See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258173969

Facebook: A literature review

Article in New Media & Society September 2013

DOI: 10.1177/1461444813488061

CITATIONS READS

52 985

6 authors, including:

Marijke De Couck Cind du bois

Vrije Universiteit Brussel rma
16 PUBLICATIONS 122 30 PUBLICATIONS 533
CITATIONS CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related
projects:

Deconstructing a Contested Discourse: A Systematic Literature

Review and Conceptual Model of Ethics, Responsibility, and
Sustainability Integration in Business School Curricula View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marijke De Couck on 18 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 New http://nms.sagepub.com/
Media & Society

Facebook: A literature review

Ralf Caers, Tim De Feyter, Marijke De Couck, Talia Stough, Claudia Vigna and Cind Du
Bois
New Media Society 2013 15: 982
DOI: 10.1177/1461444813488061

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://nms.sagepub.com/content/15/6/982

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for New Media & Society can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://nms.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Sep 11, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Bibliotheek on October 15, 2013
488061
2013
NMS15610.1177/1461444813488061new media & societyCaers et al.

Review article
new media & society

Facebook: A literature 15(6) 9821002

The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
review sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1461444813488061
nms.sagepub.com

Ralf Caers and Tim De Feyter

Human Relations Research Group, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel (HUB), Brussels, Belgium

Marijke De Couck
Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.

Talia Stough
Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel (HUB), Brussels, Belgium

Claudia Vigna
Human Relations Research Group, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel (HUB), Brussels, Belgium

Cind Du Bois
Royal Military Academy (KMS), Brussels, Belgium

Abstract
This article provides a critical review of scientific, peer reviewed, articles on Facebook
between 2006 and 2012. The review shows that while there are yet numerous articles
on various aspects of the social network site, there are still many gaps to be filled.
Also, due to the limited scope of many articles (in sample sizes as well as in the number
of countries included in the studies) and frequent changes to Facebooks design and
features, it is not only necessary to revisit many of these articles but also to integrate
their research findings. The review ends with a critical discussion and directions for
future research.

Keywords
Facebook, review

Corresponding author:
Ralf Caers, Professor HR & Social Media, Human Relations Research Group, Hogeschool-Universiteit
Brussel (HUB), Warmoesberg 26, 1000, Brussels, Belgium.
Email: ralf.caers@hubrussel.be
Caers et al. 983

Introduction
The introduction and rise of the social network site (SNS) Facebook has been one of the
most important social trends of the past decade. Although it only opened to the public in
2006, Facebook reports already serving one billion monthly active users at the end of
2012 (Facebook, 2012b). Moreover, 80% of these users reside outside the US and services
are available in 70 languages, making Facebook a worldwide platform. While there are
concerns about the accuracy and trustworthiness of these numbers (the number of accounts
that are frequently used may differ from the real number of individuals using the platform)
and neutral information is not available, one should agree the size of this SNS is at least
substantial and the growth rate impressive. It is this growth rate that has attracted the
attention of scientists from widely different fields of inquiry. In February 2013, using
Facebook as a keyword on the ISI Web of Knowledge provided no less than 3068 hits.
This article reviews the scientific literature on Facebook in the economic and psycho-
logical domain. We therefore focus on the personality of users: why they joined, how
they build networks, and how they interact; and on how organizations may act on, and
benefit from, Facebook. The review clearly shows that while many interesting topics
have been addressed, much of the work done so far has been fragmented and limited to
particular settings. It offers insight into the strengths and shortcomings of these studies,
integrates research findings, and offers directions for future research.

Methodology
The articles presented in this literature review have been obtained using the ISI Web of
Knowledge. The search started in July 2010. We found articles by using the keyword
Facebook in combination with other key phrases such as motives to join, market-
ing, recruitment, selection, behavior, etc. All articles between 2006 and 2010
were collected, read, and classified. Reference lists were scanned each time for related
work on the subject. Starting from October 2010, the same procedure was repeated every
three months to acquire the most recent academic work. Articles presented in this review
are either published in peer-reviewed scientific journals or published in conference pro-
ceedings that have gone through a peer-review process. Research and data provided by
Facebook are used as suggestions for further research, or to present data on user num-
bers. Works by Aimeur et al. (2010), Cross and Parker (2008), and Ernst (2010) have
been included to, respectively, contribute to a list of potential threats, to provide a future
research direction, and to offer an example. Beside these, 114 scientific articles were
considered valuable for this review.

What is Facebook?
We do not assume all readers are familiar with Facebook and the services available to its
users. Therefore, we provide a short overview of its features. This overview is based on
the Facebook Timeline layout as it was available in October 2012.
Individuals can create an account on the website Facebook.com. After providing
some personal information (name, date of birth, gender, email address), the new user
984 new media & society 15(6)

chooses a password and gets account access. Facebook opts for a highly standardized
layout of user accounts. Regardless of whose account it is, many features appear on the
same place on the screen, making it easy to recognize and find the data one is searching
for. There are two important pages on this account: home and profile. The profile page,
also often called the wall, is where users present themselves. A small profile picture
adds to a large cover photo at the top of the page, below which the name of the user is
presented along with some basic information and a few buttons referring to friends,
photos, and likes. Below that is the area where status updates appear. Users can
post anything they want in their status, and friends can respond to this statement by
text comments or by liking it (shown directly below the status). On the home page, also
often called news feed, users are informed on the status updates and other activities
(joining groups or becoming fan of something they like) from their friends. It thus
automatically and chronologically reflects the highlights of what friends have been
doing in the past hours.
Once a profile is created, the new user can start looking for friends and send friend
requests. When accepted, Facebook connects the two individuals by allowing them to
see each others profile page and by adding their activities to one anothers news feed.
Facebook thus functions as an online application to see and to be seen (Stroud, 2008) or
to prosume: producing and consuming at the same time (Le and Tarafdar, 2009; Ritzer
and Jurgenson, 2010).

Facebook and the individual

Although it is important to consider the basic features of Facebook, it is even more essen-
tial to consider how the platform is actually being used, and by whom. In this section, we
focus on the psychological literature regarding Facebook, and summarize why individu-
als want(ed) to join Facebook, what personality users have, how they build a network of
friends, how they disclose information, and how they interact. Shortcomings are pre-
sented when any are found.

Initial motivations to join Facebook

Sledgianowski and Kulviwat (2009) were among the first to investigate why individuals
wanted to join Facebook. Their convenience sample of 289 students from one American
university indicated that the perceived playfulness and the critical mass of the site were
the main drivers of intentions to join, besides normative pressure, trust, usefulness, and
ease of use. Later research would confirm the importance of pressure. Cheung and Lee
(2010), for example, studied a convenience sample of 389 students and marked the
importance of social identity (being aware of group membership and attaching emotional
significance to it) and subjective norms (compliance). Kwon and Wens (2010) research
on a sample of 229 Korean respondents linked these two studies by showing a positive
correlation between perceived usefulness and social identity. Pressure appears to remain
important also after joining the SNS, as Skagebys (2009) document analysis showed
that users are unhappy with pressure to accept friend requests from coworkers and
employers.
Caers et al. 985

Based on the research available today, it thus appears Facebook was right to focus on
facilitating the process by which new users find friends (obtaining critical mass), by for
example offering the friend finder application, by allowing newcomers to go through the
friends list of new friends (snowball effect), and by offering the option for users to sug-
gest friends to the newcomer. Once the critical mass was installed, group pressure appears
to have done the rest.
Due to the short time span in which the above studies were performed it is not pos-
sible to analyze changes in motives to join. As it is nearly impossible to assess experi-
enced users initial motivations to join, future research should focus on the motives to
join today (preferably in multiple countries) and compare them with current research.
This may offer valuable contributions to our understanding, as the motives from early
adopters may differ from those of the early or late majority. Also, the pressure to
respond to friend requests from coworkers may, for example, be even stronger today
than five years ago, as more individuals use the SNS. It would also be interesting to
compare current motives of users to join between countries and between various demo-
graphic groups; European users may join for different reasons than, for example, Asian
users, and the pressure to join may be more important to youngsters than to adults. This
may be especially interesting based on findings from the large-scale Facebook (2012a)
research on 721 million Facebook users, showing that users friends were most likely
of a similar age and resided in the same country. This suggests heterogeneous groups
may indeed exist. Finally, accounting for the current brand awareness of the SNS, our
understanding would benefit from a study focusing on the motives of individuals not
to join Facebook.

Characteristics of Facebook users

Past research has focused on differences in Facebook behavior relating to gender, per-
sonality, social status, age, and race.
Looking at gender, a large study by Hargittai (2007) on a heterogeneous sample of
1060 first-year undergraduate students in the US showed that men were not more likely
to use Facebook than women. This finding was confirmed by a smaller study on 116 US
students by Raacke and Bonds-Raacke (2008). However, a study by Lewis et al. (2008),
on a sample of 1710 US students, showed that women were more likely than men to
maintain a private profile. In sum, these studies suggest that research on gender differ-
ences should focus on Facebook behavior, rather than on the decision to join Facebook.
But this remains, for now, only a suggestion, as these studies are all focused on students
and are performed in the US. We should proceed with caution before generalizing any of
these research findings to other countries and other demographic groups. Additional
international research is required.
Some research on Facebook deals directly with personality. For instance, a small
study on 97 US students by Ross et al. (2009) indicated that extraversion was positively
related to Facebook use, which is in line with more general research by Correa et al.
(2010) and Wilson et al. (2010) on the link between extraversion and the use of SNSs.
Openness to experiences was also found to relate positively to SNS use, especially for
mature individuals (Correa et al., 2010). Conscientiousness (Wilson et al., 2010) and
986 new media & society 15(6)

emotional stability (Correa et al., 2010), however, related negatively with SNS use. In
sum, our understanding of the personality of Facebook users remains partial. As SNSs
differ in content, target audiences, and use, it is not evident that general research on dif-
ferent SNSs is easily applicable to Facebook. Our understanding may thus benefit from
a more elaborate analysis of personality characteristics of Facebook users and non-users.
But besides gender and personality, future research should also look into other demo-
graphic differences between users and non-users.
Despite the articles mentioned above, it is clear that we require more studies on the
link between personal characteristics and Facebook use. At this point, many of the stud-
ies are either based on a broader range of SNSs, on small homogeneous sample sizes, or
solely in the US. This requires caution in generalizing research findings. Moreover, we
should consider the year when the articles were published. This is a comment that will
also be found in many other sections of this review. It is, however, not our intention to
claim that the conclusions provided by these articles are by definition outdated and
should therefore be suppressed. Any comment regarding the year of publication should
be considered as an opportunity to revisit these studies and to investigate whether any
changes have occurred due to the fast increase in Facebook membership in recent years,
the frequent changes in the platforms features and settings, or consumers experience
with the platform. This may be particularly relevant when looking at personal character-
istics, as early adopters may differ from early or late majority.

Building and maintaining a Facebook network

There is already a significant body of research focusing on how users present themselves
on Facebook and how they interact with friends. Many interesting research findings have
therefore already been provided. But still, opportunities for further improvement and
deepening of our knowledge are noticed.
SNSs such as Facebook visualize ones network (Donath, 2007). A quick search on
Facebook reveals that users vary widely in the number of friends they have, ranging from
only one to more than a thousand. Facebook reports the average number of friends is 130
(Facebook, 2012b). Therefore, it has been stated that online Facebook friends are not
necessarily offline friends and that the use of the word friend by Facebook has
expanded the meaning of the word (Wang and Wellman, 2010). However, our under-
standing of this matter is at least partial.
Early research by Lewis and West (2009) found that users with a large number of
Facebook friends do not necessarily have the same number of close friends in everyday
life, which supports the claim mentioned above. It is important to note that this conclu-
sion is based on interviews with 16 students from one university in the UK. Support for
the statement could also be drawn from Wang and Wellmans (2010) study of a sample
of 677 US households, indicating that both close and (more) distant friends were among
ones online friends. The downside to this research is that it did not solely focus on
Facebook, but rather focused on having online friends in general.
Besides these studies, there is also relevant work by Ellison et al. (2007) indicating
that many users add old high school friends they once knew but do no longer have
contact with. In the same line of research, Wang et al. (2010) found that users are
Caers et al. 987

willing to accept friend requests from attractive opposite sex users they do not know,
and Pempek et al. (2009) and Subrahmanyam et al. (2008) found that users interact
most with friends with whom they have an established offline relationship.
Unfortunately, however, the former four studies all use relatively small samples of
students from one American university. A recent study by Reich et al. (2012) showing
that individuals mainly use SNSs to connect with others they know offline is then
again based on a sample of 126 US high school students. This makes it difficult to
generalize the findings to other settings.
We suggest that future research extend these analyses, including demographic data
of the users under study. Indeed, research on e-professionalism suggests that, for
example, US psychologists are not keen on adding students or patients to their friend
list (Taylor et al., 2010) and may therefore show a different behavior when it comes to
adding other users. Also the debate concerning whether Facebook is used as a comple-
ment or a substitute for face-to-face interaction remains open. Kujaths (2011) study on
183 US students suggests it may be a complement to some and a supplement to others,
but more profound research (for example, including personality dimensions) is still
required.
For now, we must make do with research showing a link between personality and
the number of friends on US students profiles. In a small sample of 103 students, Orr
et al. (2010) found that shy individuals had less Facebook friends and Buffardi and
Campbells (2009) analysis of 156 profiles of US students showed narcissists tried to
maximize their number of Facebook friends. Future research should investigate the
robustness of these results in larger samples from more international and heterogene-
ous populations. While many studies in this domain are quite recent and the time
aspect is therefore less of concern, it would also be interesting to compare new
research on friending behavior with the older articles. Having been able to experience
the benefits and downsides of disclosing information may have changed friending
behavior.
Besides the motives for (not) adding people to ones network, it is also still unclear
what impression one gets of a user with many Facebook friends. Research by Tong et al.
(2008) on 153 US students suggests that there is a curvilinear inverted U-shape relation-
ship between the number of friends a user has on Facebook and the perceptions of others
regarding the social attractiveness of that user. The perceived social attractiveness was
highest for users with around 300 friends and lowest for users with either few or many
Facebook friends. A Dutch study on 124 Hyves-users by Utz (2010), showing that hav-
ing numerous (and extraverted) friends makes the user appear more popular, however,
indicates more (elaborate) research is still needed.
Finally, it is also yet unclear what effect having many Facebook friends has on the
users themselves. While Manago et al. (2012) found in their sample of 88 US under-
graduate students that having many Facebook friends correlated positively with life sat-
isfaction and perceived social support, Chou and Edge (2012) seem to add a nuance.
They concluded from their research on 425 US undergraduate students that students with
a higher number of Facebook friends whom they did not know offline were more often
in agreement that others had better lives. Future research should elaborate on these find-
ings as well.
988 new media & society 15(6)

Motives for disclosing information on Facebook

Facebook is often depicted as a platform to see and to be seen (Pempek et al., 2009), to
express an identity (Lee, 2012), and to help highlight otherwise obscure and seemingly
mundane aspects of ones life (Yau and Schneider, 2009). As everything is so visible, and
users know that they may be seen, it is logical to wonder: to what extent do we see me-
marketing (the act of carefully presenting oneself in accordance to how one wants to be
seen by others) or actual disclosure on Facebook profiles? Are all users prone to me-
marketing, are none or only some? At this point, there is not yet sufficient research to
draw conclusions for all types of users.
Two studies appear to indicate that there may be at least some me-marketing involved.
Firstly, Zywica and Danowskis (2008) study on 614 US students suggests that individu-
als who are introverted, not popular offline and have low levels of self-esteem (SE) tried
to look popular on Facebook and thus misrepresented themselves. Secondly, the previ-
ously mentioned research by Buffardi and Campbell (2008) also suggests that there may
sometimes be me-marketing involved, as narcissists were found to more often upload
portfolio pictures as their profile picture. This is furthermore strengthened by a recent
study by Carpenter (2012) on a convenience sample of 292 US Facebook users (74% of
which were college students), providing empirical support on the link between narcis-
sism and self-promotion behaviors on Facebook.
The study by Back et al. (2010) on 236 American students and German Facebook
users, on the other hand, indicates that also truthful representation and disclosure may
arise. The study showed that ratings of the users characteristics by strangers looking at
the subjects Facebook page indeed matched with ratings by the user himself and with
ratings by his friends. This can be supported using suggestions from Walther et al.s
(2009) research on 115 US students that statements made by friends are considered more
trustworthy by users and can override statements of the owner. Users trying to present
themselves in a too positive (or negative) way would thus be counteracted by their
friends, leading to realistic Facebook profiles. Weisbuch et al.s (2009) finding that users
who disclose a great deal of personal information on Facebook also did so during face-
to-face interviews also appears to support the second hypothesis, but was unfortunately
only conducted on 37 US students.
Then there is research on disclosure that provides suggestions, but no firm conclusions,
on the frequency of me-marketing behavior. In a small-scale study on 67 US Facebook
users, Alter and Oppenheimer (2009) found that the level of disclosure was linked with
the size and spacing of a SNSs font. This font can increase or decrease disclosure, but
whether that leads to more or less inaccurate information being posted on the Facebook
page is unclear. This is also the case with other research on the level of disclosure, such as
Karl et al.s (2010) analysis of SNS communication among 346 US and 290 German stu-
dents. They found users high on conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability
to be less likely to report problematic behavior such as substance abuse and sexual content
on their Facebook profile. There also appears to be a cultural effect, with American stu-
dents being more inclined to report such behavior than their German peers. However,
whether this represents reality (more substance abuse by American students) or if this is
only a mask yet remains unclear. Similarly, Nosko et al. (2010) analyzed 400 accessible
Caers et al. 989

US Facebook profiles and found that disclosure was negatively correlated with age, but
the content of the disclosure was not sufficiently accounted for. Christofides et al.s (2009)
study on 343 US students found that those in need for popularity also disclosed more and
Moreno et al. (2011) analyzed 200 user profiles to find that users who referenced depres-
sion, and had received responses from their friends on it, were reinforced in that behavior
and more likely to disclose depressive symptoms again.
Based on this review, it is clear that our understanding about whether, and to what
extent, me-marketing is involved with Facebook profiles could benefit from integrating
the insights from disclosure content and disclosure level studies. In doing so, future
research may also be able to refine research findings by accounting for Ross et al.s
(2009) critique that the Big-5 dimensions may be too broad for studying Facebook
behavior and that more specific personality characteristics, such as narcissism and shy-
ness, should be studied. It is also advised to consider other demographic groups than only
US students when disclosure level and content are studied. Research by Grasmuck et al.
(2009) on 83 Facebook profiles suggests that African Americans, Latinos, and Indian
ancestry students more frequently and intensively displayed a cultural self then did white
students, thereby conveying a stronger sense of group belonging and color conscious-
ness. Age and gender differences should be studied as well.
However, there are two other future research directions that can be drawn from this
review. Firstly, it is striking that the demographic characteristics of the users and
propositions on who is or is not added as a friend are insufficiently dealt with. This
may, however, be crucial when trying to correctly explain disclosing behavior by
Facebook users.
The importance of this is clear from Peluchette and Karl (2010) and Mattingly et al.
(2010). On a sample of 346 US students, Peluchette and Karl (2010) show that users
actively think about the image they are portraying of themselves on Facebook and that
those believing to portray a hardworking image were less likely to post inappropriate
information than users who portrayed an image of being sexually appealing, wild, or
offensive. These respondents also differed in how comfortable they were with others
viewing their profiles. What we see of others thus appears to affect our disclosure inten-
tions. When revisiting this literature, future researchers may take a suggestion from the
Gonzales and Hancock (2011) research into account. On a sample of 63 US students,
they showed that SE increased when students viewed their own profiles. This may be
linked with the users perceptions of the image he or she is creating.
More indications on the link between friends and disclosure are provided by Mattingly
et al. (2010), who show that pharmacists are, shortly after their graduation, confronted
with enhanced expectations to act professionally, which demands e-professionalism and
may alter their SNS behavior. Cain et al. (2009) do, however, stress incoming US phar-
macy students still require e-professionalism training. Research on 695 American psy-
chology students and psychologists by Taylor et al. (2010) shows they agree in general
on the importance of refusing friend requests from students and patients to avoid disclo-
sure. Foulger et al. (2009) provide guidelines for educators and Ferdig et al. (2008),
Guseh et al. (2009), and Hawn (2009) provide guidelines for clinicians. A study by West
et al. (2009) indicates that, in using Facebook, what is private and what is public is con-
sidered to be rather fuzzy and non-dichotomous by the studys respondents, but only 16
990 new media & society 15(6)

US students participated in the research. Future research should focus on extending this
line of research to other users in different professions, in different countries.
Secondly, the content and level of disclosure may also be affected by variances in
privacy beliefs. Until now, we have focused on the voluntary disclosure of personal
information on Facebook. However, information may also be exposed to others without
the consent of the user.
Starting from the middle of the years 2000, privacy concerns on SNSs became a
popular research topic (boyd and Ellison, 2007). Hunter (2008), and later Mansfield-
Devine (2008) and Aimeur et al. (2010), summarized all potential privacy threats on
Facebook and argued that users risk being stalked, online as well as offline, harassed
(Ybarra and Mitchell, 2008), hacked (Greiner, 2009), and falling victim to online iden-
tity theft (Laursen, 2009). Also, the mobile transfer of personal information to Facebook
is marked as a security risk (Zorkadis and Karras, 2009), and Surendra and Peace (2009)
argued that information disseminated about a group that the user once joined can harm
the users privacy.
Research on how users act upon this suffers from similar deficiencies as mentioned
before. In a relatively small sample of 205 US students, Fogel and Nehmad (2009)
reported women to use privacy controls and to restrict personal information more often
than men. We do note that data were collected in May 2007 and that Facebooks standard
privacy settings have been changed a few times since. Similar findings stem from Hoy
and Milnes (2011) research on 589 respondents, showing that while both men and
women are concerned with third-party use of personal information, women are even
more concerned. Moreover, women are found to be more proactively involved with pri-
vacy protection than a decade ago. However, it should be noted that this research used a
snowball technique starting from US students inviting their Facebook friends to join.
More research in other settings is still required.
How well users are aware of and dealing with these security issues is not yet clear.
Fuchs (2010) study on 674 Austrian students concluded that users critical information
behavior could change based on public information and discussion, but the study was not
limited to Facebook only. Debatin et al.s (2009) study on 119 US students did focus on
Facebook and found that Facebook users changed their privacy settings after privacy
invasions, but not after hearing about others privacy invasions. Finally, Hoadley et al.
(2010) stress community outcry when privacy settings appear to be altered, highlighting
perceived loss of control as the prime responsible reason.
But even besides the effect of having experienced privacy violations on disclosure
intentions, it is important to account for the level of awareness about ones own pri-
vacy settings. Here, again, literature is not yet clear on how common that awareness
truly is. On the one hand, a recent study by Butler et al. (2011) on 102 UK students
showed that, given the constant changes to Facebooks privacy policy, users who did
not educate themselves on these changes were more likely to have different privacy
settings than they thought they had. However, on the other hand, only slightly older
research by boyd and Hargittai (2010) on 1115 US students around the age of 18 indi-
cates that only 10% of users did not educate themselves on their privacy settings in
2009. This suggests that the problem reported by Butler et al. (2011) is not that sig-
nificant. Unfortunately, the authors did not match the stated privacy settings with
Caers et al. 991

actual settings and the research only focused on a very narrow age category, in one
country and for one year.
In sum, research on disclosure appears to be highly fragmented. Our understanding
could benefit significantly from research combining the level of disclosure with the con-
tent of the posts and by accounting for users perceptions on friending behavior and their
beliefs about privacy violations. Due to the frequent changes in Facebooks privacy set-
tings, it is also valuable to revisit older studies on privacy matters to realign with the
latest privacy policy. A good starting point may be the article by Stutzman et al. (2012).
Most of the article investigates the effects of various aspects of Facebook use on bridging
and bonding social capital, but they also present a basic model that suggests a relation-
ship between privacy behavior (having a public profile, friend-only privacy settings, or
segmented privacy settings) and disclosure, and between privacy beliefs (including risks
such as cyberstalking and hacking and concerns about private information being revealed
publicly) and disclosure. Although this article addresses the concerns made above, it is
clear that causality cannot be determinedthe model tests only the basic relationship
and has not been carefully controlledand the model has low explanatory power.
Moreover, disclosure is measured using only a four-item scale, stated privacy settings
have not been matched with actual settings, and although the ratio of real friends to total
friends is calculated and used for different purposes, it is not sufficiently used to explain
disclosure intentions and behaviors.

The effects of disclosing information on Facebook

What individuals post on their Facebook pages appears to matter in many different ways.
Muise et al. (2009) showed in a sample of 308 US and German students that the Facebook
behavior of ones partner can stimulate Facebook-related jealousy, stemming from expo-
sure to ambiguous information about the partner that they might never have encountered
if Facebook had not existed. It was also found that this kind of new information incites
further Facebook use, thereby creating a kind of loop of Facebook-related activity (Muise
et al., 2009). This phenomenon may be most easily apparent for narcissists (more fre-
quently checking and responding to others status; Buffardi and Campbell, 2008) and
extroverted users (more likely to show addictive tendencies; Wilson et al., 2010).
Steinfield et al. (2008) focused on a different matter and showed that students with
lower SE benefited from Facebook in terms of bridging social capital (i.e., loose con-
nections that may provide useful information but not emotional support) more than did
students with higher levels of SE. An interesting nuance, to be taken into account in
any new research on the topic, has however been provided by Burke et al. (2011). Their
research on 415 English-speaking adult Facebook users showed that also the way in
which the platform is used should be considered: directed person-to-person communi-
cation (messages, wall posts, synchronous chat, inline comments, etc.) also increases
in bridging social capital, while there was no main effect for passive consumption of
social news (reading others updates) and broadcasting (untargeted status updates).
Moreover, the mere reading of status updates made by friends was found to aid users
with weaker social communication skills and to have no effect on users with higher
than average social skills (Burke et al., 2011). Earlier research by Burke et al. (2010)
992 new media & society 15(6)

already showed that observing peoples interactions was positively linked to feelings
of loneliness. Both studies again highlight the importance of not only accounting for
heterogeneous Facebook users (age, location, number of friends, etc.), but to also dif-
ferentiate uses and users in Facebook studies. The early study by Joinson (2008), pro-
viding an oversight of Facebook uses and gratifications using an exploratory factor
analysis may serve as a good starting point, as is the more recent study by Stutzman et
al. (2012). The latter is interesting, as it indicates that users who have both a Facebook
profile that is only visible to friends and a high ratio of actual friends to total Facebook
friends report higher levels of perceived bonding social capital. The downside of this
research is that the authors again did not match the stated privacy settings with actual
settings and measured segmented privacy settings with a binary variable instead of a
multifaceted one. The sample size is also quite small, with 230 US undergraduate stu-
dents from one university.
Research on the effects of Facebook use has, however, not been narrowed down to
only social capital. Zhang et al. (2010) showed that SNS reliance and interpersonal
communication had a positive effect on civic participation. Research on 2603 US stu-
dents by Valenzuela et al. (2009), and related research by Park et al. (2009), revealed
indications that Facebook group use may even predict political participation. However,
not everything is related to Facebook use. Pasek et al. (2009), for example, found that
although Facebook use was more common among students with high grades, it did not
predict academic achievement.

Facebook and organizations

Although Facebook started as a platform connecting individuals, todays organizations
also have the opportunity to create fan pages for the organization itself or for its prod-
ucts. The SNS may thus become an additional instrument to communicate with
stakeholders.

Reaching out to customers

A growing number of organizations believe that having their brand or organization on
Facebook may help increase or maintain sales records. Having users post information
about the brand in their status updates may allow the brand to be seen by thousands of
potential buyers, through the Facebook news feed. Also widgets (buttons that, by click-
ing on them, allow users to share content found on the internet on their Facebook profile
page) appear to have a strong potential effect on this matter. Funny videos, references to
products, etc., can easily be posted on an individuals profile page on Facebook. When it
relates to a product, the product is quickly broadcast via SNSs. An obvious downside
may be that this also works in a negative sense. Although research on Facebook is not yet
available, Jansen et al. (2009) found this kind of electronic word of mouth (eWOM) to
exist on Twitter. The authors analyzed 150,000 tweets and found that 20% of those tweets
concerned a company or a brand. In nearly half of these tweets the statement was posi-
tive, while 30% of the statements were negative. However, this does not imply consum-
ers always trust the opinions of others on SNSs. They can still be critical, wondering
Caers et al. 993

whether a company may be trying to convince them about their product. Still, it would
be interesting to know what the effects are of Facebook groups such as I bet I can find
1,000,000 people who dislike Heineken (Casteleyn et al., 2009). More empirical
research on the effectiveness of eWOM is therefore required, especially on Facebook
(Trusov et al., 2009). Interestingly, a cross-cultural study by Fan et al. (2009), comparing
Korean and American online consumers accessing SNSs, indicated service quality vari-
ables have a different effect on both groups WOM intention. Cultural effects should thus
be taken into account.
Users may also search for brands, products, and services on Facebook themselves.
A Facebook page may thus be beneficial for organizations. Casteleyn et al. (2009) in
this respect present a system to analyze the nature and marketing potential of Facebook
groups, and Agnew and Sindhav (2009) look at Facebooks marketing opportunities
from a business model perspective. Recent research by Vorvoreanu (2009) investigates
the perceptions of corporations on Facebook of 35 US students using focus groups.
The sample size is small and only US students took part in the research, but the research
suggests that while users want to become fans of brands and products on Facebook as
to express their identity, they are less interested in the organizations behind them, let
alone communicating with these organizations on Facebook. Future research should
test these suggestions in larger and more diverse samples.
Research has focused on the advantages of Facebook for organizations in many
different settings. Bryson et al. (2010), for example, investigate what the union
movement, facing precipitous membership decline, can learn from Facebooks capa-
bility to attract millions of active members in a short period of time. Other scholars
see opportunities to disseminate results of scientific research (Singer, 2009; Torres-
Salinas and Delgado-Lopez-Cozar, 2009), to connect academic researchers (Schleyer
et al., 2008), to increase student participation and facilitate reflection (Idris and
Wang, 2009), to narrow the gap between learner and application (Derven, 2009), or
to aid governments during crises and disaster response (Carey, 2009). Many studies
investigate how libraries may benefit from SNSs. Benefits under study include
enhanced communication with users (Steiner, 2009), reaching different users
(Shippert, 2009), library promotion (Steiner, 2009), and higher information literacy
(Branch, 2009; Steiner, 2009). However, these benefits in most cases may not be
easily obtained. Fernandez (2009) and Connell (2009), for example, caution libraries
not to disregard privacy concerns, and Xia (2009), Bortree and Seltzer (2009), and
Jo and Kim (2003) show the importance of active groups and frequent discussion in
developing relationships with stakeholders. Graham et al. (2009) found that Facebook
could facilitate the development of professional relationships, but Epperson and
Leffler (2009) did not find much enthusiasm with users about the link between SNSs
and libraries.
But while the for-profit sector is becoming more familiar with the SNS, the non-profit
sector appears to be lagging behind. Waters et al. (2009) show Facebook opportunities are
still not sufficiently used by non-profit organizations. Curtis et al. (2010) found female
non-profit public relations practitioners considered Facebook more beneficial than men,
but the latter were more confident in actively using it. Facebook also appeared more often
used by non-profit organizations with formal public relations departments.
994 new media & society 15(6)

Besides eWOM, future research should thus focus on how users view advertisements
of organizations on Facebook, how their attention can be grasped and retained, and why
users want to join groups or become fan of products and organizations. To date, research
on this matter is, despite its obvious value, still rather scant. In addition, future research
may also address questions on how Facebook users would like to communicate to organ-
izations and what organizations are willing to allow. Recent research by McAllister
(2012) on 100 universities in 18 countries indicating that users could neither post content
on their universities Facebook pages nor participate in discussions (and claiming this
decision silenced stakeholders) could be used to trigger inspiration.

Reaching out to future staff

The trend of millions of people putting personal information online in a standardized
format naturally has attracted attention from the industry, curious about whether SNSs
may facilitate or even improve applicant recruitment and selection efforts (Roberts and
Roach, 2009).
It is striking how few articles have yet addressed the role of Facebook in recruit-
ment and selection procedures. With simply creating a fan page dedicated to the
organization and posting vacancies on the profile, all fans of the organization could
be automatically informed about job offers. According to our knowledge, however,
there is no academic research on how organizations should attempt to create critical
mass, or on the impressions applicants may draw from these Facebook pages. We
are also left with hypotheses on how users would react when their employers would
ask them to post vacancies on their profiles, for example as Deloitte did in an
Australian test case (Ernst, 2010). Early research by Calv-Armengol and Jackson
(2004) indicates that US employees were indeed starting to pass on information
regarding vacancies they were not interested in using SNSs, but the particular use
of Facebook has not yet been researched. It also remains unclear to what extent
organizations use Facebook to actively search for new staff. For now, we are left
with Cross and Parkers (2008) statement that e-recruitment through SNSs has
become popular both among American job seekers and employers. More elaborated
research is required.
Research on the selection of staff is also rather sparse. Two important exceptions
are Brown and Vaughn (2011) and Caers and Castelyns (2011). Brown and Vaughn
(2011) describe the use of SNSs to screen applicants from a theoretical point of view.
They argue that using information on SNSs may create an imbalance in the level of
information available on every applicant and risks that interviewers already form
preferential considerations early in the hiring process. They also warn against the fact
that an applicants profile picture, or pictures of his friends, may become part of an
interviewers selection decision. Caers and Castelyns (2011) provide empirical
research on this matter, focusing on Facebook. In a sample of 398 Belgian employees
responsible for the recruitment and selection of staff, 44% of decision makers look at
the applicants Facebook profiles and also believe that profile pictures are providing
accurate signals on the applicants level of extraversion and maturity (Caers and
Castelyns, 2011). With the earlier comment in mind on whether Facebook profiles do
Caers et al. 995

or do not contain me-marketing objectives, future research should investigate whether

these correlations actually exist and extend the analysis to other countries. Indeed,
research by Kluemper and Rosen (2009) shows that accurate assessments may be pos-
sible, as 63 raters were able to distinguish high from low performers after viewing
their SNS and were consistent in their ratings. Intelligent and emotionally stable
raters performed best.

Future research directions

It is striking how many articles are based on samples of US students, often with low
numbers of respondents. With millions of users worldwide, research on Facebook
should be taken one step further, expanding research to multiple countries and set-
tings and integrating research findings. It is also apparent how many convenience
samples have been used, often taken from students in the same year of a particular
university, and how gathering respondents through random walk models could
strengthen the generalization of research findings. Besides this, there are seven impor-
tant directions for future research to take. Firstly, it is necessary to understand why
non-users still prefer not to open an account and why former users decided to abandon
their accounts. This may provide insight into the (perceived) shortcomings of
Facebook, its image, and on how SNSs may evolve. Secondly, it is valuable to inves-
tigate how behavior on Facebook is linked to differences in personality, SE, happi-
ness, intended purpose (me-marketing/reality), (not) having professional, more
distant contacts and relatives as Facebook friends, and how it complements the offline
communication among users and between users and non-users. Thirdly, it may be
interesting to investigate how bullying on Facebook is perceived by friends of the
victim, whether and how they respond to it, and how both the bullying and the
responses affect offline and online relationships and levels of individual well-being
and SE. Fourthly, literature can benefit from studies investigating how users deal with
privacy on the network in its current form, how privacy concerns vary between demo-
graphic groups and nationalities, and to what extent stated privacy settings indeed
correlate with actual settings. This is highly relevant when initiating the fifth research
direction, namely on how organizations use Facebook to gather information for
recruitment purposes and to what extent information disclosed by the user reflects
actual personality traits, motivation, and competences. These findings may then ben-
efit literature on biases in selection procedures. Sixthly, it is valuable to investigate
how the applicants image of the organization in terms of employer branding is
affected by using Facebook for recruitment purposes and how organizations can suc-
cessfully recruit and communicate with applicants in both the short and the long term.
This should be linked to research on employer branding and psychological contracts.
Finally, future research should focus on the extent to which customers perceive user
and organization-driven communication on organizational Facebook pages as objec-
tive information, how advertisements on the SNS can grasp and retain user attention,
what effect Facebook pages with negative remarks on the products of an organization
have on sales, how effective eWOM is, and how, and to what extent, individuals pre-
fer to communicate with organizations via Facebook. These findings may provide
996 new media & society 15(6)

valuable information to organizations and also safeguard Facebook users from subop-
timal or even unwanted contact with organizations.

Conclusion
This review shows that many interesting topics have been addressed by previous research
on Facebook and that our knowledge is expanding fast. However, the review also reveals
that our understanding is still quite fragmented and may lack nuances that characterize
different settings, countries, and demographic variables. Now is the time to take scien-
tific research on Facebook one step further and integrate items and control variables from
previous studies into new and even stronger research designs and to expand these designs
to multiple countries and demographic groups. This review has highlighted these varia-
bles and has presented directions for future research, with regard to both scope and
research topics. We hope it may serve scholars well.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank the reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments on earlier versions
of this manuscript and for being so thorough in their work. Gratitude is also expressed for the
exceptional work done by the editor, David Park.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.

References
Agnew J and Sindhav B (2009) An e-commerce business model of peer-to-peer interactions among
consumers. Journal of Cases on Information Technology 11(2):1221.
Aimeur E, Gambs S and Ho A (2010) Towards a privacy-enhanced social networking site. In:
Conference paper, 5th international conference on availability, reliability and security, 1518
February 2010, Cracow, Poland.
Alter A and Oppenheimer D (2009) Suppressing secrecy through metacognitive ease: cognitive
fluency encourages self-disclosure. Psychological Science 20(11): 14141420.
Back M, Stopfer J, Vazire S, et al. (2010) Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-
idealization. Psychological Science 21(3): 372374.
Bortree D and Seltzer T (2009) Dialogic strategies and outcomes: an analysis of environmental
advocacy groups Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review 35(3): 317319.
boyd d and Ellison N (2007) Social network sites: definition, history and scholarship. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1): 210230.
boyd d and Hargittai N (2010) Facebook privacy settings: who cares? First Monday 15(8): 22 pp.
Branch J (2009) Practising what we preach: information literacy for teacher-librarians in the 21st
century. Feliciter 55(3): 98100.
Brown V and Vaughn D (2011) The writing on the (Facebook) wall: the use of social networking
sites in hiring decisions. Journal of Business and Psychology 26: 219225.
Bryson A, Gomez R and Willman P (2010) Online social networking and trade union membership:
what the Facebook phenomenon truly means for labor organizers. Labor History 51(1): 4153.
Caers et al. 997

Buffardi L and Campbell W (2008) Narcissism and social networking websites. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin 34(10): 13031314.
Burke M, Kraut R and Marlow C (2011) Social capital on Facebook: differentiating uses and users.
In: ACM CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 712 May 2011, Vancouver.
Burke M, Marlow C and Lento T (2010) Social network activity and social well-being. In: ACM
CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1015 April 2010, Atlanta.
Butler E, McCann E and Thomas J (2011) Privacy setting awareness on Facebook and its effect on
user-posted content. Human Communication 14(1): 3955.
Caers R and Castelyns V (2011) LinkedIn and Facebook in Belgium: the influences and biases of
social network sites in recruitment and selection procedures. Social Science Computer Review
29(4): 437448.
Cain J, Scott D and Akers P (2009) Pharmacy students Facebook activity and opinions regard-
ing accountability and e-professionalism. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education
73(6):16
Calv-Armengol A and Jackson MO (2004) The effects of social networks on employment and
inequality. American Economic Review 94(3): 426454.
Carey S (2009) Museums and social media. Documentation et Bibliotheques 55(4): 117187.
Carpenter C (2012) Narcissism on Facebook: self-promotion and anti-social behavior. Personality
and Individual Differences 52(4): 482486.
Casteleyn J, Mottart A and Rutten K (2009) How to use Facebook in your market research.
International Journal of Market Research 51(4): 439447.
Cheung CMK and Lee MKO (2010) A theoretical model of intentional social action in online
social networks. Decision Support Systems 49(1): 2430.
Chou H and Edge N (2012) They are happier and having better lives than I am: the impact
of using Facebook on perceptions of others lives. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking 15(2): 117121.
Christofides E, Muise A and Desmarais S (2009) Information disclosure and control on Facebook:
are they two sides of the same coin or two different processes? Cyberpsychology & Behavior
12(3): 341345.
Connell R (2009) Academic libraries, Facebook and MySpace, and student outreach: a survey of
student opinion. Portal-Libraries and the Academy 9(1): 2536.
Correa T, Hinsley A and de Zuniga H (2010) Who interacts on the web? The intersection of users
personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior 26(2): 247253.
Cross R and Parker A (2008) The Hidden Power of Social Networks. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Curtis L, Edwards C, Fraser K, et al. (2010) Adoption of social media for public relations by non-
profit organizations. Public Relations Review 36(1): 9092.
Debatin B, Lovejoy J, Horn A, et al. (2009) Facebook and online privacy: attitudes, behaviors,
and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15(1): 83108.
Derven M (2009) Social networking: a force for development? T+D 63(7): 5863.
Donath J (2007) Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
13(1): 231251.
Ellison N, Steinfield C and Lampe C (2007) The benefits of Facebook Friends: exploring the
relationship between college students use of online social networks and social capital. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication 12(3): 11431168.
Epperson A and Leffler J (2009) Social software programs: student preferences of librarian use.
New Library World 110(7/8): 366372.
Ernst M (2010) Rekrutering via social media. Mythes en realiteit. Brussels: HRMinfo.
998 new media & society 15(6)

Facebook (2012a) Four degrees of separation. Available at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.4570v3.pdf

(accessed 6 April 2012).
Facebook (2012b) Statistics. Available at: http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics
(accessed 6 April 2012).
Fan Q, Lee J and Park Y (2009) Do online social networks in international regions function the
same or differently? Based on Korean and US social network customers. Journal of Korea
Trade 13(4): 89110.
Ferdig R, Dawson K, Black E, et al. (2008) Medical students and residents use of online social
networking tools: implications for teaching professionalism in medical education. First
Monday 13(9). Available at: http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/
viewArticle/2161/2026.
Fernandez P (2009) Balancing outreach and privacy in Facebook: five guiding decision points.
Library Hi Tech News 26(3/4): 1012.
Fogel J and Nehmad E (2009) Internet social network communities: risk taking, trust, and privacy
concerns. Computers in Human Behavior 25(1): 153160.
Foulger T, Ewbank A, Kay A, et al. (2009) Moral spaces in Myspace: preservice teachers per-
spectives about ethical issues in social networking. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education 42(1): 128.
Fuchs C (2010) Social networking in the surveillance society. Ethics and Information Technology
12(2): 171185.
Gonzales A and Hancock J (2011) Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: effects of exposure to
Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 14(12): 7983.
Graham J, Faix A and Hartman L (2009) Crashing the Facebook party: one librarys experiences
in the students Psila domain. Library Review 58(3): 228236.
Grasmuck S, Martin J and Zhao S (2009) Ethno-racial displays on Facebook. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication 15(1): 158188.
Greiner L (2009) Hacking social networks. Networker 13(1): 911.
Guseh J, Brendel R and Brendel D (2009) Medical professionalism in the age of online social
networking. Journal of Medical Ethics 35(9): 584586.
Hargittai E (2007) Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social networking
sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1): 276297.
Hawn C (2009) Take two aspirin and tweet me in the morning: how Twitter, Facebook, and other
social media are reshaping healthcare. Health Affairs 28(2): 361368.
Hoadley C, Xu H, Lee J, et al. (2010) Privacy as information access and illusory control: the case
of the Facebook News Feed privacy outcry. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications
9(1): 5060.
Hoy M and Milne G (2011) Gender differences in privacy-related measures for young adult
Facebook users. Journal of Interactive Advertising 10(2): 2845.
Hunter P (2008) Social networking: the focus for new threats-and old ones. Computer Fraud &
Security 2008(7): 1718.
Idris Y and Wang Q (2009) Affordances of Facebook for learning. International Journal of
Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning 19(2/3): 247255.
Jansen B, Zhang M, Sobel K, et al. (2009) Twitter power: tweets as electronic word of mouth.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 47 60(11): 21692188.
Jo S and Kim Y (2003) The effect of web characteristics on relationship building. Journal of
Public Relations Research 15(3): 199223.
Joinson A (2008) Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people? Motives and uses of
Facebook. In: ACM CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 510 April 2008,
Florence.
Caers et al. 999

Karl K, Peluchette J and Schlaegel C (2010) Whos posting Facebook faux pas? A cross-cultural
examination of personality differences. International Journal of Selection and Assessment
18(2): 174186.
Kluemper D and Rosen P (2009) Future employment selection methods: evaluating social net-
working websites. Journal of Managerial Psychology 24(6): 567580.
Kujath C (2011) Facebook and MySpace: complement or substitute to face-to-face interaction?
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 14(12): 7578.
Kwon O and Wen Y (2010) An empirical study of the factors affecting social network service use.
Computers in Human Behavior 26(2): 254263.
Laursen L (2009) Fake Facebook pages spin web of deceit. Nature 458(7242): 10891089.
Le TT and Tarafdar M (2009) Business ecosystem perspective on value co-creation in the Web 2.0
era: implications for entrepreneurial opportunities. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Venturing 1(2): 112130.
Lee E (2012) Young, black, and connected: Facebook usage among African American college
students. Journal of Black Studies 43(3): 336354.
Lewis J and West A (2009) Friending: London-based undergraduates experience of Facebook.
New Media & Society 11(7): 12091229.
Lewis K, Kaufman J and Christakis N (2008) The taste for privacy: an analysis of college student
privacy settings in an online social network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
14(1): 79.
McAllister S (2012) How the worlds top universities provide dialogic forums for marginalized
voices. Public Relations Review 38: 319327.
Manago A, Taylor T and Greenfield P (2012) Me and my 400 friends: the anatomy of college
students Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-being. Developmental
Psychology 48(2): 369380.
Mansfield-Devine S (2008) Anti-social networking: exploiting the trusting environment of Web
2.0. Network Security 11: 47.
Mattingly T, Cain J and Fink J (2010) Pharmacists on Facebook: online social networking and the
profession. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association 50(3): 424427.
Moreno M, Jelenchick L, Egan K, et al. (2011) Feeling bad on Facebook: depression disclosures
by college students on a social networking site. Depression and Anxiety 28: 447455.
Muise A, Christofides E and Desmarais S (2009) More information than you ever wanted: does Facebook
bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy? Cyberpsychology & Behavior 12(4): 441444.
Nosko A, Wood E and Molema S (2010) All about me: disclosure in online social networking
profiles: the case of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 26(3): 406418.
Orr E, Ross C, Simmering M, et al. (2009) The influence of shyness on the use of Facebook in an
undergraduate sample. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 12(3): 337340.
Park N, Kee K and Valenzuela S (2009) Being immersed in social networking environment:
Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. Cyberpsychology & Behavior
12(6): 729733.
Pasek J, More E and Hargittai E (2009) Facebook and academic performance: reconciling a media
sensation with data. First Monday 14(5). Available at http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/
bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2498/2181
Peluchette J and Karl K (2010) Examining students intended image on Facebook: What were
they thinking? The Journal of Education for Business 85: 3037.
Pempek TA, Yermolayeva YA and Calvert SL (2009) College students social networking experi-
ences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30(3): 227238.
Raacke J and Bonds-Raacke J (2008) Myspace and Facebook: applying the uses and gratifications
theory to exploring friend-networking sites. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 11(2): 169174.
1000 new media & society 15(6)

Reich S, Subrahmanyam K and Espinoza G (2012) Friending, IMing, and hanging out face-
to-face: overlap in adolescents online and offline social networks. Developmental Psychology
48(2): 356368.
Ritzer G and Jurgenson N (2010) Production, consumption, prosumption the nature of capitalism
in the age of the digital prosumer. Journal of Consumer Culture 10(1): 1336.
Roberts SJ and Roach T (2009) Social networking web sites and human resource personnel: sugges-
tions for job searches. Business Communication Quarterly 72(1): 110114.
Ross C, Orr E, Sisic M, et al. (2009) Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use.
Computers in Human Behavior 25(2): 578586.
Schleyer T, Spallek H, Butler B, et al. (2008) Facebook for scientists: requirements and services
for optimizing how scientific collaborations are established. Journal of Medical Internet
Research 10(3): e24.
Shippert L (2009) Thinking about technology and change, or, what do you mean its already
over? PNLA Quarterly 73(2): 426.
Singer P (2009) Follow us on Facebook! Solid State Technology 52(12): 33.
Skageby J (2009) Exploring qualitative sharing practices of social metadata: expanding the atten-
tion economy. Information Society 25(1): 6072.
Sledgianowski D and Kulviwat S (2009) Using social network sites: the effects of playfulness,
critical mass and trust in a hedonic context. Journal of Computer Information Systems 49(4):
7483.
Steiner H (2009) Reference utility of social networking sites: options and functionality. Library
Hi Tech News 26(56): 46.
Steinfield C, Ellison N and Lampe C (2008) Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social
network sites: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29(6):
434445.
Stroud D (2008) Social networking: an age neutral commodity social networking becomes
a mature web application. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice 9:
278292.
Stutzman F, Vitak J, Ellison N, et al. (2012) Privacy in interaction: exploring disclosure and social
capital in Facebook. In: Proceedings of international conference on weblogs and social media
(ICWSM 12), 47 June 2008, Dublin, Ireland.
Subrahmanyam K, Reich SM, Waechter N, et al. (2008) Online and offline social networks: use
of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology
29(6): 420433.
Surendra N and Peace A (2009) A conceptual analysis of group privacy in the virtual environment.
International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations 6(6): 543557.
Taylor L, McMinn M, Bufford R, et al. (2010) Psychologists attitudes and ethical concerns regard-
ing the use of social networking websites. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice
41(2): 153159.
Tong S, Van Der Heide B, Langwell L, et al. (2008) Too much of a good thing? The relationship
between number of friends and interpersonal impressions on Facebook. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication 13(3): 531549.
Torres-Salinas D and Delgado-Lopez-Cozar E (2009) Strategies to improve the dissemination of
research results with the Web 2.0. Profesional de la Informacion 18(5): 534539.
Trusov M, Bucklin RE and Pauwels K (2009) Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional market-
ing: findings from an internet social networking site. Journal of Marketing 73: 90102.
Utz S (2010) Show me your friends and I will tell you what type of person you are: how ones pro-
file, number of friends, and type of friends influence impression formation on social network
sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15(2): 314335.
Caers et al. 1001

Valenzuela S, Park N and Kee K (2009) Is there social capital in a social network site? Facebook
use and college students life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication 14(4): 875901.
Vorvoreanu M (2009) Perceptions of corporations on Facebook: an analysis of Facebook social
norms. Journal of New Communications Research 4(1): 6786.
Walther J, Van Der Heide B, Hamel L, et al. (2009) Self-generated versus other-generated state-
ments and impressions in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research
36(2): 229253.
Wang H and Wellman B (2010) Social connectivity in America: changes in adult friendship net-
work size from 2002 to 2007. American Behavioral Scientist 53(8): 11481169.
Wang SS, Shin-il M, Kwon KH, et al. (2010) Face off: implications of visual cues on initiating
friendship on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 26(2): 226234.
Waters R, Burnett E, Lamm A, et al. (2009) Engaging stakeholders through social network-
ing: how nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review 35(2):
102106.
Weisbuch M, Ivcevic Z and Ambady N (2009) On being liked on the web and in the real world:
consistency in first impressions across personal webpages and spontaneous behavior. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology 45(3): 573576.
West A, Lewis J and Currie P (2009) Students Facebook friends: public and private spheres.
Journal of Youth Studies 12(6): 615627.
Wilson K, Fornasier S and White K (2010) Psychological predictors of young adults use of social
networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 13(2): 173177.
Xia Z (2009) Marketing library services through Facebook groups. Library Management 30(6/7):
467478.
Yau N and Schneider J (2009) Self-surveillance. Bulletin of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology 35(5): 2430.
Ybarra M and Mitchell K (2008) How risky are social networking sites? A comparison of places
online where youth sexual solicitation and harassment occurs. Pediatrics 121(2): 350357.
Zhang W, Johnson T, Seltzer T, et al. (2010) The revolution will be networked: the influence of
social networking sites on political attitudes and behavior. Social Science Computer Review
28(1): 7592.
Zorkadis V and Karras D (2009) On privacy-enhancing architectures for distribution of real time
performance demanding mobile services. International Journal of Electronic Security and
Digital Forensics 2(4): 377386.
Zywica J and Danowski J (2008) The faces of Facebookers: investigating social enhance-
ment and social compensation hypotheses. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
14(1): 134.

Author biographies
Ralf Caers is Professor in Human Resource Management and social media at the Hogeschool-
Universiteit Brussel (HUB). He has specialized in the recruitment and selection of staff for (non)
profit organizations and obtained a PhD in Applied Economics from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel
(VUB) in 2007. He is involved in social media research since 2009 and is a frequent guest lecturer
on the topic at various Belgian universities, colleges and business schools.

Tim De Feyter works at Center for Business Management Research (CBMR) of the Faculty of
Economics and Business at the Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel (HUB). His research interest
focuses on manpower planning and strategic Human Resource Management in general.
1002 new media & society 15(6)

Marijke De Couck graduated as a Master in Environment, Health and Safety management at the
Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel (HUB). She is currently working as a PhD student at the Vrije
Universiteit Brussel (VUB), investigating the effects of the autonomic nervous system, and more
specifically of the vagus nerve, on cancer.

Talia Stough is the Sustainability Coordinator at the Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel (HUB),

where she works to integrate sustainability into education, research, outreach, and operational
processes.

Claudia Vigna obtained her degree of Doctor in Applied Economics from the University of Antwerp
(UA) in 2012. Her research topic was about the link between HRM practices and processes and
employee outcomes such as work engagement, affective commitment, satisfaction and voluntary
employee turnover. During her PhD project, she has been working as an assistant at Hogeschool-
Universiteit Brussel (HUB).

Cind Du Bois is associate professor in economics at the Royal Military Academy.

View publication stats