Changes in Use and Perception of Facebook

Changes in Use and Perception of Facebook
Cliff Lampe, Nicole B. Ellison, Charles Steinfield
Michigan State University
409 CommArts Building, East Lansing MI 48824
lampecli@msu.edu, nellison@msu.edu, steinfie@msu.edu

ABSTRACT
computing platform that has grown in use and reach
As social computing systems persist over time, the user
recently is the social network site [3].
experiences and interactions they support may change. One
type of social computing system, Social Network Sites
While the body of research related to SNSs has been
(SNSs), are becoming more popular across broad segments
growing over the past several years, change in use of these
of Internet users. Facebook, in particular, has very broad
sites over time has not been addressed. Specifically, this
participation amongst college attendees, and has been
paper examines changes in use and perception of the SNS
growing in other populations as well. This paper looks at
Facebook amongst members of a public university over the
how use of Facebook has changed over time, as indicated
past several years. Facebook is a compelling site to study
by three consecutive years of survey data and interviews
in that it shares the characteristics of the SNSs described
with a subset of survey respondents. Reported uses of the
below and has achieved near ubiquity on U.S. college
site remain relatively constant over time, but the perceived
campuses in a relatively short amount of time.
audience for user profiles and attitudes about the site show
Social computing systems, which include SNSs, are
differences over the study period.
increasingly becoming spaces where many users interact
over long periods of time. Understanding and designing for
Author Keywords
sustained use in social computing systems becomes
Social network sites, Facebook, audience, privacy,
essential as they become a more prevalent piece of the
awareness, use.
interaction landscape.
ACM Classification Keywords
Previous Work on Interactions in Social Network Sites
H5.3. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI):
Previous research has examined how networked computing
Group and Organization Interfaces.
systems affect offline social networks [23, 24], but recently
there has been increased use of systems specifically
INTRODUCTION
designed as social network tools. boyd and Ellison [4]
Increasingly, user participation in social computing systems
define three main characteristics of SNS: such sites allow
such as social network sites (SNSs), online communities,
users to “(1) construct a public or semi-public profile within
and media-sharing sites span multiple years. During this
a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with
time, the systems can undergo radical redesign, user
whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse
populations may change, and individual users’ social
their list of connections and those made by others within the
context may evolve. This dynamism inherent in long-
system.” Popular SNSs include MySpace, Facebook, and
running social computing sites can affect how members of a
LinkedIn, among many others. boyd and Ellison [4]
site use and perceive it.
summarized the history of these sites, and Hargittai [15]
Others have studied how use changes over time in social
analyzed the demographic characteristics that predict usage
computing environments, including early work on MUDs
of these sites, finding that ethnicity and income levels
[5, 7], online discussion forums [2, 22], content creation
among other factors can affect the choice of SNS. Gilbert,
communities [6] and open source software communities
Karahalios and Sandvig [12] studied differences in rural
[17], among others. One particular type of social
and urban MySpace users and found that rural users had
fewer ties in their networks, among other differences.
There has also been a good deal of research on Facebook as

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
one instance of an SNS. Gross and Acquisti [14] described
personal or classroom use is granted without fee p rovided that copies are
Facebook use at Carnegie Mellon University and showed
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
that users at that time were unconcerned about privacy
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise,
or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to li sts, requires prior
implications of SNS use in general and Facebook use in
specific permission and/or a fee.
particular. Lampe, Ellison and Steinfield [19] analyzed
CSCW'08, November 8-12, 2008, San Diego, California, USA.
Facebook profile elements using Donath’s signaling
Copyright 2008 ACM 978-1-60558-007-4/08/11...$5.00.
framework [9] and found that hard-to-fake signals like
addresses and the existence of photos were associated with
721

---

outcomes such as more articulated friendships. Ellison,
addition or removal of features may affect the user
Steinfield and Lampe [10] also looked at the social capital
experience as well. Over the time period reported in this
implications of Facebook use amongst college students, and
study, Facebook has added many new features (reported in
found that certain types of Facebook use were associated
more detail below) and some of these features were
with higher levels of social capital (benefits received from
designed to affect social patterns on the site. The interplay
individuals in one’s network), perhaps because the site
between social and technical systems on Facebook may
allowed users to maintain broader sets of weak ties in their
play a large part in how users change their perceptions of
social networks. Golder, Wilkinson and Huberman [13]
the site.
examined messages and “pokes” sent on the Facebook
network, using data collected directly from Facebook
RQ2: How has the perception of audience on Facebook
servers between February 2004 and March 2006. They
changed over time?
described the temporal patterns of Facebook messages, and
Perception of audience has been a central theme for CSCW
concluded that Facebook was becoming an increasingly
research in the past. The constrained information channels
prevalent means by which college-age members that restrict knowing your audience have led to innovations
communicate. DiMicco and Millen [8] found that
in making audience visible [11] and research on the
Facebook users transitioning from college to corporate
possible benefits of “lurkers” [21]. In previous work [18],
settings employed various strategies to change their
users were asked who they thought had seen their Facebook
Facebook profiles, including making new profiles more
profile, and in general reported their expected audience was
appropriate for their new context, erasing all information
comprised of peers (friends, people in classes, high school
from profiles, or not making any changes to their profiles.
acquaintances) and was much less likely to include non-
Joinson [16] examined Facebook use employing a Uses and
peers (faculty, family, law enforcement). Since that time,
Gratifications theoretical lens and found heterogeneous uses
two changes have occurred which might influence users’
of Facebook. The most common uses were keeping
perceptions of audience. First, in 2006 Facebook introduced
awareness of contacts, sharing photos, organizing groups
a significant change to the interface of the site: a “News
and participating in applications. The author constructed
Feed” which tracked changes to Friends’ profiles and
seven dimensions of use based on factor analyses of survey
aggregated them in one, highly visible place. This window
responses. Lampe, Ellison and Steinfield [18] found that
into peers’ activities may have made users more aware of
Facebook users searched for people with whom they had a
the visibility of their own online activities, thus prompting
previous offline relationship, and that their anticipated
changes in perceptions of audience (and, perhaps, privacy
audience was comprised of peers rather than non-peer
settings). Additionally, a number of popular press stories
members of networks (professors, administrators) or people
focused attention on Facebook use, as did University
outside networks (law enforcement, employers).
responses (such as guidance about online self-presentational
strategies) to Facebook use by students. These changes in
Research Questions
context could affect how Facebook users perceive their
The findings summarized above lead to several propositions
audience. Changes in perception of audience may affect
regarding Facebook use. Facebook is an important tool for
how users behave within the site. If they see their audience
interaction, particularly among college-aged people [14,
as more public, they may disclose less about themselves or
18]. Use of Facebook is heterogeneous among users [16]
become more dissatisfied with their use of the site.
and changes as individuals move from one life stage or
social context to another [8]. However, most of these
RQ3: How have the attitudes of users towards Facebook
studies are based on snapshots of Facebook use at a
changed over time?
particular moment. Given the rapid growth of this site in
Previously, we showed that Facebook members largely
terms of users and features, we expect that use and
believed that their profiles portrayed them both accurately
perception of the site has changed over time as well.
and positively [18]. In looking at changes in the
RQ1: How has reported use of Facebook to interact with
relationship between users and a site like Facebook, it may
other members changed over time?
be that use over time leads to changes in how the user
perceives the site itself. Moreland and Levine’s [20] model
In 2006 [18] we found that Facebook users were, in general,
of group socialization posits that members of a group are
reifying existing offline networks, rather than forging new
constantly evaluating the value of membership in that
relationships online. One question this research seeks to
group. One might expect, as non-university users join the
answer is whether this trend changes over time?
site and public narratives highlight the risks of Facebook
Additionally, we wish to discover whether, if change does
use, that users would change their evaluation of Facebook.
occur, whether it is because populations are changing their
behavior or because new members with different behaviors
METHODS
are entering the site. Norms for how a site like Facebook is
To address the questions raised above, we fielded surveys
used might change, or new users entering a site might
in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Each year a new random sample
engage in different behaviors than veteran users. The
of undergraduates at Michigan State University were
722

---

were emailed to the university email addresses of potential
Year Invited Completed
Response Rate
respondents. The survey was hosted on Zoomerang, a
commercial web survey service. All surveys were
2006 800
288
36%
conducted in April of the year reported. Typical field
period for each survey was two weeks. The surveys were
2007 1987
468
24%
done in an iterative cross-sectional model, where the same
2008 1997
419
21%
population was randomly sampled each year. Table 2 shows
changes in the demographics of our respondents. The
Table 1: Response rates for cross-sectional surveys.
variable “Year in School” is coded so that lower numbers
invited to participate. Additionally, in April and May of
equate to earlier years in college. In 2006, the “Hours
2007 we conducted interviews with a subset of survey
Internet Use/day” was asked in a different format, and data
respondents to ask more in-depth questions about use and
have been converted to be consistent. Numbers in
perceptions of Facebook. These rich qualitative data
individual cells may not equate to the number of
provide insight into trends identified by the survey data.
respondents reported per year due to item non-response.
Surveys
Interviews
Surveys were conducted in 2006, 2007 and 2008 with
Interviews were conducted with a group of respondents to
randomized samples of MSU undergraduate students.
the 2006 survey reported above. Respondents were
Faculty, staff and graduate students of MSU were not
interviewed in the spring of 2007. A total of 18
sampled. Samples were drawn from the university
respondents were interviewed: 8 male and 10 female
registrar, and invitations to participate in a Web survey
participants. Data were collected using audio recordings
that were subsequently transcribed. Using Atlas.ti, a

2006
2007
2008
qualitative data analysis program, coders identified themes
(N=288)
N=(468)
(N=419)
in the data.
Mean/%
Mean/%
Mean/%
Facebook Feature Changes over Time
(N)
(N)
(N)
Many interface changes were made to Facebook during the
Gender

time period covering the studies. Since these features may
affect the social processes reported here, the following
34%
33%
37%
Male
includes a timeline of major Facebook interface changes.
(98)
(155)
(254)
• May 2006 – Networks are expanded to workplaces
66%
67%
63%
Female
as well as colleges and high schools.
(188)
(312)
(265)
Age 20.2

20.6
20.5
• September 2006 – News Feed and Mini-Feed are
sd=1.64
sd=2.33
sd=1.99
added, aggregating profile changes of friends.
New privacy settings are made available.
Ethnicity


Additionally, registration is expanded so anyone
87%
79%
82%
can join.
White
(247)
(370)
(342)
• May 2007 – Facebook launches their
13%
21%
18%
Non-White
“Applications” platform.
(36)
(84)
(75)
• July 2007 – Facebook removes the profile field
Year in School
2.55
2.71
2.69
that allows users to list their courses.
sd=1.07
sd=1.11
sd=1.174
• March 2008 – New privacy controls are added.
Residence


91%
92%
88%
RESULTS
In-state
(259)
(428)
(368)
Changes in Facebook Uses over Time
09%
08%
12%
Out-of-state
As stated above, one method of exploring Facebook
(25)
(36)
(48)
participation over time is to examine the types of uses
Fraternity or
08%
09%
09%
people report they engage in. In 2006 [18] we found that
sorority member
(23)
(42)
(38)
people were largely using the site to articulate their offline
relationships. Joinson [16] showed that people had
94%
94%
96%
% FB members
heterogeneous patterns of use for different features of
(268)
(440)
(404)
Facebook. Here, we are interested in how people describe
Table 2: Demographic changes in sample of MSU
their use of Facebook to make connections: whether they
Facebook users over time.
are searching for people online to form a relationship with,
723

---

Year of survey

2006
2007
2008
“I use Facebook to…”
Std.
Std.
Std.
F
Mean
Dev. Mean Dev. Mean Dev.
Find people to date
2.34
1.48
0.870 1.53
0.865 1.62
0.952
Meet new people
2.18
1.97
1.027 2.13
1.154 2.14
1.116
Check out someone I met socially
6.92
3.99
1.053 4.171 0.851 3.941 0.887
Learn more about other people in my classes
4.21
3.26
1.204 3.491 1.114
3.32 1.068
Learn more about other people living near me
0.63
2.86
1.218 2.97
1.248 2.95
1.149
To keep in touch with old friends
3.86
4.42
0.861 4.581 0.684
4.50 0.671

Number of Facebook Friends
37.51
201
114 3081 215 3332 227
Minutes per day on Facebook
22.77
28
36 831 152 822 117
Table 3: Responses to the question “I use Facebook to…” rated on a Likert scale for likeliness, where higher values equate to
more likely to engage in the activity. A mean reported with a “1” superscript indicates a significant (p<.05 or better) difference
with the year before. A “2” indicates a significant difference between 2006 and 2008.
or are articulating their offline networks in an online
Agreement with “I use Facebook to check out someone I
environment.
met socially” went up between 2006 and 2007, but in 2008
dropped back to 2006 levels. Additionally, during this time
Facebook use remains consistent over time
there was a slight increase in agreement with the statement
Table 3 reports the means and standard deviations of Likert
“I use Facebook to learn more about people in my classes.”
scale responses to questions about Facebook use among the
This change was not significant between 2007 and 2008.
randomly sampled participants in each year of the study.
This may be due to a change in the Facebook interface that
Patterns of use remained consistent with those reported in
occurred in July of 2007, when Facebook removed a field
2006 [18], with only a few users reporting that they used
that allowed users to list courses they were taking,
Facebook to make connections with people they didn’t
facilitating the ability for users to find others in their
already know. Independent samples ANOVA tests were
courses and view their profiles. Without this field, it
run comparing the data to determine if differences between
became much harder to do this, especially in large classes.
years were statistically significant. In addition, a Tukey’s
Since this measure has tended toward the middle of the
post-hoc test was conducted to determine whether there
scale with high standard deviations, it could be that there
were statistically significant differences between individual
are vastly different strategies that users employ for seeking
years, allowing us to compare 2006 data against both 2007
information on classmates.
and 2008. In addition to the items about Facebook use, we
also include self-reports of mean time spent per day on
Agreement with “I use Facebook to keep in touch with old
Facebook and number of Facebook friends.
friends” which started out as a prevalent response in 2006,
grew by a significant amount in 2007, and remained stable
The measures regarding using Facebook to meet previously
into 2008. In both 2007 and 2008 the responses tend to the
unknown people remained low and stable in all three
top of the scale, with little room for more positive change in
iterations of the survey. “I use Facebook to find new
responses.
people to date” and “I use Facebook to meet new people”
both average in the low range of the scale. This could be
The reported number of Facebook friends and time spent
because all users generally see themselves as unlikely to do
using Facebook saw a significant increase between 2006
this, or that a certain minority of users utilize Facebook to
and 2007, while 2008 remained relatively the same as 2007.
meet new people. There could also be a social stigma to
This pattern could result from a maturation of use over
answering positively to these questions, leading to an
time. As one interview respondent reported, when she first
instrument effect. During interviews, respondents denied
started using Facebook there was a rush to add friends and
using Facebook to find new people with whom to socialize,
seek out information on profiles. After the major part of a
though they did report that they used Facebook heavily to
person’s offline network has been added, use seems to tend
find out more about people they expected to socialize with
to be more about maintenance of the established network.
in the future. One interview respondent mentioned that
before a date he would find out more about his partner to
subtly integrate things she liked into the date.
724

---

Year joined FB
2004
2007
as much, and especially -- I know, when I first joined, it was
like a year old, or something, and the simplicity of it was
Find people to date
1.44
1.76*
nice, but now it is getting way too involved and complex,
sd=0.721
sd=1.031
and it is just hard for me to move around [and] do stuff.
Meet new people
1.84
2.47**
So, I don't do a whole lot on it anymore.”
sd=0.907
sd=1.167
And for others, the increased number of users made the site
unwieldy: “When there were less people, when I first
Table 4: Newer FB users more likely to use Facebook to
joined… I would actually read the profiles, because it
find others. *significant at .05 level. **significant at .01
wouldn’t take so long and to keep up on what everyone was
level.
doing. But now that, you know, pretty much everyone adds
you, it’s just it’s gotten a little bit overwhelming.”
Newer Facebook members show some use differences
Some respondents also reported that changes in their social
Another way Facebook use might change over time is
situation or stage of life led to changes in their Facebook
through the addition of new users who engage in a different
use. For instance, when participants first joined the
set of behaviors than older users (as opposed to the entire
University, they were interested in meeting as many other
population adopting new norms of use). To test this
students as possible, but that this desire lessened over time
scenario, we constrained our dataset to 2008 responses
as their social networks stabilized. For some participants, as
only, and looked at changes in the same questions by users
their academic schedules became more demanding,
who started Facebook in either 2004 (early adopters, as this
Facebook became an efficient way to keep track of friends.
is the year Facebook began) or 2007 (late adopters). The
As one participant explained, “I guess when I first started; I
two groups show no significant differences on most of the
thought it was like cool to have more friends at MSU. Like,
measures reported in Table 3, with two notable exceptions
oh, yes, I have so and so amount of friends at MSU. And
reported in Table 4. Although users still reported they were
now, it’s just like I don’t care enough, because now I’ve
less likely to engage in behaviors designed to meet new
been here like three years or whatever. And, I just want to
people (“Find people to date” and “Meet new people"), as
be friends with the people that I’m actually friends with.”
opposed to other types of Facebook connection activities,
new users were significantly more likely to engage in them
Changes in Perceptions of Audience and Privacy
than longer-term users.
Participation in a site like Facebook may be dependent on
the specific audience that is anticipated by those who are
Participants describe many reasons for changes in use
using the site. Especially given the growing narrative of
Although as a whole individuals’ self-reported uses for
“literacy” about the public nature of sites like Facebook we
Facebook were fairly stable, differences did emerge when
would expect changes in both expectations of privacy and
participants were asked specifically about how their use of
audience over time. In 2006, we reported that users largely
Facebook changed over time. For example, in the
considered their peers as their audience, and didn’t expect
interviews described above, some participants pointed to
even other who shared their networks, such as professors, to
very active use initially which became more habitual over
view their profiles.
time:
Table 5 suggests that the populations at MSU who use
“I would say when I first got [Facebook], it was such a
Facebook are changing their perspectives of audience over
novelty that I was on a lot just searching kind of in awe,
time, although not always in obvious ways. In Table 5, the
looking at everyone’s profile to see what they’re really
Chi-Square (X2) number shows the degree of statistical
about. And now after being on it a couple of years, all my
difference between each year. A higher number indicates a
close friends, I’ve looked at their profiles before.”
more statistically significant difference.
Although for others, the increase in the kind and number of
The data verify the pattern of offline-to-online
features made the site more compelling:
directionality noted elsewhere [18] regarding how users
“[Over time my use of Facebook has] probably increased.
perceive Facebook audiences. Groups that shared obvious
The features were -- when I first started, it was all about,
offline connections, like friends and acquaintances, were
you know, friending people, finding out who was on
more likely to be seen as an audience over those who were
Facebook because it was kind of a big deal, you know? But
either not connected offline (strangers) or those who were
now, I kind of use it to see what’s going on with my friends
not peers (such as faculty).
rather than just friending people. I don’t look to expand my
Although many of the categories of anticipated audience
friend base. I know I’m not going out there searching
remained constant over the three surveys, some changed
people I’m not friends with. I use it now for photos a lot and
significantly. In 2008, more users reported that high school
that wasn’t a part of Facebook when I first joined.”
friends had viewed their profiles. There was a large drop
For others, however, the increased feature set was a
from 2006 to 2007 in the expectation that a “total strangers
deterrent to use. As one participant explained, “I don't use it
from MSU” would view one’s profile. This pattern may be
725

---

2006
2007
2008
X2
(13% and 18%, respectively). Seniors were twice as likely
to report that a future employer had looked at their profile
My high school
90% 86% 94% 25.31***
than were first year students, which is understandable in
friends
that these individuals were more likely to be applying for
Friends other than
jobs. In 2007 and 2008 respondents were asked their
84% 81% 87% 5.92*
HS friends
agreement with the statement “Facebook is a student only
space.” In 2007, respondents had a mean score of 3.11 with
People in my
standard deviation of 1.27, and in 2008 the mean response
84% 78% 83% 5.15
classes
was 2.83 with a standard deviation of 1.18. Agreement went
down significantly between those two periods (t=3.14,
Someone I met at a
p<.01), indicating there was a change in perception about
party or social
73% 70% 72% 0.88 the overall audience of the site. However, even in 2008 the
event
mean response is relatively high, given the increasing
Total strangers
population of non-students on Facebook, and the
74% 57% 55% 28.73***
from MSU
announcements about changes in membership in the media.
Family
members
49% 54% 70% 39.58***
In the interviews, respondents discussed the fact that
employers might be looking at their profile and the source
Total strangers
of this impression, which came from a variety of sources
from other
35% 30% 28% 3.98 including peers, potential employers and university
campuses
officials.
Total strangers
Participant: “I’ve had a lot of people just say, or adults say
who aren’t
14% 22% 24% 10.97**
people are using Facebook now as another tool for
affiliated with any
interviewing and stuff like that, so I wouldn’t want a picture
college or school
of me on Facebook to hinder me from getting a job.”
My MSU
12% 15% 15% 1.56 Participant: “I’ve heard rumors -- many people have told
professors
me that employers and people -- admission committees look
Law
enforcement 6% 7% 6% 0.52 at your Facebook profiles and see what you put in them.
And any pictures of me at a party, I’ve untagged myself in.
Future
employers N/A 13% 18% 53.903
I don’t really want to convey a message of -- which I’m not
a big partier at all -- but I just don’t want somebody getting
Table 5: Responses to the question “Since you have created
the wrong impression.”
your profile, who do you think has looked at it?” over three
surveys. * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001
Ackerman [1] presented three challenges to privacy
management resulting from the use of technical systems:
lack of sufficient nuance, lack of social flexibility, and
explained by two major interface changes that occurred
insufficient capacity for ambiguity.
between the two surveys; the first being the creation of the
News Feed, and the second being the removal of the
In each survey, we asked users about their privacy settings,
“browse network” option. As discussed later, this decrease
using the actual text from the Facebook interface option as
in perceived profile views by total strangers at MSU
response categories. These categories reflected different
mirrors changes in privacy settings, whereby significantly
groups, with the user specifying who could and who could
fewer individuals in 2007 reported using the default privacy
not view their profile. (Later privacy feature changes of the
settings.
site enabled users to calibrate these settings in more
nuanced ways, such as controlling access to specific
The expectation that a family member viewed one’s profile
features or by specific users.) Facebook changed these
increased in each year, most likely related to connections
response categories each year, which drastically altered the
made with siblings and cousins through Facebook, as
language of this item in each iteration of the survey.
Facebook opened up to members of organizations and
Therefore, we recoded all responses into a “default”
eventually, everyone. We suspect that this increase is
category for those who had the system default selected for
primarily associated with younger users, although several
their privacy, and “non-default” for those who had made
interview respondents mentioned showing their Facebook
some change to their privacy settings on Facebook.
profiles to their parents or other family members.
Responses of “I don’t know” were assumed to be in the
In 2007 and 2008 we asked respondents if they felt future
default category. In 2006, 64% of users had the default
employers had viewed their profiles. The percentage that
settings for privacy. In 2007, this number dropped to 45%
answered in the affirmative increased significantly between
of users who had the default settings, and by 2008 48% of
2007 and 2008, though stayed relatively low as a whole
users maintained the default privacy settings. In the 2006
survey, there were no statistically significant differences,
726

---

using the Pearson Chi-Square measure, between users with
User Attitudes towards Facebook
default privacy and non-default privacy in any of the
How have the attitudes of users towards Facebook changed
questions reported in Table 5.
over time? This question addresses changes in how users
feel Facebook is as a communication medium, their sense
In 2007, users with default privacy settings were less likely
of satisfaction with the site, and concerns they have about
to anticipate a family member had viewed their profile than
their use of the site.
those who had changed their settings, 40% to 60%
(X2=19.73, p<.001). Default privacy users were slightly less
Facebook users are satisfied with the site
likely to think someone in their classes had viewed their
Table 6 reports several attitudinal measures regarding
profile (X2=3.92, p<.05). They were also less likely to
Facebook. Respondents were asked to report the degree to
think that someone they had met at a social event would
which they agreed with a series of statements, with
view their profile (X2=8.87, p<.01). Although the fact that
responses in the form of Likert scale ordinal ratings where
those with more open privacy settings (the default)
higher numbers indicated more agreement. An independent
anticipate fewer kinds of audiences is seemingly
samples ANOVA test was run to determine if there was a
paradoxical, one explanation is that those individuals are
significant difference across years. Table 6 reports the F
less savvy about privacy in general and thus are less likely
statistic, with a higher number indicating more difference
to adjust their privacy settings and less aware of the true
between years. Additionaly, a Tukey’s post-hoc test was
audience of their profile.
conducted to determine statistically significant differences
Respondents also were asked to express their agreement on
between individual years.
a 5 point Likert scale with the statement “I feel concerned
The items “Facebook is part of my everyday activity” and
about my privacy because of Facebook.” In 2006, the
“Facebook has become part of my daily routine” probe how
average response was 2.88, in 2007 2.80 and in 2008 2.85,
regularly respondents view the site, and in all three survey
where higher numbers would indicate more agreement.
periods they largely agreed with the statement regarding
The means between years did not change significantly.
“everyday activity.” Respondents also indicated high
This neutral stance regarding the privacy implications of
agreement with two measures asking about the “usefulness”
Facebook use was also commonly expressed in interviews.
of Facebook, operationalized by the questions “I use
Two themes seemed to emerge from interviews. Some users
Facebook to get useful information” and “I use Facebook to
expressed a lack of concern about being judged by their
find out about things going on at MSU.” While agreement
profile. In another prominent theme, users engaged in
with the statement that “My Facebook use has caused me
active management of their profile, as exemplified by the
problems” has grown over the different samples, all
response of one female respondent.
responses remain low, with the average response being to
“somewhat disagree” with the statement. When asked about
Participant: “There’s nothing really on my Facebook
whether anything negative had happened to them as a result
profile that … I wouldn’t want a future employer to know
of their Facebook use, interview respondents described
anyways. I guess maybe that’s just my personality. I’m
fights with romantic partners, spending too much time on
really open with everything. And if you don’t like me for
the site, or becoming preoccupied with one’s profile and
who I am or you don’t want me to be, you know, a part of
online self-presentation. Many had heard stories from
your company because I go out and party with my friends
friends, professors, or others about Facebook users losing
on the weekends, that’s kind of ridiculous.”
jobs or opportunities due to content in their profile.
Many respondents mentioned specific strategies for
managing their Facebook image, either by constraining the
Attitudes towards Facebook change over time
people who see their profile, or by removing elements that
Users may change their attitudes towards the site over time
they feel would cast them in a negative light.
because of changes in the features offered by the site, or
because the population changes as Facebook has allowed
“INT: You mentioned that you’re - your use has become a
more types of members, or a variety of other reasons.
little more private over time. Was any of that related to the
feed when it came …?
Between 2006 and 2007 several changes occurred in how
the respondents in each sample viewed Facebook. All
Participant: No, I mean that didn’t bother me at all. But, I
measures of positive attitude towards Facebook increased
definitely wipe out my feed, not a lot shows on it. If it does,
significantly.
it’s new pictures that I’ve posted or something like that.
But, yes, I’ve definitely become aware of it, I think as it’s
The utility of Facebook seems to be centered on its ability
gotten a lot bigger. Before, it was so small it didn’t really
to provide social information about peers or others in one’s
matter and people - but now it’s getting a little bit more
extended social circle. For instance, one participant who
invasive, so yes, I keep - - that.”
worked as a tutor described how she would use Facebook to
look up the profiles of the students she tutored in order to
get a better sense of the kind of person they were, and then
adjust her tutoring strategies accordingly:
727

---

Year of survey

2006
2007
2008

Std.
Std.
Std.
F
Mean
Dev. Mean Dev. Mean Dev.
Facebook is part of my everyday activity
36.12
3.12 1.26 3.751 1.11 3.852 1.12
Facebook has become part of my daily routine
35.82
2.96 1.32 3.701 1.16 3.662 1.19
I am proud to tell people I am on Facebook
2.90
3.24 0.89 3.401 0.87 3.34 0.85
Facebook is just a fad
12.15
3.14 1.03 2.96
1.09
2.751,2 1.00
I would be sorry if Facebook shut down
5.21
3.45 1.14 3.691 1.19 3.722 1.34
I use Facebook to get useful information
78.51
2.55 1.10 3.391 1.02 3.542 1.00
I use Facebook to find out about things going on at MSU
56.59
2.59 1.08 3.341 1.18 3.512 1.10
My Facebook use has caused me problems
22.51
1.67 0.89 2.141 1.10 2.202 1.12
I spend time on Facebook when I should be doing other
things
9.44
3.16 1.15 3.521 1.23 3.542 1.18
Table 6: Ratings of attitudes towards Facebook. A mean reported with a “1” superscript indicates a significant (p<.05 or better)
difference with the year before. A “2” indicates a significant difference between 2006 and 2008.
P: I like to find out where they’re from, and who I know
down and like spend an hour just like clicking on people’s
that they know, too, so that I can kind of like judge them
pictures and what they’re doing and all that kind of stuff.”
based on who their friends are. I know that’s horrible…..
And their pictures so I know who they are actually. That’s
Between 2007 and 2008, changes were not as marked as in
about it.
the previous period. Facebook appears to have become
integrated into participants’ daily routines between 2006
INT: And would you change your tutoring strategy based
and 2007, but then once participants were integrated into
on information that you had from Facebook?
the site these gains were not replicated the following year.
The News Feed, which was launched in the Fall of 2006,
P: Yes, I think it’s easier to relate to people that you know
may be a major factor explaining these changes, as it
a little bit about. Like if somebody is from the [Upper
encouraged short sessions with the site that enabled users to
Peninsula of Michigan] -- and it’s not very diverse up there
quickly see the recent activities of their friends on the site.
-- I can kind of gear it towards a non-diverse example when
I explain things and stuff like that. So, yes I do.
DISCUSSION
During interviews, respondents indicated that they were not
This work is concerned with patterns of change in behavior
spending extended periods of time on the site in one
and attitudes in Facebook use among a population. To
session, but rather checked it frequently for updates. This
explore these issues, we return to the initial research
interview exchange was typical:
questions raised above.
INT: How often do you log into Facebook?
RQ1: How has reported use of Facebook to interact with
P: Probably, every day. (laughing)
other members changed over time?
In most ways, there was very little change in Facebook use
INT: And, for how long?
over time. Users seemed to indicate through both survey
P: Not for very long, about a minute or two.
and interview responses that they were typically using the
site to maintain lightweight contact with relationships they
INT: And, what do you do when you log in?
had developed offline. This norm may have evolved in
P: Check to see if I’ve gotten any message or anything I
response to Facebook’s history, in that the site was initially
need to respond to.
associated with offline networks like university
membership.
However, many participants talked about spending more
time on the site during certain periods, especially when they
It may also be that norms for Facebook use are imported
were “bored.” When asked how long he spent on Facebook,
from other sites like previous SNSs, or blogs, and that a
one participant said, “Maybe ten or fifteen minutes unless
“universal” norm for use exists. It could also be that there
I’m bored, and then I’ll just look at stuff…. I’ll just sit
is a social desirability to certain kinds of perceived use that
influences the way users responded to these questions.
Regardless, a contribution of this paper is displaying the
728

---

consistency of these reported uses across different samples
analysis on a panel of users and employing more
of users over time.
sophisticated multivariate techniques would give us more
power to assert the directionality of the relationships we
RQ2: How has the perception of audience on Facebook
describe.
changed over time?
Many of the findings reported in 2006 [18] remain
This study reports findings from undergraduate students at a
consistent in terms of the envisioned audience for profiles
large public university. It is unreasonable to confidently
as perceived by the population of MSU Facebook users.
generalize these results to users with different demographic
Peers and close online connections are widely seen as the
or cultural contexts. Creating a sampling frame that
“audience” for these users, as opposed to strangers or very
adequately represents non-college users of Facebook has
casual acquaintances. Non-peers like faculty, law been a challenge, and needs further development.
enforcement, and employers were seldom thought to have
Any method comes with costs and benefits, and in this case
viewed profiles. Despite changes in the technical ability of
surveys are powerful means of assessing populations, but
non-university people to join Facebook, there was still the
rely on self-report which may introduce error into findings.
relatively commmon perception that Facebook was a
Interviews provide context for use, but are hard to
“student-only” site in 2008, though the mean response
generalize over entire populations. We hope that the
statistically significantly dropped from the year before.
combination of methods helps to mitigate weaknesses in
Some changes in audience perception, for example the drop
individual methodologies.
in anticipation that strangers at MSU had viewed one’s
profile, may be tied to interface changes. The addition of
Future Work
the N