Possible Title : A STUDY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FACEBOOK USE INTENSITY AND ITS MOTIVES ON USE

AMONG CEBUANO COLLEGE STUDENTS. (enhance pa)

Another possible title: THE MOTIVES AND INTENSITY USE OF FACEBOOK AMONG CEBUANO COLLEGE STUDENTS

Purpose of the study: This

study focused on the use of Facebook particularly the motives in using
Facebook and the intensity of its use

Possible rrl:

Set 1

Facebook Use: Motives and Intensity

One factor that may influence the tendency of a user to make social comparisons on
Facebook is his motivations when logging on to the site. In general, motivation refers to the
dynamic force within the individual that pushes him towards a goal. Interestingly, Facebook is
packed with several features such as the creation of a profile which contains some personal
background information, a profile picture and a display of the user’s friends list. Facebook also
allows users to share their photos, tag their friends, see other user’s photos and comment on these
photos. Users may also share their thoughts through status updates, create groups, events and play
games on the site. These features allow Facebook users to maximize the site for a variety of
purposes.

The Uses and Gratification (U&G) perspective is the most used approach in studying
social media. Uses and gratifications theory attempts to explain the uses and functions of the
media for individuals, groups, and society in general (Uses and Gratifications Approach,
n.d.). U&G studies tend to share a common frame of analysis that focuses on motives, social
and psychological antecedents, and cognitive, attitudinal, or behavioral outcomes
(Papacharissi, 2008). According to this framework, motives are general dispositions that
influence people’s actions towards an achievement of a want, need, or behavior.

Social and psychological antecedents are variables that affect making media-related decisions,
attitudes and behaviors such as the amount and selection of media content, motivation for its use and
possible outcomes of media experience. Notably, there are several needs and gratification for people
which are categorized into five categories: a) cognitive needs, b) affective needs, c) personal integrative
needs, d) social integrative needs, and e) tension free needs
 Facebook Use and Social Comparison 8

(Communication Theory, n.d.). Therefore, to understand why people use Facebook, U&G analysis
will begin first by examining the motives of a person by using such site and identifying variables
such as demographic variables and socio-psychological characteristics that will influence
Facebook-related behaviors of the users. Then, it is followed by the effects or outcomes of using
Facebook. Flaherty, Pearce, & Rabbin (1988) found that entertainment, passing time, and
information-seeking - needs met by traditional media are also met by computers, which is why
people use them. Several researches have utilized this approach to study why people use Facebook.
For example, Tanta, Mihovilović, and Sablić, (2014) used U&G framework to determine why
adolescents use Facebook and they found that adolescents use Facebook mainly to socialize and
communicate with their friends, as well as to obtain information about social events; the use of
Facebook primarily gratifies adolescents’ need for integration, social interaction, information and
understanding of their social environment. Rubin, Perse, and Barbato (1988) developed the
Interpersonal Communication Motives (ICM) scale and identified six motives for Interpersonal
Communication which were escape, relaxation, control, inclusion, pleasure, and affection.
Similarly, Sheldon (2008) developed a scale to gauge the motives of students in using Facebook
and its relationship with unwillingness to communicate. She constructed the Facebook Motives
scale and found six motives, namely: Relationship Maintenance, Passing time, Virtual community,
Entertainment, Companionship and Coolness.

According to Sheldon (2008), Relationship maintenance refers to interacting with members

of an individual’s existing offline social network. Passing time includes using of Facebook to
occupy time. This use may be part of a habit or an excuse to procrastinate. Virtual community
refers to communication with people met through the internet (Song, La Rose, Eastin, & Lin,
2004). Entertainment motives refer to planned usage of Facebook for the purposes of pleasure
seeking. Companionship, on the other hand emphasizes the use of Facebook to avoid loneliness
while Coolness relates to being cool and having fun.

On a different note, Joinson (2008) in his study identified seven unique uses and
gratifications of Facebook use, namely: social connection, shared identities, content, social
investigation, social network surfing and status updating.

Social connection motive is the combination of social surveillance and social capital
functions. It covers the concepts of reconnecting with lost contacts such as finding out what old
friends are up to now and maintaining contact with existing friends or friends that one does not get
to see often. The second motive, which is shared identities, refers to joining of groups, organization
of events and meeting of like-minded people. Thus, the motive ‘shared identities’ functions. The
third and fourth factors pertain to the content gratification of Facebook. The third factor covers the
social use of photographs such as posting and viewing photos while the fourth factor refers to
application within Facebook such as, playing games, quizzes and discovering new apps. The fifth
factor, social investigation, leans on expanding social networks and finding out more about people
who were known offline. The sixth factor, social network surfing serves the social surveillance
function too in a different way. It dwells on one’s capability to traverse one’s network and discover
one person through another friend’s list of friends. The last motive refers to status updates – posting
status updates and updates on newsfeed such as changes of relationship status, addition of friends
and other recent activities.
 Facebook Use and Social Comparison 9

Raacke and Bonds-Raacke (2008) also stated that Facebook use has three dimensions:
information dimension, friendship dimension, and connection dimension. The information
dimension includes academic reasons, posting pictures, learning about new events and posting
social gatherings. Friendship dimension is related to keeping in touch with old and new friends,
while the connection dimension refers to dating, feeling connected and making new friends.
Park and Lee’s study (2014) indicated entertainment, relationship maintenance, self-expression,
and impression management as associated with Facebook usage.

Further investigation of motives of Facebook use found relationship with certain

characteristics. For example, comparison of the motives of men and women indicated that women
are more likely motivated to visit Facebook to preserve existing relationships, be entertained and
to pass the time while men are motivated to meet new people or develop new relationships
(Stafford, Stafford, & Schkade, 2008). Similarly, Makashvili, Ujmajuridze, Amirejibi,
Kotetishvili, & Barbakadze (2013) found that among university students, females use Facebook to
contact existing friends and upload pictures while men use it for creation of new relationships and
passing time. Consequently, female and younger individuals visited Facebook to maintain existing
relationships (Sheldon, 2008).

In the Philippines, the Uses and Gratification framework was applied to understand the
taxonomy of internet use in the country as evidenced in the work of Hechanova and Ortega-Go
(2014). The authors found that internet use can be classified to seven components which are the
basic internet use, entertainment, expression and interaction, e-commerce, school-related, and
technological deviance. Gastardo-Conaco and Labor (2016) identified information-seeking, filial
and social relations, and political activities as reasons for using the internet. GMA News online
(2014) reported results from Wave7, a survey conducted by UM, a division of IPG Mediabrands,
that Pinoys (Filipinos) lead the world in the amount of time spent socializing online. The Wave7
survey also stated that Filipinos spend 53 hours socializing in a week - 11 hours more than the
global average of 42 hours.

On another light, the mission of Facebook is to give people the power to share and make
the world more open and connected; to help people stay connected with friends and family, to
discover what is going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them
(Facebook.com); however, usage patterns on Facebook vary from one person to another depending
on the features of the site that they utilize. The reasons why Filipinos thrive in social networking
sites can be understood by first looking at their motivations for using them. The same survey
mentioned earlier revealed a breakdown of the needs being satisfied by social media such as: a) to
stay in touch with friends, 74%; b) meet new people, 70%; c) have fun, 65%; d) share new
experiences, 63%; and e) keep company, 62%.

Moreover, Facebook use is also characterized by the intensity of its use. Facebook intensity
does not only include the frequency and duration of Facebook use but also the user’s involvement
– the emotional connectedness to the site and its integration to the user’s daily activities.
Interestingly, Ellison, Steinfeld and Lampe (2007) created the Facebook Intensity scale in their
research to obtain a better measure of Facebook usage. The development of the scale was based on the
assumption that intensity of Facebook use is linked to the creation and maintenance of social ties. The
results of the study did prove that positive relationship exists between certain kinds of
 Facebook Use and Social Comparison 10

Facebook use and the maintenance and creation of social capital. Raacke and Bonds-Raacke (2008)
found that students spent an average of 1.10 hours on other’s accounts and 1.46 hours on their own
account per day.

On an investigation conducted by Rae and Lonborg (2015), they found that quantity of
Facebook use was connected with higher levels of psychological well-being like general positive
affect, life satisfaction and emotional ties, among users that logged on Facebook for friendship
purposes but was negatively related with psychological well-being among users that used Facebook
for connection purposes (e.g., making new friends). Also, Midgley (2013) reveals that individuals
with low self-esteem and who are motivated to log onto Facebook to get information with others
predicted making more comparisons on Facebook. Motives of passing time and relationship
maintenance predicted the number of hours students spend on Facebook. Also, motives of
entertainment, passing time and relationship maintenance were all significant predictors of whether
users would miss Facebook if it were to disappear (Sheldon, 2008). Contrastingly, Capulong (2016)
contends that among the Facebook activities, college freshmen’s engagement in Facebook activities
were related to time spent on Facebook. As such, checking to see what someone is up to had the
highest relationship with Facebook time, followed by viewing photos, sending private messages,
creating or replying to attend to events, commenting or liking, posting photos, viewing videos,
tagging photos, and posting status updates.

Possible rrl set 2

According to the uses and gratifications approach (Joinson,

2008), people are goal-oriented in their preferences for communication channels. In other words, people use certain
communication technologies to the extent that those channels serve to their needs better than the others. Early
studies have centered on uses and gratifications of the Internet in general (Charney & Greenberg,
2001; Ferguson & Perse, 2000; Kaye, 1998; Kaye & Johnson, 2004; Sheldon, 2008). Later, researchers following the
uses and gratification tradition recognized that Internet is not a single entity; it involves different communication
tools, (e.g., the Web, bulletin boards and chat rooms), and each may be used for different purposes (Lin, 2002). Next,
social network sites, which combine many different Internet tools, have gained popularity. For example,
Facebook may function as a self- presentation tool like a blog or personal web site; it allows for instant messaging; it
can be used as a discussion forum, etc. Thus, Facebook could be used to gratify many different communication needs,
and people could differ in terms of why they use this new medium.

A number of studies have demonstrated that many people use Facebook for the opportunity to connect and to
communicate with people one has met or befriended offline (Ellison et al., 2007; Joinson, 2008; Lampe et al., 2006),
and to a lesser degree for the opportunity to investigate new others (Ellison et al., 2007; Joinson, 2008; Lampe et al.,
2006). When it is examined in more detail, it can be seen that communication with people one has met or befriended
offline may actually separate out into two forms: The first one is communication with the friends who live in long
distances and the second one is communication with friends living nearby. One
cannot arrange face-to-face meetings easily with the friends living in long distance, thus, may need to use Internet
tools such as Facebook for keeping contact. On the other hand, one can meet face-toface with friends living nearby,
and use Facebook as an easy way of organizing joint activities with them. Therefore, with regard to
friendship, Facebook can be thought of serving for three purposes: Maintaining long-distance relationships, organizing
social activities, and establishing new relationships. Facebook can be used not only for friendship formation and
maintenance, but also for romantic purposes. Early research has shown that the number of people who report to use
Facebook for romantic purpose is low (Pennington, 2009). Yet, it might be important to separate out Facebook use
motivations regarding friends and romantic partners since the dynamics of establishment
and maintenance of friend relationships maybe largely different than of romantic relationships.
Photo sharing (posting photos, commenting on photos, tagging photos, etc.) can be another unique motivation for
Facebook use. Facebook is the number one photo-sharing site on the Internet (Facebook Statistics, 2008). Joinson
(2008) study has shown that ‘‘photographs’’ and ‘‘status updates’’ are the two motives for Facebook use factors that
predicted the university students’ frequency of Facebook visits. Pennigton’s study (2009) on 234 undergraduates has
also demonstrated that photo-sharing is one of the common uses of Facebook, and this aspect of it is needed to be
researched. A detailed examination of photo-related activities on
Facebook may lead researchers to think that it is important to separate out two different types of those activities:
Creating albums of one’s own pictures, commenting on photos and tagging photos are active ways of dealing with
Facebook photos whereas observing other people’s photos on Facebook without any comments or any
attempts to provide social connection with the owners of those photos is a passive way. The motivations behind
active and passive involvement with photos can be different: Social connection and self-presentation for the former
one, and information gathering for the latter one.
Checking out what other people are doing might be another important motive for using Facebook. Rau, Gao, and Ding
(2008) make a clear differentiation between active participants of social network systems and the ‘‘lurkers’’ (passive
observers of online activities). Active participation involves posting and commenting whereas lurking (passive
observations) involves regularly reading others’ postings and comments. In some early studies, researchers tend to
consider lurking as a problem behavior, but later, it has been shown that a large portion of members in online
communities are lurkers rather than active posters; people may lurk for many different reasons (not only because they
are free-riders); therefore, it is accepted that lurking is a ‘‘normal’’ behavior’’ (see
Preece, Nonnecke, & Andrews, 2004). Today, we can easily claim that understanding user behaviors of any online
communication system, including Facebook, requires an awareness of both active
and passive users. Another important motive for using social network systems, including Facebook, is entertainment.
Boyd (2008) had conducted a two-year long ethnographic study on MySpace users, and according to her, while the
number one purpose of many young people to spent their time on MySpace is to meet with their friends, the second
important purpose was curbing their boredom. The findings of Pennington’s survey study (2009) on Facebook users
were similar: The number one purpose of Facebook use among college students were meeting with friends, and the
second important purpose was ‘‘Distraction/Procrastination’’. The present study aimed to develop a new scale, which
allows for the investigation of the motives for Facebook uses in depth. On the basis of literature review, the scale was
decided to include items tapping into those factors: Maintaining long-distance relationships, establishing new
friendships, organizing activities, managing romantic relationships, passive observations, photo-sharing and
entertainment.

Possible theoretical (to be formulated)

The Uses and Gratification (U&G)

Significance of the study (formulate and in line ani)

1. Future research may focus on the nature of relationship between Facebook Use Intensity
and Motives of Facebook Use to allow for a deeper understanding on what drives Filipinos to continue
using Facebook and which motives makes them intensely connected to the site. Future researches
may also generate a measure of the motives of Facebook Use that is uniquely based on the Filipino
sample;

Statement of the problem: (expound more)

More on facebook use motivations and intensity use

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY (taronga)

Research instrument (thought)

.- The questionnaires used were the Facebook Use intensity scale, Motives of Facebook Use
 Facebook Use Intensity. To gauge a person’s Facebook use intensity, the Facebook Use Intensity
scale developed by Ellison, Steinfeld, and Lampe (2007) was used to measure Facebook usage beyond
simple measures of frequency and duration, incorporating emotional connectedness to the site and its
integration to the person’s daily activities. The scale was modified to fit the purpose of the study. As such,
the eight-item scale was reduced to six items. The two items deleted measure the number of total friends
on Facebook and the duration of Facebook activity (in minutes) per day. Responses ranged from (1)
strongly disagree to (4) strongly agree. After modification, the Facebook Use Intensity scale is reported
to have a Cronbach alpha = .820.

-Sample items include “I would be sorry if Facebook shut down” and “Facebook is part of my
everyday activity.” (See Appendix C). The Facebook Use Intensity score is computed by getting the
means of all the items in the scale.

Motives of Facebook Use. To measure the motives of Filipino young adults, an instrument was
constructed. Many of which were based from the scales developed by Sheldon (2008) and Joinson (2008).
The measure was modified to suit the needs of the Filipinos being met by social media use as reported by
the Wave7 survey (GMA News online, 2014). Eight items were adapted from Motives for Facebook use
scale by Sheldon (2008), while the other 12 were adapted from Joinson’s (2008) Motives and Uses of
Facebook scale. The instrument measured seven motives of Facebook: Expanding social networks (3
items, Cronbach alpha = .739), Social investigation (3 items, Cronbach alpha = .758), Passing Time (3
items, Cronbach alpha = .738), Self-expression (2 items, Cronbach alpha = .803), Relationship
Maintenance (2 items, Cronbach alpha = .793), Companionship (2 items, Cronbach alpha = .529), and
Reconnection (2 items, Cronbach alpha =
.608). The scale yielded an overall Cronbach alpha = .817. Items are answered using a 4-point Likert
scale ranging from (1) Not at all to (4) To a great extent (See Appendix D).

Data collection and analysis (sample plot)

Procedures

In compliance to SLU regulations, a letter was sent to the Research and Development Office
for the permission to distribute questionnaires to SLU students with active Facebook accounts. The
researcher explained the purpose of the study and assured the participants the confidentiality of the
information they imparted. The participants completed the survey in 10 to 20 minutes. Data were
collected from August 24 to September 24, 2016. After the collection of data, demographic
characteristics of the sample were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The constructed measure for
Motives of Facebook Use was subjected to Factor Analysis to confirm the motives that were identified
by previous researchers. Using SPSS, the variables were subjected to descriptive statistics. One-way
ANOVA with Pairwise comparisons was employed to motives of Facebook Use to determine if
differences existed between each motive of Facebook Use. Pearson Correlations was also employed
to determine the relationship between the predictor variables and the dependent variables.
Hierarchical Multiple Regression and Mediation analyses using a Preacher and Hayes (2008) macro
were also conducted to answer the problems identified in the study.

Appendix C
Sample Questionnaire of Facebook Use Intensity

Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

 Disagree

1. Facebook is part of my everyday

activity
1 2 3 4
2. I am proud to tell people I'm on
Facebook
1 2 3 4
3. Facebook has become part of my
daily routine
1 2 3 4
4. I feel out of touch when I haven't
logged onto Facebook for a while
1 2 3 4
5. I feel I am part of the Facebook
community
1 2 3 4

6. I would be sorry if Facebook shut

down
1 2 3 4
 Facebook Use and Social Comparison 65

Appendix D
Sample Questionnaire of Motives of Facebook Use

Not at all Very little Somewhat To a great

extent
1. To communicate with my 1 2 3 4
friends and family
2. To stay in touch with friends 1 2 3 4
and family
3. To reconnect with people I 1 2 3 4
lost contact with
4. To get through to someone 1 2 3 4
who is hard to reach
5. To pass time when bored 1 2 3 4

6. It is one of the routine things I 1 2 3 4

do when online
7. To meet new people 1 2 3 4

8. To find people who share 1 2 3 4

similar interests with me
9. Organizing/Joining groups 1 2 3 4
and events
10. Browsing other people’s 1 2 3 4
profile
11. Reading comments on my 1 2 3 4
friend’s posts
12. Stalking other people 1 2 3 4

13. To play games and other 1 2 3 4

applications within Facebook
14. Checking on funny videos 1 2 3 4
and other posts
 Facebook Use and Social Comparison 66

15. To upload my photos 1 2 3 4

16. To update my status 1 2 3 4

17. It makes me cool among my 1 2 3 4

peers
18. It is fun 1 2 3 4

19. To develop a romantic 1 2 3 4

relationship
20. To feel less lonely 1 2 3 4

Wala pajud idea himuan pa lang

Rational of the study

RESEARCH DESIGN
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Research Locale
Research Respondents

Scales

Information on scales including Facebook Intensity (FBI), Actual Friends, Connection Strategies, and Facebook
Relationship Maintenance Behaviors is available below. Researchers are free to use these as long as they provide
correct citations. Please note we are not using the Facebook Intensity scale in our work any longer and instead are
working with server-level data when possible or, for measures of Facebook use, we ask about time on Facebook,
total friends, and "actual" friends as indepentent items. Scroll down for more information about these items as
presented in our 2011 New Media & Society piece.

Information about the social capital scales used in our 2014 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication piece
is here and our in press New Media & Society piece is here.

Facebook Intensity (FBI)

The Facebook Intensity scale is used to measure Facebook usage beyond simple measures of frequency and
duration, incorporating emotional connectedness to the site and its integration into individuals’ daily activities.
You are free to use the Facebook intensity scale (FBI) as long as correct attribution is used.
Please cite:
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook "friends:" Social capital and college
students use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143-1168.

Scale Items
1. Facebook is part of my everyday activity
2. I am proud to tell people I'm on Facebook
3. Facebook has become part of my daily routine
4. I feel out of touch when I haven't logged onto Facebook for a while
5. I feel I am part of the Facebook community
6. I would be sorry if Facebook shut down
7. Approximately how many TOTAL Facebook friends do you have? *
8. In the past week, on average, approximately how much time PER DAY have you spent actively using
Facebook?**

Response categories range from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, unless otherwise noted.

*Can be asked as an open-ended (as in Ellison et al., 2007) or closed-ended (as in Steinfield et al., 2008) question.
If asked as an open-ended question, Total Facebook friends must transformed by taking the log before averaging
across items to create the scale due to differing item scale ranges. If asked as a closed-ended question, a ten point
ordinal scale may be used (e.g. 10 or less, 11–50, 51–100, 101–150, 151–200, 201–250, 251–300, 301–400, more
than 400). You may wish to adjust these response categories depending on your population, etc.
Note that earlier versions asked students to distinguish among in-network and total friends. This may or may not
be appropriate based on population, site layout etc.

**Can be asked as an open-ended or closed-ended question. If asked as an open-ended question, Facebook

minutes should be measured by having participants fill in the amount of time they spend on Facebook. Then the
item should then be transformed by taking the log before averaging across items to create the scale due to
differing item scale ranges. If asked as a close-ended question an ordinal scale may be used (e.g. 1= 0-14min,
2=15-29 min, etc). Again, response categories may differ based on population means.

Computing the Scale

The Facebook Intensity score is computed by calculating the mean of all of the items in the scale.

Actual Friends

More recent studies have sought to expand on this early work by testing out alternative measures of Facebook
use. For example, Ellison et al. (in press) broke FBI out into its two primary components (total Facebook Friends
and Minutes Per Day) and added in a new variable, "Actual Friends."

Please cite:
Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-
enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 13(6), 873-892.

The wording of this question is as follows: "Approximately how many of your TOTAL friends do you consider actual
friends?" and was asked as an open-ended question immediate after the item asking about total Friends
("Approximately how many TOTAL Facebook friends do you have at MSU or elsewhere?"). For curvilinear analyses
such as that in Ellison et al. (2011), the squared term of actual friends was calculated using SPSS.

Connection Strategies
Ellison et al. (2011) also identified three "connection strategies" scales. Please see the publication for more
information about the logic behind these scales and their social capital implications. The scales are:
Initiating
1. I use Facebook to meet new people. **
2. MSU Stranger: Browse their profile on Facebook *
3. MSU Stranger: Contact them using Facebook, or by using information from Facebook *
4. MSU Stranger:Add them as a Facebook friend *
5. MSU Stranger: Meet them face-to-face *
Social Information-Seeking
1. I have used Facebook to check out someone I met socially. **
2. I use Facebook to learn more about other people in my classes. **
3. I use Facebook to learn more about other people living near me. **
4. Someone in Residence Hall: Browse their profile on Facebook. *
Maintaining
1. Close Friend: Browse *
2. Close Friend: Contact *
3. Close Friend:Add as Friend *
4. Close Friend: Meet face-to-face *
* scale ranges from 1 = not likely at all to 5 = very likely
** scale ranges from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree
These items were presented to our participants as follows:

Imagine an MSU student you've never met in real life or had a face-to-face conversation with. How likely are you
to do the following?

- Browse their profile on Facebook (Very Unlikely; Somewhat Unlikely; Neither Likely nor Unlikely; Somewhat
Likely; Very Likely)
- Contact them using Facebook, or by using information from Facebook (Very Unlikely; Somewhat Unlikely; Neither
Likely nor Unlikely; Somewhat Likely; Very Likely)
- Add them as a Facebook friend (Very Unlikely; Somewhat Unlikely; Neither Likely nor Unlikely; Somewhat Likely;
Very Likely)
- Meet them face-to-face (Very Unlikely; Somewhat Unlikely; Neither Likely nor Unlikely; Somewhat Likely; Very
Likely)

The same response sets were presented to participants for the following items:

Imagine someone at MSU who lives in your residence hall who you would recognize but have never spoken to.
How likely are you to do the following?

- Browse their profile on Facebook

- Contact them using Facebook, or by using information from Facebook
- Add them as a Facebook friend
- Meet them face-to-face

Think about one of your close friends. How likely are you to do the following?

- Browse their profile on Facebook

- Contact them using Facebook, or by using information from Facebook
- Add them as a Facebook friend
- Meet them face-to-face

We also asked a series of items that are included in the Connection Strategies scales. They are:
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements.

I use Facebook to meet new people. (Strongly Disagree; Disagree; Neither Agree nor Disagree; Agree; Strongly
Agree)

I have used Facebook to check out someone I met socially. (Strongly Disagree; Disagree; Neither Agree nor
Disagree; Agree; Strongly Agree)

I use Facebook to learn more about other people in my classes. (Strongly Disagree; Disagree; Neither Agree nor
Disagree; Agree; Strongly Agree)

I use Facebook to learn more about other people living near me. (Strongly Disagree; Disagree; Neither Agree nor
Disagree; Agree; Strongly Agree)

Please note that these items were not presented in a block but instead interspersed with other items not used in
the scales (e.g., "I feel my Facebook profile gives others a positive impression of me."). Similarly, in the 2008
instrument we included scenarios that were not used in the scales (e.g., "Imagine a person you knew in high school
but were not close friends with. How likely are you to do the following?").

Computing the Scales

The three Connection Strategy scales are computed by calculating the mean of all of the items in the scale.

Facebook Relationship Maintenance Behaviors

(formerly called Signals of Relational Investment)
We have recently introduced a new scale that measures the extent to which individuals attempt to respond to
implicit or explicit requests from their network. We discuss the meaning and motivation for this scale in our 2014
JCMC paper, available HERE. The items are:

When I see a friend or acquaintance sharing good news on Facebook, I try to respond.

When I see a friend or acquaintance sharing bad news on Facebook, I try to respond.

When I see someone asking for advice on Facebook, I try to respond.

When a Facebook friend has a birthday, I try to post something on their wall.

When I see someone asking a question on Facebook that I know the answer to, I try to respond.

(Scale ranges from 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree)