Advertisement

Facebook Reactions: Impact of Introducing New Features of SNS on Social Capital

  • Rama Adithya VaranasiEmail author
  • Elaine Dicicco
  • Andrew Gambino
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 850)

Abstract

Receiving feedback from connections is an important aspect of Social Network Sites (SNS). ‘Likes’ in Facebook (FB) is one such feature which allows users to receive feedback for their posts. However, due to likes restrictive ability in expressing feedback, FB released a new feature called ‘Reactions’. In this paper, we conducted a between-subjects experimental study (N = 44) that compares the effects of Facebook likes and reactions on perceived social capital. The results suggest that users who received reactions on their posts perceived higher levels of bridging and bonding social capital. Additionally, the effect of novelty was shown to be a mediator of these effects on social capital. These results help us understand the relationship maintenance, group cohesions, and user benefits of introducing a new feature into an SNS ecosystem.

Keywords

Social networking sites Facebook groups Reactions and likes Social capital Novelty 

References

  1. 1.
    Burke, M., Kraut, R., Marlow, C.: Social capital on Facebook: differentiating uses and users. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 571–580. ACM (2011). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1979023
  2. 2.
    Coleman, J.S.: Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol. 94, S95–S120 (1988). http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C.: The benefits of Facebook friends: social capital and college students use of online social network sites. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 12(4), 1143–1168 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ellison, N.B., Vitak, J.: Social network site affordances and their relationship to social capital processes. Handb. Psychol. Commun. Technol. 32, 205 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Granovetter, M.S.: The strength of weak ties. In: Leinhardt, S. (ed.) Social Networks, pp. 347–367. Academic Press (1977).  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-442450-0.50025-0. ISBN 978-0-12-442450-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayes, A.F.: Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach. Methodology in the Social Sciences. The Guilford Press, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karapanos, E.: User experience over time. In: Karapanos, E. (ed.) Modeling Users’ Experiences with Interactive Systems, vol. 436, pp. 57–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31000-3_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lampe, C., Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C.: Changes in use and perception of Facebook. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 721–730. ACM (2008). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1460675
  9. 9.
    Smock, A.D., Ellison, N.B., Lampe, C., Wohn, D.Y.: Facebook as a toolkit: a uses and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27(6), 2322–2329 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.011. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S074756321100149XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steinfield, C., DiMicco, J.M., Ellison, N.B., Lampe, C.: Bowling online: social networking and social capital within the organization. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Communities and Technologies, pp. 245–254. ACM (2009). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1556496
  11. 11.
    Steinfield, C., Ellison, N.B., Lampe, C.: Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: a longitudinal analysis. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 29(6), 434–445 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.002. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0193397308000701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sundar, S.S., Tamul, D.J., Wu, M.: Capturing: measures for assessing coolness of technological products. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 72(2), 169–180 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.09.008. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1071581913001328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tokunaga, R.S.: Engagement with novel virtual environments: the role of perceived novelty and flow in the development of the deficient self-regulation of internet use and media habits: novel virtual environments. Hum. Commun. Res. 39(3), 365–393 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vitak, J., Ellison, N.B.: ‘There’s a network out there you might as well tap’: exploring the benefits of and barriers to exchanging informational and support-based resources on Facebook. New Media Soc. 15(2), 243–259 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812451566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Williams, D.: On and off the ’net: scales for social capital in an online era. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 11(2), 593–628 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00029.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rama Adithya Varanasi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elaine Dicicco
    • 2
  • Andrew Gambino
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Information ScienceCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyPennsylvania State UniversityState CollegeUSA
  3. 3.College of CommunicationsPennsylvania State UniversityState CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations