Users and Nonusers: Interactions between Levels of Facebook Adoption and Social Capital

Post on 19-May-2015

833 views 0 download

Tags:

description

Although Facebook is the largest social network site in the U.S. and attracts an increasingly diverse userbase, some individuals have chosen not to join the site. Using survey data collected from a sample of non-academic staff at a large Midwestern university (N=614), we explore the demographic and cognitive factors that predict whether a person chooses to join Facebook. We find that older adults and those with higher perceived levels of bonding social capital are less likely to use the site. Analyzing open-ended responses from non-users, we find that they express concerns about privacy, context collapse, limited time, and channel effects in deciding to not adopt Facebook. Finally, we compare non-adopters against users who differ on three dimensions of use. We find that light users often have social capital outcomes similar to, or worse than, non-users, and that heavy users report higher perceived bridging and bonding social capital than either group. To view the paper: http://vitak.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/lampe_vitak_ellison-2013-cscw.pdf

Transcript of Users and Nonusers: Interactions between Levels of Facebook Adoption and Social Capital

Users and Nonusers: Interactions between Levels ofFacebook Adoption and Social Capital

Cliff Lampe (@clifflampe)Jessica Vitak (@jvitak)Nicole Ellison (@nicole_ellison)

#CSCW2013 | Lampe, Vitak, & Ellison | Users & Nonusers | @clifflampe @jvitak @nicole_ellison

In what ways are Facebook users and non-users different, and how

are heavy users distinct from light users?

#CSCW2013 | Lampe, Vitak, & Ellison | Users & Nonusers | @clifflampe @jvitak @nicole_ellison

Technology Adoption“…in general, the disparity in effort and benefit works against acceptance in many situations.” (Grudin, 1994)

Flickr: ciaoamore

Method

Random sample of 2150 non-faculty university staff 614 responses (29% response rate) 134 participants were non-users (22% of sample) Instrument included validated scales & open-ended

item (for non-users)

#CSCW2013 | Lampe, Vitak, & Ellison | Users & Nonusers | @clifflampe @jvitak @nicole_ellison

In what ways are Facebook users and non-users different?

Binary logistic regression (predicting use of Facebook) revealed differences in:

1. Age2. Bonding Social Capital3. Facebook Usefulness

No differences in sex, ethnicity, education, weekly Internet use, Internet efficacy, self-esteem, or bridging social capital

#CSCW2013 | Lampe, Vitak, & Ellison | Users & Nonusers | @clifflampe @jvitak @nicole_ellison

Flickr: HarlanH

Social Capital

Facebook Usefulness

Flickr: CapCase

What are non-users’ reasons for not joining Facebook?

Time: “I believe it is a huge waste of time and it takes away from productivity in the workplace.”

Impersonal: “I prefer talking face to face or on the phone. My personal friends deserve a private conversation.”

Privacy concerns: “Even with the privacy guards in place, people can stalk you from your friends’ sites.”

Context collapse: “too much overlap between work and personal life on Facebook”

Lack of interest: “[I] don't see how it could add value to my life.”

#CSCW2013 | Lampe, Vitak, & Ellison | Users & Nonusers | @clifflampe @jvitak @nicole_ellison

Time on Site Interaction on Site Network Composition

How are heavy users distinct from light users?

#CSCW2013 | Lampe, Vitak, & Ellison | Users & Nonusers | @clifflampe @jvitak @nicole_ellison

Signals of Relational Investment

Flickr: Spencer77

Actual Friends

#CSCW2013 | Lampe, Vitak, & Ellison | Users & Nonusers | @clifflampe @jvitak @nicole_ellison

ANOVA Findings: Age

SRI Time Friends35

40

45

50

55Non-user

Light user

Heavy user

Age

#CSCW2013 | Lampe, Vitak, & Ellison | Users & Nonusers | @clifflampe @jvitak @nicole_ellison

ANOVA Findings: Facebook Usefulness

SRI Time Friends2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3 Non-user

Light user

Heavy user

Face

book

Use

fuln

ess

#CSCW2013 | Lampe, Vitak, & Ellison | Users & Nonusers | @clifflampe @jvitak @nicole_ellison

ANOVA Findings: Bridging Social Capital

SRI Time Friends3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

4.1Non-user

Light user

Heavy user

Brid

ging

Soc

ial C

apita

l

#CSCW2013 | Lampe, Vitak, & Ellison | Users & Nonusers | @clifflampe @jvitak @nicole_ellison

ANOVA Findings: Bonding Social CapitalBo

ndin

g So

cial

Cap

ital

SRI Time Friends3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9 Non-user

Light user

Heavy user

#CSCW2013 | Lampe, Vitak, & Ellison | Users & Nonusers | @clifflampe @jvitak @nicole_ellison

Discussion

Membership does not appear sufficient to garner benefits associated with use of SNSs

Users must actively engage with the site & their network to reap rewards

Unpacking reasons why some people choose to forgo using the site

#CSCW2013 | Lampe, Vitak, & Ellison | Users & Nonusers | @clifflampe @jvitak @nicole_ellison

Take aways

Usefulness is an important frame by which non-users of Facebook express their motivations.

How one uses Facebook is strongly associated with social capital outcomes.

#CSCW2013 | Lampe, Vitak, & Ellison | Users & Nonusers | @clifflampe @jvitak @nicole_ellison

Moving forward

#CSCW2013 | Lampe, Vitak, & Ellison | Users & Nonusers | @clifflampe @jvitak @nicole_ellison

What features or social processes can Facebook implement to improve users’

literacy and site engagement?

Thanks!Please address all questions to the intimidating

Superman-lookalike in the audience. He won’t bite.

Probably not, at least.

This research was funded in part by NSF Grant #0916019: HCC: Small: The role of social network sites in facilitating collaborative processes.

#CSCW2013 | Lampe, Vitak, & Ellison | Users & Nonusers | @clifflampe @jvitak @nicole_ellison