain Old Ties factor in describing the sending or

72

receiving of messages such as “to see my photo comments” or “to leave a wall
comment”. Results of this regression analysis suggest that desire to communicate with

others inﬂuences the amount of time spent on Facebook.

H2: Entertainment uses and gratiﬁcations will better predict time spent on F acebook
than information uses and gratiﬁcations.

The second hypotheses predicted that an entertainment factor would better predict time
spent on F acebook than an information factor. From the EF A a clearly entertainment or
clearly informative factor did not emerge. Early mass communication research explored
messages and mediums where a clear distinction existed between entertaimnent and
information messages. That these factors did not clearly emerge in this study shows that
for F acebook, the old conception of entertainment and information does not hold — a clear
distinction between these factors does not exist for the mass media channel of Facebook.
Therefore, it was not possible to conduct a regression model for this hypothesis in the

present study.

H3: Students with greater involvement with campus activities will spend less time on
F acebook.

To determine if those students with greater involvement with campus activities
spend less time on Facebook, an ANOVA was run following a split of the campus
activities variable. The number of activities respondents self-reported involvement in
during the past semester were split into high activity and low activity groups using a

quartile split. This resulted in the low activity group (n=6l) consisting of those reporting

73

involvement in 0 activities and the high activity group (n=68) reporting involvement in 4
or more activities (range: 4-30). An ANOVA showed that the mean time spent on
Facebook during a typical day did not differ between those high (M =90 minutes,
SD=78.8) and low (M=96.95, SD=77.58) in campus activity involvement, F (1 ,128)=.254,
n.s. Including the whole sample, the mean time spent on Facebook during a typical day
and the number of activities were correlated. The resulting pearson correlation
coefﬁcient was small, a=.073 and non-signiﬁcant, indicating that campus activity
involvement does not relate to the amount of time spent on F acebook during an average

day. Thus, this hypothesis fails to ﬁnd support from the data, as both the ANOVA and

correlation show.

Discussion

This study found 9 factors of F acebook use, with 8 of these factors: Pass Time,
Connection, Sexual Attraction, Utilities and Upkeep, Establish/Maintain Old Ties,
Accumulation, Social Comparison and Channel Use; having acceptable reliability and
accounting for 57% of total variability. Of these 8 factors, to Pass Time accounted for
the most variance (33%) and had the highest factor mean score (M=3.87). This factor is
common to previous intemet uses and gratiﬁcations studies with Ferguson and Perse
(2000), LaRose and Eastin (2004), Li (2005), and Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) all
ﬁnding a pass time factor for the intemet content studied. Likewise, several uses and
gratiﬁcations of television studies have found a pass time factor (Greenberg, 1974; Perse,

1986; Rubin & Perse, 1987).

74

Channel Use, Connection, Utilities and Upkeep, and Establish/Maintain Old Ties
accounted for 7% or less of the variance but had mean scores above the midpoint of 3,
which denotes using Facebook for this purpose “sometimes” on the scale. This indicates
that students report using F acebook for these purposes more frequently. Facebook use
for Accumulation, Social Comparison or Sexual Attraction purposes all had means below
the midpoint, indicating that in general, students report using Facebook for these
purposes “rarely” or “not at all”.

Based on mean scores for factors, students report using F acebook most frequently
as a way to spend their time (M=3.88) establish or maintain old friendships (M=3.67),
and connect to others (M=3.21). Facebook is far less used by students as a venue to
accumulate things (M=1.46) or as a manner in which to compare themselves to others (M
=2.04). The latter information should come as a relief to those concerned with health
behaviors of students that are thought to be somewhat driven by perceived norms,
speciﬁcally drinking or disordered eating. Instead of engaging in more concerning
behaviors online, data from this study shows students most use F acebook as a way to pass
their time and to perform or initiate relationship maintenance. This can be seen in the
individual item mean scores (see Appendix F ) where the highest scoring items (M > 3.70)
referenced using F acebook either for passing time or for communication (i.e.: ‘check
messages’, ‘contact friends’). However, it should be noted by those interested in college
students’ health behaviors that while the item “I use Facebook to ﬁnd a party” has a low
mean score (M=2.84, SD=1.12), an ANOVA showed that mean scores on this item varied
signiﬁcantly by year in school, such that those lower in class standing reported using

Facebook more for the purpose of ﬁnding a party, F (4,336)=8.56, p<.00, n2=.094.

75

It may be that male and female students report different frequencies of F acebook
use for the factors found, as male and female students did differ in the amount of time
spent on Facebook. To determine if male and female students differ, a post-hoe ANOVA
was run comparing females’ mean scores on the factors found to males’ mean scores on
corresponding factors. The table below shows the mean scores and standard deviations
for males and females on each Facebook use factor. As can be seen in the table, females
and males differed signiﬁcantly in their frequency of Facebook use for the purposes of
passing time, F (1,328)=1 5.59, p<.00, n2=.045; connection, F (1,329)=6.29, p<.02,
n2=.019; utilities and upkeep, F(l,332)=27.31,p<.00, n2=.076; old ties, F(l,330)=12.l2,
p<.00, 112:.036; and channel use, F(l,331)=16.91, p<.00, n2=.048. For all of these

purposes, female students reported more frequent use than male students.

 

 

Table 19
Factors of F acebook Use by Sex
_Fe_mal§ _M_ale
Factor Mean 3.1). Mean SD. 112

Pass Time ” 3.94 .771 3.62 .789 .045
Connection ’ 3.29 .738 3.06 .820 .019
Sexual Attraction 2.93 1.02 3.03 .918 .002
Utilities and Upkeep " 3.24 .733 2.76 .808 .076
Old Ties ‘ 3.75 .657 3.49 .675 .036
Accumulation 1.43 .528 1.49 .534 .005
Social Comparison 2.07 .898 1 .98 .910 .003
Channel " 2.68 .812 2.49 .850 .048
Networking 3.01 .813 3.19 .800 .012

 

' indicates signiﬁcant at p < .05 " indicates signiﬁcant at p < .000
As mentioned earlier, this study found that F acebook use in terms of duration and
frequency differs by sex and year in school, with male students spending 30 minutes less

than female students on Facebook per day. That F acebook use differs by year in school

76

indicates that F acebook does play an important role in underclassmen’s daily life, which
makes sense. Underclassmen are new to the college environment and campus and are
typically looking to make ﬁiends. As students increase in their year in school, their
frequent F acebook use diminishes. This tapering in F acebook use does not result
however, from increased commitments. As found in H3, Facebook use did not differ
between those high and low in campus activity involvement.

Data from this study shows that while Facebook provides a unique way for
students to communicate and connect with others, they are not abandoning other
communication channels in favor of F acebook. Based on the means of individual items,
students report sometimes replacing email with Facebook communication, but less
frequently replacing face to face communication, telephone or text messaging. This
information indicates that F acebook is just another facet of interpersonal communication
among college students and not a replacement for most other channels.

Facebook does indeed provide unique communication options through the various
sections of the Facebook proﬁle. The Wall was categorized by students as being one of
the most informative, entertaining, and useful sections on both others and their own
proﬁles. This indicates that not only are students interested in what others are saying to
them, they are interested in what is being said about others. Further, Wall
communication is perceived by students as being useful, informative, and entertaining.
Interestingly enough in terms of the most informative and useful portions of the
F acebook proﬁle, more students rated the text-based categories (Interests, About Me)
above more visual categories (Photos). Photos, in both album and proﬁle picture, were

only the highest category selected when choosing for most entertaining.

77

During data analysis of this study, a conference paper on Facebook using the uses and
gratiﬁcations paradigm was publicized in an electronic newsletter. This study by Clark,
Boyer, and Lee (2007) also attempts to ﬁnd uses and gratiﬁcations of Facebook through
factor analysis. While their sample size is very large and impressive (N=2338), unlike
the present study, the measures employed by their study lack in strength. However,
similar to the demographics of the present study, one-third of their participants were male
(33.5%) and two-thirds were female (66%), but only 91% of their sample were college
students unlike the 100% college student sample of the present study.

In order to determine uses and gratiﬁcations factors, Clark, Boyer, and Lee (2007)
modiﬁed the lntemet Motives Scale from Papacharissi and Rubin’s 2000 intemet uses
and gratiﬁcations study. Although they did not discuss the analysis method used to
determine factors found in their study, like Papacharissi and Rubin, Clark, et.al. found
ﬁve factors of what they label Facebook motives: 1) information seeking and
convenience, 2) interpersonal utility, 3) interpersonal utility, 4) entertainment, 5) pass
time. These factors were not described further, nor were the differences between the
interpersonal utility factors extrapolated. An assessment of the items listed in their
appendix for these factors was not able to illuminate possible differences for their
interpersonal utility factors. However, it was noted that the three items contained in the
pass time factor were very similar to items in the present study’s pass time factor. The
three items listed in their entertainment factor mimicked the ‘pleasurable way to spend
time’ items that had been eliminated in the present study’s EF A due to their moderate

loadings on other factors. Aside from the entertainment and pass time factors, items in

78

the study by Clark, et.al. do not seem to cluster into factors in an interpretable manner.
This is likely due to their method of measurement.

That Clark, et.al. simply adapted Papacharissi and Rubin’s 2000 intemet uses and
gratiﬁcations items creates many potential problems, one of which is that by using a
modiﬁed scale taken from previous general intemet research, the authors are constrained
by the factors found from that research. Secondly, by using such a modiﬁed scale, the
authors are assuming that factors of F acebook uses and gratiﬁcations will not differ from
uses and gratiﬁcations of the intemet. This is not likely, as Papacharissi and Rubin
undertook their intemet study nearly eight years ago. Much about the intemet has
changed since 2000, not only technically (i.e.: speed, graphics, number of websites,
widespread access, mobile phone access), but also in content. That Facebook, a SNS,
exists and is popular is a testament to such changes in the content of the intemet. These
changes in content as well as technology are so drastically different from the early
intemet years that warranted a new label in 2004 — that of ‘Web 2.0’ (O’Reilly, 2005).
User-generated content, such as that found on Facebook, is central to Web 2.0. Given
these major limitations of the Clark, Boyer, and Lee (2007) study, it cannot be said that
the factors found from their Facebook uses and gratiﬁcations research are deﬁnitive. The
present study is far rigorous in its methods and measurement, and as such provides a
better picture of F acebook uses and gratiﬁcations by college students.

Simply put, Facebook is immensely popular among college students. Similar to
previous studies, results from the open-ended pre-study showed that Facebook use among
college students is widespread with 96% of students reporting that they are members of

Facebook. Data from the online study shows that 97% of Freshmen were members of

79

Facebook before coming to campus. Facebook is resoundingly popular among college
students and ‘facebooking’ others has become as much a part of the college experience as
cramming for ﬁnal exams. As such, it is important that parents, administrators, faculty,
and residence life all strive to understand the prominence of Facebook in their students’
lives. It is the author’s suggestion that these groups try to utilize F acebook and refrain
from distancing themselves from students through failure to see the relevance of
Facebook or by using Facebook in a clumsy manner. Instead, the author points to the
ﬁndings of Mazer, Murphy, and Simonds (2007), who found teachers who had a
Facebook proﬁle and self-disclosed moderate amounts on their proﬁle were seen as more
motivating by their students, as an example of positive Facebook use by those who work
with college students.
Limitations

This study provides an informative view of a college communication phenomenon
from a theoretical perspective. However, there are limitations to this study. First and
foremost, the sample data for the pre-study, pre-test, and online survey all came from one
university. To gather more generalizable information about college student Facebook
use, future studies should use a larger sample across more institutions of higher
education. The primary study sample consisted of mostly females and students pursuing
a major within the College of Communication Arts and Sciences. It may be that
communication-based majors attract students who are more avid users of communication
tools. Therefore future studies should represent a balance of majors from all university
colleges. The sample was collected in April, towards the end of the school year. With

the nearing of ﬁnals and commencement exercises, it may be that students’ typical

8O

Facebook behavior is altered during this time of year. A future study is planned to take
place during the middle of the F all semester at the same university in order to compare
responses related to frequency and duration of Facebook use.

Second, the method of data collection possibly added some error into the variables in
this study. As responses were stripped of identifying information by the online software,
duplicate entrants could have occurred. For the online survey, 5 students emailed the
researcher with problems related to online survey collection. In the data set, 5 surveys
were less than 25% completed. It was assumed for the purpose of removing potential
duplicates that these 5 entries were the same as the 5 students who communicated
difﬁculties. Future studies could provide each student with an individual link to attempt
to ensure no duplication of responses.

Future Directions

F acebook is embedded in college culture and will not be going away. Further,

F acebook is rapidly growing in popularity among those beyond their college years.

F acebook active membership increased from 43 million to 80 million users from
November 2007 to April 2008 (facebook.com). Facebook is constantly updating,
streamlining, and improving their website and outside vendors create new, optional add-
ons to Facebook daily. Studying Facebook use by various groups is important to
understanding not only Facebook but also how interpersonal communication is changing
in the face of Web 2.0. Possible directions follow below:

As the fastest growing segment of F acebook is the over-25 set, a future study should
explore their uses and gratiﬁcations to see if and how they differ from college students’

use as well as examine possible differences in time/duration of use.

81

The largest non-US active user group is the UK. Studying Facebook provides an
opportunity for examination of possible cross-cultural differences in social networking
software use (facebook.com is a constant; unlike some other Web 2.0 sites, F acebook
presents the same interface across various cultures), as well as frequency/duration of use,
and point-of-access (computer terminal, mobile technology).

Data in this study showed that as students increased in their year in school, their
frequency of F acebook use decreases. Future studies should explore why this shiﬁ
occurs. It may be that students’ Facebook use decreases as a function of age. However,
it could be that F acebook use decreases as the number of or quality of face-to-face
friendships increase.

It is also important to examine how “in real life” connections impact the amount
of time spent on Facebook. The nature of F acebook promotes the transition of offline or
“in real life” connections into online “friendships”. A future study should address
whether more “in real life” connections, and thus more F acebook friends, translates into
more or less time spent on Facebook. It could also be the case that less “in real life”
connections could lead to more time spent on Facebook to meet social interaction needs.
In either case, this information could inform the present study’s ﬁnding related to
frequency of Facebook use and year in school.

Finally, given the outcome of the CF A and the resulting EFA, in the near future
the current study should be extended with one more survey using a student sample drawn
nationally. This new data would provide an opportunity to CF A the factors found during
the second BE A, as Klein (2005) strongly advises against conﬁrmatory factor analysis of

data that has already been exploratory factor analyzed.

82

Conclusion

Based on responses in this study, students seem to see F acebook as a
communication tool, an information provider, and entertainment source. Examining
Facebook from the perspective of media use theories provides a view of usage; as
students have indicated they use Facebook as a channel of interpersonal communication,
future studies should explore Facebook from interpersonal frameworks. This website
will provide scholars with an opportunity to rethink mass media communication and

merge interpersonal and media interests in order to best study future SNS developments.

83

APPENDICES

84

Appendix A
Pre-Study Survey

1. There are a number of things that people report using F acebook for. Please place an
“X” next to any of the following you use F acebook for, and later on, please let me know
what I am missing. You may have multiple checkmarks.

I have used Facebook for the following:
ﬁnd out about a party
meet new friends
ﬁnd a date
ﬁnd other people in my classes
ﬁnd people who have taken my class previously
ﬁnd out about campus events

adjust my proﬁle content

add more photos to my photo album
lookup future roommate(s) proﬁles
announce a party
check up on an ex-boyfriend/girlﬁiend
contact someone for an ID
check facebook friends’ proﬁles

 

 

What am I missing? What else have you used F acebook for?

 

 

 

 

Why do you like F acebook?

 

 

When you’re on Facebook, what do you spend most of your time doing?

 

 

 

85

Appendix B
Pre-Test of Second Survey
Paper and Pencil

 

 

 

Age: Sex: M F Major:

Year in School (Circle one):

Freshman Sophomore junior Senior Other:

When did you ﬁrst 3131: up for Facebook? Month: Year:

Did you sign up before you attended your ﬁrst class at MSU?

DIREQ I IQNS; The following statements might apply to your Facebook use.

Yes

No

In the boxes that follow the statement, please indicate how often you use Facebook for that

purpose. Please circle the response that most applies to your use.

1 = not at all, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = always

I use F acebook to keep in touch with family members.
I use Facebook to look at the proﬁle of someone I think is attractive.
I use Facebook to see who lives by me.

I get ideas about what everyone else is watching, reading, or listening
to from Facebook.

I use Facebook to look at friends’ photo albums.

I use Facebook to check up on an ex-boyfriend/girlfriend.
Using Facebook is a good way to contact out-of-state friends.
I use Facebook instead of IM.

1 use F acebook to get gossip about others.

I use Facebook to leave a wall comment.

I use Facebook when I don’t want to study.

I log onto Facebook to update my proﬁle.

I use Facebook to send a message.

I use Facebook to ﬁnd out what high school classmates are up to now.

I use Facebook to keep in contact with old friends.

I use Facebook to see if others are doing better than me.

I use Facebook instead of the phone.

I log onto Facebook to add more applications to my proﬁle.
Facebook is a good way for me to network with others.

I use F acebook to buy stuff.

I use Facebook instead of email.

86

l
l

HH~ﬂ-H~H__~_HHH-

2
2

NNN-NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

3
3

MUMUUUMMUUUUMUWUUU

h

$888A8A88hh§£$8§85

{II

MMMMMUIMUIUOMUIUIUIUIMUIUIUI

 

I use Facebook to pass the time.

 

Facebook makes it easy to contact others without too much
commitment

When I’m on Facebook, time ﬂies by.

I like to see if my friends and l have friends in common.
I log on to check my messages from other people.
Using Facebook is enjoyable.

I use F acebook to congratulate, wish ‘happy birthday’, or say ‘good
luck’ to my friends.

I use F acebook instead of texting.

I use Facebook because it’s interesting.

I learn about how much other MSU students drink from Facebook.
1 use Facebook to leave comments for people I don’t see often.
I use Facebook to ﬁnd out about a party.

I use Facebook to ﬁnd other people in my classes

I use Facebook to let people know I’m thinking about them.
Facebook makes it simple to maintain friendships.

I like to see who knows who on Facebook.

When I’m using Facebook, I’m entertained.

Instead of talking to someone face to face, Ljust use Facebook.
Facebook is an easy way to contact someone without much effort.
I use Facebook to ﬁnd email addresses or screennames.

I use Facebook for the classiﬁed ads.

I use Facebook to see if others are having more fun than I am.
I use Facebook to help me put faces to names.

Facebook brings people together.

I use Facebook to know more aboutJeople Ijust met.

I use Facebook to see if others are doing worse than me.

I use Facebook to sell stuff.

Through Facebook, I’ve made new ﬁiends.

I log onto Facebook to check messages.

F acebook is a good way to connect with others at MSU.

I use Facebook to look aLpictures of my friends’ friends.

I use F acebook to ﬁnd out about campus events.

I use Facebook to keep in touch with High School friends.

87

__-_

-h-~ﬂ-~HﬂﬂH-ﬂHﬂ-ﬂH_~_~

NNNNN

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

030303030)

UMMUUMWOJUUMWMUMMUUUUUUUMMUM

ukukhéh

5&588-5-58hhhhbhhﬁh‘itkhhhhbhbh

UIMUIMUI

MUIUIUIUIUIUIMUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIMMMUIUIUIUOUIUI

 

I use Facebook because it is fun.

 

I use Facebook to ﬁnd old friends I have lost contact with.

 

1 use F acebook just to waste time.

 

I log onto Facebook to read my wall comments.

 

I use F acebook to post photos in my album.

 

I use Facebook to look at the photo albums of people I kind of know.

 

For me, using Facebook prevents boredom.

I use Facebook to ﬁnd a classmates’ contact information.
I keep tabs on my friends through Facebook.

1 log onto Facebook to see my photo comments.

I use Facebook to collect a large number of ‘friends’, even if they are
people I don’t know.

I use F acebook to announce a party.

I use F acebook to look at the proﬁle of someone I hooked up with.

88

H~H-~H-ﬂ

NNNNNNNNNN

N

UUMMOJUUMMU

AﬁhhtB-Bh-BA-B

UIUIUIUIMUIMUIUIM

APPENDIX C
Items for Online Survey
Legend: ‘ = new item
+ = reworded item
H = item moved from other factor
if = item cross-loaded in EFA, moved into this factor for online survey

5-point scale: 1 = not at all, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = all the time
Question Stem: “I Use F acebook. . .”

Pleasurable way to spend time
just to waste time.
to pass the time
because it is fun.
because it's enjoyable.
to make time ﬂy by.
because it’s interesting.
to be entertained.
when I'm bored.
when I don’t want to study.

Utilities and Upkeep
to update my proﬁle.
to add more applications to my proﬁle.
to read my wall comments.
to post photos in my album.
to see my photo comments.
to send a message.
to check messages. +
to look at my ﬁ'iends' photos.‘
to leave a wall comment. '

Channel Use
to keep in touch with family members.
instead of texting.
instead of the phone.
instead of email.
to let people know I’m thinking about them.
instead of talking to someone face to face.
instead of Instant Messenger.‘

Aﬂntain/Establish old ties
to contact out-of-state friends.
to ﬁnd out what high school classmates are up to now.
to keep in contact with old friends.
to keep in touch with High School friends.

89

to track down old friends. i
to see where people are at now. i
to maintain old friendships. '

Interconnectedness
to see who knows who.
to look at pictures of my friends’ friends.
to see who my friends and I have 1n common.
to see if my ﬁ'iends and I know the same people.
to see how everyone is connected.
to see where people know each other from.
to network with others.
to make new friends. H

Social Comparison
...to see if others are doing better than me.
to see if others are doing worse than me.
to see if others are having more ﬁrn than I am.
to check up on an ex-boyfriend/girlfriend.
to learn about how much other MSU students are drinking.
to get gossip about others.
to see what music everyone is listening to.
to see if others are looking better than I am.

Sexual Attraction
to look at the proﬁle of someone I think is attractive.
to look at the proﬁle of someone I hooked up with.
to look at the proﬁle of someone I think 18 hot.
to look at the proﬁle of someone Id like to make outwith.
to look at the proﬁle of someone I'd like to date.

Social Information
to see who lives by me.
to ﬁnd email addresses or screennames.
to ﬁnd a classmates’ contact information.
to keep tabs on my friends.
to know more about people I just met.
to ﬁnd a party.”
to help me put faces to names.
to look at pictures of people I kind of know.

Accumulation
to sell stuff.
for the classiﬁed ads.
to buy stuff.
to "friend" people I don't know, just to have a large number of Facebook

90

friends. .
to list or buy used textbooks.
to ﬁnd a place to live.

91

Appendix D
Questions Posted in Online Survey

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

 

Age Sex: M F Major:

Year in School (circle one):
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Grad Student Other:

 

 

When did you ﬁrst sign up for Facebook? Month: Year:

Did you sign up with F acebook before you attended your ﬁrst class at MSU? Yes No

 

MOST ENTERTAINING/INFORMATIVE/USEFUL (drop-down menus were
provided with options)

When reading others’ proﬁles, what 5 sections are the most entertaining to you?
When reading others’ proﬁles, what 5 sections are the most informative to you?
When reading others’ proﬁles, what 5 sections are the most useﬁll to you?

On your own proﬁle, what 5 sections are the most entertaining to you?
On your own proﬁle, what 5 sections are the most informative to you?
On your own proﬁle, what 5 sections are the most useﬁrl to you?

TIME SPENT ON FACEBOOK
For the following questions please consider ALL of your time spent on F acebook,
whether you use your computer, cell phone, or iphone to connect to Facebook.

How many times do you log onto Facebook on an average day? (frequency)

On average, how much time, in minutes, do you spend on Facebook during one log-on
session?

Thinking carefully, estimate the total amount of time (in minutes) you spend on F acebook
on an average day.

What is the single longest span of time (in minutes) you have spent on F acebook?

CAMPUS ACTIVITIES

Please take a moment to think about all the campus activities you may be involved in,
including things such as intramural sports, volunteer groups, research teams, work-study
jobs, clubs, and Greek memberships.

Now, please report to the best of your ability. . ..

How many activities have you been involved in during the past semester?

How much time, in hours, do you spend on your activities, per week?

92

How much time, in hours, do you spend working at a job, per week?

USES AND GRATIFICATION ITEMS
Uses and gratiﬁcation items were were those listed in Appendix C above. They were
randomly sorted in each participants’ survey by surveymonkeycom.

93

Appendix E
Standardized Factor Loadings, Means, and Standard Deviations for Online Survey Items

 

 

 

 

 

Std.
Factor
Factor Item Loading Mean SD N
Pleasureable way to spend time
just to waste time. .650 3.72 0.96 338
to pass the time .859 3.88 1.00 338
because it is fun. .778 3.90 0.91 339
because it's enjoyable. .667 4.03 0.82 340
to make time ﬂy by. .778 3.55 1.04 338
because it’s interesting. .619 3.83 0.88 339
to be entertained. .766 3.83 0.89 340
when I'm bored. .842 4.14 0.91 340
when I don’t want to study. .768 3.88 1.04 337
Utilities and Uplgep
to update my proﬁle. .651 3.07 1.03 338
to add more applications to my proﬁle. .486 2.25 1.01 338
to read my wall comments. .711 4.12 0.86 336
to post photos in my album. .683 3.41 1.20 340
to see my photo comments. .597 3.50 1.06 339
to send a message. .699 3.61 0.92 338
to check messages. .690 3.87 0.89 339
to look at my friends’ photos. .775 4.02 0.82 339
to leave a wall comment. .706 3.80 0.88 340
Channel Use
to keep in touch with family members. .433 2.70 1.10 339
instead of texting. .622 2.50 1.06 339
instead of the phone. .712 2.45 1.07 339
instead of email. .753 3.19 1.18 340
to let people know I’m thinking about them. .593 3.09 1.09 339
instead of talking to someone face to face. .696 2.83 1.01 340
instead of Instant Messenger. .696 2.79 1.18 339
Maintain/Establish old ties
to contact out-of-state friends. .513 3.81 0.93 339
to ﬁnd out what high school classmates are up
to now. .585 3.56 1.00 340

94

to keep in contact with old friends.
to keep in touch with High School friends.

to track down old friends.
to see where people are at now.

to maintain old ﬁiendships.

Interconnectedness
to see who knows who.
to look at pictures of my friends’ friends.

to see who my ﬁiends and I have in common.
to see if my friends and I know the same

people.

to see how everyone is connected.

to see where people know each other from.
to network with others.

to make new friends.

Social Comparison
...to see if others are doing better than me.
to see if others are doing worse than me.

to see if others are having more fun than I am.

to check up on an ex-boyfriend/ girlfriend.

to learn about how much other MSU students
are drinking.

to get gossip about others.

to see what music everyone is listening to.

to see if others are looking better than I am.

Sexual Attraction
to look at the proﬁle of someone I think is
attractive.
to look at the proﬁle of someone I hooked up
with.

to look at the proﬁle of someone I think is hot.

to look at the proﬁle of someone I'd like to
make outwith.

to look at the proﬁle of someone I'd like to
date.

Social Information

95

.866
.842

.61 l
.606
.750

.738
.561
.776

.843
.738
.821
.347
.364

.843
.812
.785
.574

.491
.603

.378
.744

.831

.722
.918

.758

.765

3.75
3.71

3.51
3.48
3.70

3.10
3.08
3.18

3.21
3.09
3.05
3.86
2.54

2.33
1.96
2.24
2.93

1.83
2.70

1.83
2.15

3.50

2.86
3.23

2.43

2.93

0.88
0.90

0.91
0.93
0.87

1.03
1.07
1.00

0.99
1.02
1.01
0.91
1.13

1.12
1.10
1.14
1.24

1.00
1.19

0.89
1.12

1.10

1.26
1.15

1.28

1.19

338
338

340
339
339

339
338
339

336
339
340
340
339

338
338
338
337

338
339

340
340

337

340
338

338

340

to see who lives by me.
to ﬁnd email addresses or screennames.
to ﬁnd a classmates’ contact information.

to keep tabs on my friends.

to know more about people I just met.
to ﬁnd a party.

to help me put faces to names.

to look at pictures of people I kind of know.

Accumglgtion
to sell stuff.
for the classiﬁed ads.

to buy stuff.
to "friend" people I don't know, just to have a
large number of Facebook friends.

to list or buy used textbooks.

to ﬁnd a place to live.

96

.583
.658
.581

.597
.718
.548
.648
.677

.775
.669

.627

.516
.763
.676

2.63
3.07
3.05

3.57
3.67
2.84
3.25
3.69

1.46
1.56
1.31

1.57
1.50
1.49

1.11
1.08
1.00

1.00
0.94
1.21
1.03
0.94

0.75
0.76
0.70

1.00
0.75
0.83

336
339
337

336
340
340
340
338

338
340
339

338
337
337

APPENDIX F
Items in Descending Order of Means

 

 

97

Item Mean SD

when I'm bored. 4.14 0.91
to read my wall comments. 4.12 0.86

because it's enjoyable. 4.03 0.82

to look at my friends' photos. 4.02 0.82
because it is ﬁrm. 3.90 0.91
to pass the time 3.88 1.00
when I don’t want to study. 3.88 1.04
to check messages. 3.87 0.89
to network with others. 3.86 0.91
because it’s interesting. 3.83 0.88
to be entertained. 3.83 0.89
to contact out-of-state friends. 3.81 0.93

to leave a wall comment. 3.80 0.88
to keep in contact with old friends. 3.75 0.88
just to waste time. 3.72 0.96
to keep in touch with High School friends. 3.71 0.90
to maintain old ﬁiendships. 3.70 0.87
to look at pictures of people I kind of know. 3.69 0.94
to know more about people I just met. 3.67 0.94
to send a message. 3.61 0.92
to keep tabs on my friends. 3.57 1.00
to ﬁnd out what high school classmates are up to now. 3.56 1.00
to make time ﬂy by. 3.55 1.04
to track down old friends. 3.51 0.91
to look at the proﬁle of someone I think is attractive. 3.50 1.10
to see my photo comments. 3.50 1.06
to see where people are at now. 3.48 0.93
to post photos in my album. 3.41 1.20

to help me put faces to names.
to look at the proﬁle of someone I think is hot.

to see if my friends and I know the same people.

instead of email.

to see who my friends and I have in common.

to see who knows who.

to see how everyone is connected.
to let people know I’m thinking about them.

to look at pictures of my ﬁ'iends’ ﬁiends.

to ﬁnd email addresses or screennames.

to update my proﬁle.

to ﬁnd a classmates’ contact information.

to see where people know each other from.

to check up on an ex-boyfriend/ girlfriend.

to look at the proﬁle of someone I'd like to date.

to look at the proﬁle of someone I hooked up with.
to ﬁnd a party.

instead of talking to someone face to face

instead of Instant Messenger.

to get gossip about others.

to keep in touch with family members.

to see who lives by me.

to make new friends

instead of texting.

instead of the phone.

to look at the proﬁle of someone I'd like to make out with.

to see if others are doing better than me.

to add more applications to my proﬁle.

to see if others are having more fun than I am.
to see if others are looking better than I am.

to see if others are doing worse than me.

98

3.25
3.23
3.21
3.19
3.18
3.10
3.09
3.09
3.08
3.07
3.07
3.05
3.05
2.93
2.93
2.86
2.84
2.83
2.79
2.70
2.70
2.63
2.54
2.50
2.45
2.43
2.33
2.25
2.24
2.15
1.96

1.03
1.15
0.99
1.18
1.00
1.03
1.02
1.09
1.07
1.08
1.03
1.00
1.01
1.24
1.19
1.26
1.21
1.01
1.18
1.19
1.10
1.11
1.13
1.06
1.07
1.28
1.12
1.01
1.14
1.12
1.10

to learn about how much other MSU students are drinking. 1.83 1.00
to see what music everyone is listening to. 1.83 0.89

to "friend" people I don't know, just to have a large number of

Facebook friends. 1.57 1.00
for the classiﬁed ads. 1.56 0.76
to list or buy used textbooks. 1.50 0.75
to ﬁnd a place to live. 1.49 0.83
to sell stuff. 1.46 0.75
to buy stuff. 1.31 0.70

 

99

REFERENCES

100

References

Acquisti, A. & Gross, R. (2006). Imagined communities: awareness, information sharing
and privacy on the F acebook. Paper presented at the 6th workshop on Privacy
Enhancing Technology, Cambridge, England.

Ableman, R. (1987). Religious TV uses and gratiﬁcations. Journal of Broadcast and
Electronic Media, 31, 293-307.

Atkin, OK. (1985). Informational utility and selective exposure to entertainment media.
In D. Zillman & J. Bryant (Eds) Selective Exposure to Communication.
Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Bantz, OR. (1982). Exploring uses and gratiﬁcations: A comparison of reported uses of
television and reported uses of favorite program types. Communication Research,
9, 352- 379.

Blumler, E. & Katz, J. G. (Eds.). (1974). The uses of mass communications: Current
perspectives on gratiﬁcations research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Bumgamer, B. (2006). You have been poked: exploring the uses and gratiﬁcations of
Facebook in emerging adults. Unpublished honor’s thesis, University of North
Carolina: Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Boyd, D. (2007). Social network sites: public, private, or what? The Knowledge T ree(l3).
Retrieved September 9, 2007 from
http://kt.ﬂexibleleaming.net.au/tkt2007/?page_id=28

Boyd, D., (in press). Why youth (heart) social network sites: the role of networked
publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham, (Ed.) MacArthur Foundation on
Digital Learning, Identity Volume. Boston: MIT Press

Charney, T. and Greenberg, BS. (2001). Uses and gratiﬁcations of the lntemet. In C. Lin
& D. Atkin (Eds). Communication Technology and Society: New Media
Adoption and Uses. United Kingdom: Hampton.

Chou, C. and Hsiao, MC. (2000). lntemet addiction, usage, gratiﬁcation, and pleasure
experience: the Taiwan college student’s case. Computers and Education, 35, 65-
80.

Charrigo, L. & Barnett-Ellis, P. (2006). Checking out Facebook.com: the impact of a

digital trend on academic libraries. Information Technology and Libraries, 26(1),
2345.

101

Clark, N., Boyer, L., & Lee, S.-Y. (2007). A Place of Their Own: An Exploratory Study
of College Students’ Uses of F acebook. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.

comScore (2007, April 10). comScore releases worldwide rankings of top properties.
Press Release Retrieved 9/8/2007 from:
http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1 370.

Dickman, K., Dutton, E., Giotia, C., Oberhausen, L., & Ravensberg, L. (2006). Facebook
and college student development of mature relationships. Journal of Indiana
University Student Personnel Association, 39-53. '

Dimmick, J ., Sikand, J ., & Patterson, SJ. (1994). Gratiﬁcations of the household
telephone: sociability, instrumentality, and reassurance. Communication
Research, 21, 643-663.

Dvorak, J. (2006, February 16). Academics get to workl. PC Magazine, online.
Retrieved 9/1/2007 from: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,l 895,1928975,00.asp.

Eighmey, J. and McCord, L. (1998). Adding value in the information age: uses and
gratiﬁcations of sites on the WWW. Journal of Business Research, 41, 187-194.

Ellison, N., Steinfeld, C., & Lampe, C. (2006, June). Spatially bounded online social
networks and social capital: the role of F acebook. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany.

Facebook.com. Retrieved 9/8/2007 from: http://www.facebook.com/.

Ferguson & Perse, E. (2000). The WWW as a functional alternative to TV. Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44 (155-1 74).

Feuding over Facebook’s founding. (2007, September 7). The Chronicle of Higher
Education: The Wired Campus. Retrieved from:
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/23 5 1/feuding-over-facebooks-founding.

Govani, T., & Pashley, H. (2005). Student awareness of the privacy implications when
using Facebook. Poster session presented at Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburg, PA. Retrieved 9/8/2007 from:
lorrie.cranor.org/courses/faOS/tubzhlp.pdf.

Greenberg, BS. (1974). Gratiﬁcations of TV viewing and their correlates for British
children. In J .G.Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.) The Uses of Mass Communication:
Current Perspectives on Gratiﬁcation Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Guetzkow, H. (1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data.

102

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6, 47-58.

Jones, H. & Soltren, J. H. (2005, December 14). F acebook: threats to privacy.
Retrieved 9/1/2007 from: http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/student-
papers/fall05-papers/facebook.pdf.

Kaye, B.K. and Johnson, T.J. (2004). A Web for all reasons: uses and gratiﬁcations of
lntemet components for political information. Journal of Telematics and
Infomatics, 21 (197-223).

Klein, RB. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.).
New York: Guilford.

Ko, H. (2000). lntemet uses and gratiﬁcations: understanding motivations for using the
lntemet. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education
in Journalism and Mass Communication (83rd, Phoenix, AZ, August 9-12, 2000).

Komblum, J. & Marklein, MB. (2006, March 8). What you say online can haunt you.
USA Today. Retrieved from: www.usatoday.com

Lampe, C. (2006, November). A F acebook in the crowd. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Banff, Canada.
November 4-8, 2006.

LaRose, R., Mastro, D., and Eastin, MS, (2001). Understanding lntemet usage: a social
cognitive approach to uses and gratiﬁcations. Social Science Computer Review,
19(4), 395-413.

Lashinsky, A. (2005, November 28). Facebook stares down success. Fortune, 152.
Lashinsky, A. (2006, May 29). Facebook grows up. Fortune, 153.
Levy, S. (2007, August). Facebook Grows Up. Newsweek, 150(8/9), 41. Retrieved
September 8, 2007, from ABI/IN FORM Global database. (Document
ID: 1319228221).

Leung, L. & Wei R. (2000). More than just talk on the move: uses and gratiﬁcations of
the cellular phone. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 308-320.

Lin, C. A. (1996). Looking back: The contribution of Blumer and Katz's Uses of Mass
Communication to communication research. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 49, 574-581.

Markoff, J. (2007, September 1). Who founded F acebook? A new claim emerges. New

York Times. Retrieved from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/technology/0 1 facebook.html

103

Mazer, J ., Murphy, R., & Simonds, C. (2007). I’ll see you on F acebook: the effects of
computer mediated communication on teacher-student communication.
Communication Education, 56(1), 1-17.

McLeod, J .M., & Becker, LB. (1974). Testing the validity of gratiﬁcation measures
through political effects analysis. In J .G.Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.) The Uses of
Mass Communication: Current Perspectives on Gratiﬁcation Research. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.

Mitrano, T. (2006). Thoughts on Facebook Cornell University’s Information Technology
Policy Ofﬁce: Ithaca, NY. Retrieved from:
http://www.cit.comell.edu/policy/memos/facebook.html

North Carolina State University. (2007, January 30). The Facebook Phenomenon.
Retrieved 9/8/2007 from www.mcsuedu/facebook.

Nyland, R., & Near, C. (2007). Religiosity as a mediating factor in social network use.
Paper presented at the midwinter meeting of the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication, Reno, Nevada.

O’Reilly, T. (2005, September 30). What is Web 2.0? Retrieved 11/1/2007 from
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-
20.html.

Papacharissi, Z. & Rubin, AM. (2000). Predictors of intemet use. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(2), 175 — 196.

Parker, B.J. and Plank, RE. (2000). A uses and gratiﬁcations perspective on the lntemet
as a new information source. American Business Review, 18, 43-49.

Parks, M.R. & Floyd, K. (1996). Making ﬁiends in cyberspace. Journal of Computer
Mediated Communication, 1(4).

Perse, EM. (1986). Soap opera viewing patterns of college students and cultivation.
Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Communication, 30, 175-193.

Raskin, R. (2006). Facebook faces its future. Young Consumers, 7(2), 56.

Reiss, S. (1999). The Sensitivity Theory of A berrant Motivation. In S.Taylor (Ed.)
Anxiety Sensitivity. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.

Reiss, S. (2004). Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: the theory of 16 basic
desires. Review of General Psychology, 8(3), 179-193.

Robinson, J .P., Barth, K., Kohut, A. (1997). Social impact research: Personal computers,

104

mass media and use of time. Social Science Computer Review, 15, 65-82.

Rosengren, KB. (1974). Uses and gratiﬁcations: a paradigm outlined. In J .G.Blumler &
E. Katz (Eds.) The Uses of Mass Communication: Current Perspectives on
Gratiﬁcation Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rubin, A.M. & Rubin, RB. (1982). Older persons’ TV viewing patterns and motivations.
Communication Research, 9, 287-313.

Rubin, A.M. (1983). TV uses and gratiﬁcations: the interactions of viewing patterns of
motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 37-51.

Rubin, A.M. & Bantz, CR. (1987). Utility of videocassette recorders. The American
Behavioral Scientist, 30, 471 -485.

Rubin, A.M. & Perse, EM. (1987). Audience activity and TV news gratiﬁcations.
Communication Research, 14, 58-84.

Rubin, A.M. (1994). Media uses and effects: a uses and gratiﬁcations perspective. In
J .Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research,
417-436.

Ruggerio, T. (2000). Uses and gratiﬁcations theory in the 21St century. Mass
Communication and Society, 3, 3-3 7.

Sherry, J .L., Lucas, K.., Greenberg, B.S., Lachlan, K. (2006). Video game uses and
gratiﬁcations as predictors of use and game preference. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant
(Eds.). Playing Computer Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Shier, M.T., (2005). The way technology changes how we do what we do. New
Directions for Student Services, 112, 77-87.

SPSS Inc. (2007). AMOS 7.0 for Windows. SPSS Inc., Chicago IL.
SPSS Inc. (2007). SPSS Base 16.0 for Windows. SPSS Inc., Chicago IL.

Stafford, T.F. and Stafford, MR. (2004). Determining uses and gratiﬁcations of lntemet
use. Decision Sciences, 35(2), 259-288.

Stutzrnan, F. (2005). Student life on the Facebook. Retrieved 9/8/2007 from:
http://chimprawk.blogspot.com/2006/01/stu-life-on-facebook-htrnl.

Steinbeck, S.E., & Deavers, L.M. (2007, April 3). The brave new world of myspace and

Facebook. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved 9/8/2007 from:
http://insidehighered.com/views/2007/04/03/steinbach

105

Tabak, A. (2004, February 9). Hundreds register for new F acebook website. Harvard
Crimson. Retrieved from: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=357292.

University of North Carolina. (2006, December 8-9). Deﬁnitions of Social Networking
Software. UNC Social Software Symposium. Retrieved 9/8/2007 from
http://www.ibiblio.org/sss/index.php/Main_Page.

Vanden Boogart, MR. (2006). Uncovering social impacts of F acebook on a college
campus. Unpublished master’s thesis, Kansas State University: Lawrence,
Kansas.

van der Molen, J .H.W. & Jongbloed, W. (2007). Free online games: an exploratory uses
and gratiﬁcations study of free games on the internet. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco,
CA.

von Eye, A. (October 20, 2005). Conﬁrmatory Factor Analysis in LISREL. Lecture
delivered at Michigan State University as part of a Structural Equation Modeling
seminar.

Vincent, R. & Basil, MD. (1997). College students’ news gratiﬁcations, media use, and
current events knowledge. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 41,
380-392.

Watson, S.W., Smith, 2., & Driver, J. (2006). Alcohol, sex, and illegal activities: an
analysis of selected F acebook central photos in ﬁfty states. (ERIC No.
ED493049).

Woo, S. (2005, November 3). Schools use Facebook to run background checks on

students. Brown Daily Herald. Retrieved from
http://www.browndailyherald.com/.

106

llllll 111 111 11

1293 02956 6969