Mehwish Nasim
ABSTRACT
Facebook treats friends as a single homogeneous group even though people on Facebook are possibly acquainted with diverse group of individuals and perceive their friends as representatives of different groups. It is a common observation that people tend to select friends with similar characteristics or individuals are likely to change their attributes to conform to their friends. In this measurement study we quantify the extension of this behavior on Facebook. We measure the probability with which a friend belonging to a particular group of friends will or will not comment on a post that has already received comments from other friends belonging/not belonging to his own circle of friends. To this end we collected an original data set of Facebook profiles of 50 volunteers. Our data analysis shows that Facebook users are influenced in their choice of posting comments on friends' wall posts, based on whether or not they are acquainted with the people that left earlier comments. Identification of such behavioral nuances can be helpful in improving the user interface design of online social networks.
- Facebook. http://www.facebook.com/.Google Scholar
- nielsen Social Media Report 2012. http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/social/2012/.Google Scholar
- SNAP. http://snap.stanford.edu/snap/.Google Scholar
- visone. http://www.visone.info/.Google Scholar
- F. Benevenuto, T. Rodrigues, M. Cha, and V. Almeida. Characterizing user behavior in online social networks. In ACM SIGCOMM conf. on Internet measurement conference, pages 49--62. ACM, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- U. Brandes. A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 25(2):163--177, 2001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- U. Brandes, M. Gaertler, and D. Wagner. Experiments on graph clustering algorithms. Algorithms-ESA 2003, pages 568--579, 2003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Christofides, A. Muise, and S. Desmarais. Information disclosure and control on facebook: Are they two sides of the same coin or two different processes? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(3):341--345, 2009.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Easley and J. Kleinberg. Networks, crowds, and markets. Cambridge Univ Press, 2010.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Fang and K. LeFevre. Privacy wizards for social networking sites. In Intl. conference on World wide web, pages 351--360. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Friedkin. A structural theory of social influence, volume 13. Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
- M. Girvan and M. E. J. Newman. Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(12):7821--7826, 2002.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Kairam, M. Brzozowski, D. Huffaker, and E. Chi. Talking in circles: Selective sharing in google+. In ACM annual conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1065--1074. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Kandel. Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. American Journal of Sociology, pages 427--436, 1978.Google Scholar
- R. Kannan, S. Vempala, and A. Vetta. On clusterings: Good, bad and spectral. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 51(3):497--515, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. La Fond and J. Neville. Randomization tests for distinguishing social influence and homophily effects. In Proceedings of the 19th intl. conf. on World wide web, pages 601--610. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Liu, K. Gummadi, B. Krishnamurthy, and A. Mislove. Analyzing facebook privacy settings: User expectations vs. reality. In ACM SIGCOMM conf. on Internet measurement conference, pages 61--70. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. McPherson, L. Smith-Lovin, and J. Cook. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology, pages 415--444, 2001.Google Scholar
- F. Ozenc and S. Farnham. Life modes in social media. In ACM annual conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 561--570. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- On commenting behavior of Facebook users
Recommendations
The Janus face of Facebook: Positive and negative sides of social networking site use
AbstractThere is an increasing awareness that social networking site (SNS) use includes a socio-psychologically positive and a negative side. However, research remains largely silent on which side dominates in driving SNS use. To address this ...
Highlights- We investigate the two sides of self-presentation and need to belong in SNSs.
- ...
Building social capital with Facebook: Type of network, availability of other media, and social self-efficacy matter#
Highlights- Type of friends affects building social capital via Facebook and traditional media.
AbstractFindings about Facebook's effect on relationships are mixed, possibly due to lack of models that acknowledge differences across users, types of their friends, and use of competing media. To address this, we proposed and tested how ...
A Preliminary Look at MOOC-associated Facebook Groups: Prevalence, Geographic Representation, and Homophily
L@S '16: Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning @ ScaleAlthough xMOOCs are not designed to directly engage students via social media platforms, some students in these courses join MOOC-associated Facebook groups. This study explores the prevalence of Facebook groups associated with courses from MITx and ...
Comments