臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

此研究旨在探討社群網路服務-臉書的使用者間的關係，以及社會資本的創造與維持。社群網路服務提供了具有彈性及個人化的社交方式，讓每位使用者可以藉由不同的工具與策略來維繫強、弱連結。Pearson 相關分析結果顯示了大學生使用臉書與兩種社會資本間具有強烈相關性(樣本數=354份)。此外，多元回歸分析結果也顯示社會資本的確可以由自尊、生活滿意度、臉書使用頻率來預測。希望此研究結果可以建議臉書使用者離開原本社交圈後如何持續維持人際關係。

This study examines the relationship between use of Facebook, a popular online social network site, and the formation and maintenance of social capital. Specifically, SNSs provide flexible and personalized modes of sociability, which allow individuals to sustain strong or weak ties through a variety of online tools and strategies. Correlation analyses conducted on results from a survey of university students (N = 354) suggest a strong association between use of Facebook and the two types of social capital. The results of multiple regression analysis show that social capital can be predicted by self-esteem, satisfaction with life, and Facebook intensity. Facebook appears to be much less useful for creating or maintaining bridging social capital. We hope these results can suggest how SNSs help maintain relations as people move from one offline community to another.

Chapter 1 Introduction……………………………………………………1
1.1 background and motivation………………………………………..1
1.2 objectives…………………………………………………………..3
1.3 research procedure…………………………………………………3
1.4 organization of this thesis………………………………………….4
Chapter 2 Literature review………………………………………………6
2.1 social capital: online and offline…………………………………...6
2.2 bonding social capital (strong ties)………………………….......7
2.3 bridging social capital (weak ties)…………………………………8
2.4 social capital and Internet……..…………………………………...8
Chapter 3 Research method……………………………………………..11
3.1 research framework……………………………………………….11
3.2 development of measurement…………………………………….12
3.3 data analysis approach……………………………………………12
3.4 data collection…………………………………………………….13
Chapter 4 Data analysis and result……………………………………...14
4.1 descriptive statistic……………………………………………….14
4.1.1 sample structure……………………………………………….14
4.2 reliability analysis………………………………………………...16
4.3 correlation analysis……………………………………………….18
4.4 multiple regression analysis………………………………………19
4.5 result……………………………………………………………...20
Chapter 5 Conclusions…………………………………………………..22
5.1 findings…………………………………………………………...22
5.2 contribution of this research……………………………………...23
5.3 limitation of this research………………………………………...23
References………………………………………………………………25

1.Alan J. Fridlund(1991) Sociality of Solitary Smiling:Potentiation by an Implicit Audience

2.Alan Page Fiske(1992) The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a united theory of social relations

3.Adler, P., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.

4.Bargh, J., & McKenna, K. (2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 573–590.

5.Cassidy, J. (2006, May). Me media. The New Yorker, 50–59.

6.Donath, J., & boyd, d. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71-75.

7.Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), article 2. Retrieved June 30, 2007 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/ vol11/issue2/ellison.html

8.Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),1360–1380.

9.Granovetter, M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. V.

10.Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005, November). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. Paper presented at the WPES’05, Alexandria, Virginia.

11.Golder, S. A., Wilkinson, D., & Huberman, B. A. (2007, June). Rhythms of social interaction: Messaging within a massive online network. In C. Steinfield, B. Pentland, M. Ackerman, & N. Contractor (Eds.), Communities and Technologies 2007: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Communities and Technologies (pp. 41–66). London: Springer.

12.Hewitt, A., & Forte, A. (2006, November). Crossing boundaries: Identity management and student/faculty relationships on the Facebook. Paper presented at CSCW, Banff, Alberta,Canada.

13.Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 359(1449), 1435–1446.

14.Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2007). A familiar Face(book): Profile elements as signals in an online social network. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 435–444). New York: ACM Press.

15.Mardsen & N. Lin (Eds.), Social Structure and Network Analysis (pp. 105–130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

16.Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164–172.

17.Resnick, P. (2001). Beyond bowling together: Sociotechnical capital. In J. Carroll (Ed.), HCI in the New Millennium (pp. 247–272). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

18.Stutzman, F. (2006, April). An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network communities. Paper presented at the iDMAa and IMS Code Conference, Oxford, Ohio.

19.Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 317–348.

20.WEIWEI SHEN&FERENC JORDA´ N(2008) TINA WEY, DANIEL T. BLUMSTEIN, Social network analysis of animal behaviour: a promising tool for the study of sociality