Literature Review

Social Media as a tool for Communication

Technology has advanced tremendously in the past few decades. In 2002, the use of email and online communities had advanced communication to an online presence (Cummings,
Butler, & Kraut, 2002). Cummings et al (2002) looked at these variables in this medium of
communication. They found that online relationships were weaker and less valuable than Faceto-Face relationships. These statements seemed true until Social Media was introduced into the
world.
Social media has become a prevalent way of communication in the 21st century. This type
of media has opened up new doors in the way people communicate with their friends, family, and
intimate relationships. The invention of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other social
networking sites has impacted day-to-day relationships and long-distance relationships. The
Generation Y demographic has been highly impacted by this new technology (Bolton et al,
2013). This group has grown up using these kinds of social media. Many of this group grew up
using a computer. Generation Y is categorized as the tech savvy generation.
Palmer, Boniek, Turner, & Lovell (2014) conducted a study to examine undergraduate
students social interactions using technology for a tool. Palmer et al (2014) found that many
students used social media primarily with friends and intimate relationships. The study found
that undergraduates understand the importance of peer connections. There was a correlation
between the time that was spent on this technology and the emotional affects it had on the
student. This fact suggests that many students leave their families, friends, and high school
sweethearts. Social media has given a platform for these students to keep in contact, share

photos, and maintain a rapport throughout the time in which they are away. The hope is that
when the student comes back home they can pick those relationships back up where they left off.
The problem is relationship maintenance through social media can be tricky business.
Ozad and Uygarer (2014) discuss the results they gathered from the study they conducted
comparing friendships in real-life and on online networks. They note that there is a need for
belonging that comes into play with people using social media sites. The results also had shown a
difference in age and the amount of attachment formed on social media. The younger generation
seemed to attach more to relationships formed through these social networks. Ozad and Uygarer
(2014) did acknowledge that social networking sites played an important role in the attachment
of the younger generation.
Today, there are different media networks for different things users are trying to
accomplish. Kane, Alavi, Labianca, & Borgatti (2014) outline several different social media sites
and the purpose for these sites. All of these sites are social media sites and all are used for
different purposes. Generally, Facebook is used as a social platform. Users contact friends,
family, and some coworkers on this platform. Primarily, Twitter is used for businesses and
celebrities to get content out to the public. LinkedIn is similar to Twitter. There is a sense that it
is a community of professionals making connections and possible friendships. All of these social
media tools are used to form relationships in some capacity.
Self-Disclosure through Social Media
Self-disclosure plays a big role in relationship maintenance. Dainton (2013) conducted a
study of college students in romantic relationships who use Facebook to try and sustain their

relationship. She surveyed 189 students and found that there was no correlation between selfdisclosure on Facebook and self-disclosure through Face-to-Face communication (FTF).
Congruent with Daintons findings, another study was done on college students that
depicted that students disclosed more in a FTF communication system than a computer-mediated
communication system (CMC). The results for this study found that disclosure was more
prevalent to strangers than friends through CMC. Friends used FTF communication more for
self-disclosure (Schiffrin, Edelman, Falkenstern, & Stewart, 2010). Both of these studies are
focused on college students who are in an environment that is high in the FTF communication
(Schiffrin et al, 2010). This could be why the FTF communication is the more attractive
communication measure. Schiffrin et al (2010) found that college students preferred FTF
communication because it was more enjoyable.
In contrast, Steijn and Schouten (2011) suggest that information shared on social media
has a positive effect on all kinds of relationship development. This study was conducted with a
bigger population and a larger age range which could predict why the results were so different.
The findings that were shown support the idea that the more self-disclosure that is given results
in positive relationship development. There was a definite relationship that was found between
public posts on Facebook and the amount of relationship development and the frequency of posts
or the content of the post. The study also found that relationship development increased with
weaker relationships more than stronger relationships (Steijn & Schouten, 2011). Based off this
information, stronger friendships do not grow as much through a CMC relationship than through
a FTF relationship. Relationships that are weak are shown to grow more through CMC.
Schouten, Valkenburg, & Peter (2009) found that self-disclosure was higher in a CMC
situation than in a FTF communication situation. They argue that CMC has higher self-disclosure

because more people ask questions in a CMC channel. There is a lack of nonverbal cues in a
CMC situation. Schouten et al (2009) offers a suggestion that this could be a reason why
questions are asked more frequently in this form of communication.
Taddei, Contena, & Grana (2010) conducted a study which had shown that weaker
relationships can be strengthened by CMC. Two strangers used CMC to communicate with each
other. The results depicted a high level of likeability and self-disclosure. These results were not
as high as the FTF communication; however, they were high (Taddei et al, 2010). There is a
sense that strangers are willing to disclose more because they can control the conversation. CMC
is only focused on verbal communication which can lead to more self-disclosure. The other
person cannot see what they look like or any other nonverbal factors that would affect the
perception of that person.
Pollet, Roberts, & Dunbar (2011) found the same results as Taddei et al (2010) in their
sample. People who had a lot of friends on Facebook did not have as many in real life. People
cannot keep 500 friendships in real life, but they can in the social media world. Subsequently, the
amount of time one spent on these social media sites did not increase the emotional closeness of
their relationships.
Relationship Maintenance through Social Media
A big part of the use of social media is to sustain relationships with people close or far
away. Relationship maintenance through social media can be very difficult at times. There are
many factors that affect how well the relationship is maintained. Dainton (2013) accounted for
positivity, openness, and assurances to be factors in the development of relationship
maintenance. The college students Facebook maintenance did not seem to have an effect on

relationship satisfaction. Dainton (2013) argued that the results might be because Facebook is a
very public avenue. These posts that college kids make may not have an impact on their
relationship maintenance because everyone can see these posts. There is a lack of intimacy in
CMC. FTF communication offers more of an intimate way to maintain the relationship.
Klein (2013) tried to study the intimacy through CMC. He cites that this generation is
dependent on CMC. According to Klein, long distance relationships tend to need deeper
maintenance than other relationships do. Many students come to rely on frequent, timely
responses from romantic partners, family, and friends to reassure themselves about these ties and
manage painful worries about rejection (Klein, 2013, p.154). Specifically, romantic
relationships rely on a decent amount of maintenance. If there is a lack of maintenance, the
romantic partner may become obsessed with checking social media to see if there is any
correspondence. Klein associates social media with anxiety. In this new age, the use of social
media for sustaining relationships has increased the problem of jealousy. Romantic relationships
that are sustained through long distance interaction use a decent amount of CMC to keep the
relationship going. A problem these relationships face is becoming paranoid that their significant
other is cheating on them, lying to them, or just ignoring them.
Bryant and Marmo (2009) conducted a study in which they looked at how college
students us social media for maintaining relationships. Students reported maintaining
relationships through Facebook using many strategies. This study focused primarily on
surveillance. The findings in this research correlate with Klein (2013). The increase in social
media in the past few years has increased the power of surveillance. As long as a person is
friends with another, the communication channel is always open. Students use surveillance to see

what is going on with a lot of their friends and colleagues without having to engage in
conversation with them.
One type of social media that could be considered surveillance is the use of photomessaging. Technology has allowed for everyone to share photos in a public and fast-paced way.
Instagram is one of many social media sites where the user can just scroll through the photos
being shared. Hunt, Lin, & Atkin (2014) studied 682 college students to see why photomessaging behavior was used more often to communicate than other social media sites. The
findings suggest that like other social media sites, the maintenance of the relationship is the
driving factor for why students use photo-messaging.
Hunt et al (2014) used the technology acceptance model to compare their results. The
study predicted that the relationship maintenance and behavioral intention had a strong
correlation. There was an importance of social networks that came about in this study. Social
networks seem to play an important role in the individuals motives for photo-messaging.
Another study was performed that tested the effect internet had on social relationships.
This study examined instant messaging (IM) and social networking sites (SNS). The results
found that SNS did not increase the emotional closeness. This study suggested that this may be
because of the lack of time or constraints (Pollet et al, 2011). Social media can be hard for
relationship maintenance because it has no time constraints. This type of communication is very
relaxed in the response time.
Hand, Thomas, Buboltz, Deemer, & Buyanjargal (2013) examined the time spent online
and how that related to the relationship satisfaction. There was a negative relationship found
between intimacy levels and the representation of the romantic partners use of social media.

Hand et al (2013) attributed this to the fact that one of the romantic partners could us social
media more to gratify the need of checking in on their partner. There is a sense of jealousy that
can occur between intimate relationship and social media.
Quick responses are pretty important for information that needs to be returned in a fast
manor, but they are not the deciding factor for social media use. Tokunaga (2011) argues that the
use of social networking sites can have a negative effect on relationships. For example, a deletion
of a friend from Facebook or negative comments on social media could lead to a decrease of
relational maintenance. The relationship maintenance has to focus on positivity, openness,
assurances, social networks, and other related measures (Bryant and Marmo, 2009). There are a
lot of factors that go into sustaining a relationship online.

References
Bolton, R. N., Parasuraman, A. A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T.,
& ... Solnet, D. (2013). Understanding Generation Y and their use of social media: a review and
research agenda. Journal Of Service Management, 24(3)
Bryant, E. M., & Marmo, J. (2009). Relational Maintenance Strategies on Facebook.
Kentucky Journal Of Communication, 28(2)
Cummings, J. N., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). THE QUALITY OF Online
Social Relationships. Communications Of The ACM, 45(7)
Dainton, M. (2013). Relationship Maintenance on Facebook Development of a
Measure, Relationship to General Maintenance, and Relationship Satisfaction. College Student
Journal, 47(1), 113-121
Hand, M. M., Thomas, D., Buboltz, W. C., Deemer, E. D., & Buyanjargal, M. (2013).
Facebook and Romantic Relationships: Intimacy and Couple Satisfaction Associated with Online
Social Network Use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 16(1), 8-13.
Hunt, D. S., Lin, C. A., & Atkin, D. J. (2014). Communicating Social Relationships via the
Use of Photo-Messaging. Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(2)
Kane, G. C., Alavi, M., Labianca, G., & Borgatti, S. P. (2014). Whats Different about
Social Media Networks? A Framework and Research Agenda. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 275-304.

Klein, M. C. (2013). Love in the Time of Facebook: How Technology Now Shapes
Romantic Attachments in College Students. Journal Of College Student Psychotherapy, 27(2),
149-158
zad, B., & Uygarer, G. (2014). Attachment Needs and Social Networking Sites.
Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 4243-52
Palmer, B., Boniek, S., Turner, E., & Lovell, E. (2014). Undergraduates, Technology, and
Social Connections. College Student Journal, 48(2), 281.
Pollet, T. V., Roberts, S. B., & Dunbar, R. M. (2011). Use of Social Network Sites and
Instant Messaging Does Not Lead to Increased Offline Social Network Size, or to Emotionally
Closer Relationships with Offline Network Members. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social
Networking, 14(4), 253-258
Schiffrin, H., Edelman, A., Falkenstern, M., & Stewart, C. (2010). The Associations
among Computer-Mediated Communication, Relationships, and Well-being. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior & Social Networking, 13(3), 299-306.
Schouten, A. P., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2009). An Experimental Test of
Processes Underlying Self-Disclosure in Computer-Mediated Communication. Cyberpsychology,
3(2), 1-13.

Steijn, W. P., & Schouten, A. P. (2013). Information Sharing and Relationships on

Social Networking Sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 16(8), 582-587.
Taddei, S., Contena, B., & Grana, A. (2010). Does web communication warm-up
relationships? Self-disclosure in Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). BPA - Applied
Psychology Bulletin (Bollettino Di Psicologia Applicata), (260), 13-22.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2011). Friend Me or You'll Strain Us: Understanding Negative Events
That Occur over Social Networking Sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking,
14(7/8), 425-432.