This study examines the relationship between use of Facebook, a popular online social network site, and the formation and maintenance of social capital. In addition to assessing bonding and bridging social capital, we explore a dimension of social capital that assesses one’s ability to stay connected with members of a previously inhabited community, which we call maintained social capital. Regression analyses conducted on results from a survey of undergraduate students (N = 286) suggest a strong association between use of Facebook and the three types of social capital, with the strongest relationship being to bridging social capital. In addition, Facebook usage was found to interact with measures of psychological well‐being, suggesting that it might provide greater benefits for users experiencing low self‐esteem and low life satisfaction.

Method A random sample of 800 Michigan State University (MSU) undergraduate students was retrieved from the MSU registrar’s office. All 800 students were sent an email invitation from one of the authors, with a short description of the study, information about confidentiality and incentives, and a link to the survey. Two reminder emails were sent to those who had not responded. Participants were compensated with a $5 credit to their on‐campus spending accounts. The survey was hosted on Zoomerang (http://www.zoomerang.com), an online survey hosting site, and was fielded in April 2006. Only undergraduate users were included in our sampling frame. A total of 286 students completed the online survey, yielding a response rate of 35.8% (see Table 1 for sample demographics). Demographic information about non‐responders was not available; therefore we do not know whether a bias existed in regards to survey participation. However, when we compare the demographics of our sample to information we have about the MSU undergraduate population as a whole, our sample appears to be representative with a few exceptions. Female, younger, in‐state, and on‐campus students were slightly overrepresented in our sample.2 Table 1. Sample demographics (N = 286) Mean or % (N) S.D. Gender: male 34% (98) female 66% (188) Age 20.1 1.64 Ethnicity: white 87% (247) non‐white 13% (36) Income1 3.18 2.04 Year in school2 2.55 1.07 Home residence: In‐state 91% (259) out‐of‐state 09% (25) Local residence: on campus 55% (157) off campus 45% (127) Member of fraternity or sorority 08% (23) 1.01 Hours of Internet use per day2 2 hours 56 min. 1:52 Facebook members 94% (268)

Measures Our instrument included four broad types of measures, which are discussed in more detail below. We collected information about demographic and other descriptive variables, including gender, age, year in school, local vs. home residence, ethnicity, a measure of Internet use adapted from LaRose, Lai, Lange, Love, and Wu (2005), and whether respondents were Facebook members or not. (These items are reflected in Table 1 above.) We also included Facebook usage measures, such as time spent using Facebook and items designed to assess whether Facebook was used to meet new people or to establish an online connection to pre‐existing connections. Our instrument also included measures of subjective well‐being and as well as three social capital measures, which served as our dependent variables. Measures of Facebook Usage Facebook Intensity The Facebook intensity scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .83) was created in order to obtain a better measure of Facebook usage than frequency or duration indices. This measure includes two self‐reported assessments of Facebook behavior, designed to measure the extent to which the participant was actively engaged in Facebook activities: the number of Facebook “friends” and the amount of time spent on Facebook on a typical day. This measure also includes a series of Likert‐scale attitudinal questions designed to tap the extent to which the participant was emotionally connected to Facebook and the extent to which Facebook was integrated into her daily activities (see Table 2 for item wording and descriptive statistics). Table 2. Summary statistics for Facebook intensity Individual Items and Scale Mean S.D. Facebook Intensity 1 (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83) −0.08 0.79 About how many total Facebook friends do you have at MSU or elsewhere? 0 = 10 or less, 1 = 11–50, 2 = 51–100, 3 = 101–150, 4 = 151–200, 5 = 201–250, 6 = 251–300, 7 = 301–400, 8 = more than 400 4.39 2.12 In the past week, on average, approximately how many minutes per day have you spent on Facebook? 0 = less than 10, 1 = 10–30, 2 = 31–60, 3 = 1–2 hours, 4 = 2–3 hours, 5 = more than 3 hours 1.07 1.16 Facebook is part of my everyday activity 3.12 1.26 I am proud to tell people I’m on Facebook 3.24 0.89 Facebook has become part of my daily routine 2.96 1.32 I feel out of touch when I haven’t logged onto Facebook for a while 2.29 1.20 I feel I am part of the Facebook community 3.30 1.01 I would be sorry if Facebook shut down 3.45 1.14 Facebook Usage: Elements in Profile and Perceptions of Who Has Viewed Profiles We asked respondents to indicate which of several salient aspects of the profile (such as relationship status, high school, and mobile phone number) they included when constructing their profile. The instrument asked respondents to indicate who they thought had viewed their profile, such as high school friends, classmates, or family members. These items offer insight into the degree to which respondents used Facebook to maintain existing connections or meet new people. Use of Facebook to Meet New People vs. Connect with Existing Offline Contacts In order to further investigate whether usage was more motivated by prior offline contacts or the potential to form new online contacts, we developed several items reflecting each of these paths (see Table 3). In the former case, the items measured whether respondents used Facebook to look up someone with whom they shared some offline connection, such as a classmate or a friend (Cronbach’s alpha = .70). In the latter case, our instrument included several items that tapped the use of Facebook to make new friends without any reference to an offline connection, but these did not correlate highly, and our final analysis incorporated only a single item measure: using Facebook to meet new people. Table 3. Summary statistics for Facebook use for prior contacts and meeting new people Individual Items and Scales1 Mean S.D. Off to Online: Use Facebook to connect with offline contacts (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.70) 3.64 0.79 I have used Facebook to check out someone I met socially 3.99 1.05 I use Facebook to learn more about other people in my classes 3.26 1.20 I use Facebook to learn more about other people living near me 2.86 1.22 I use Facebook to keep in touch with my old friends 4.42 0.86 On to Offline: I use Facebook to meet new people (single item measure) 1.97 1.03 Measures for Psychological Well‐Being Self‐Esteem Self‐esteem was measured using seven items from the Rosenberg self‐esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1989). The answers to these questions were reported on a 5‐point Likert scale and exhibited high reliability (see Table 4). Table 4. Summary statistics and factor analysis results for self‐esteem and satisfaction with MSU life items Individual Items and Scales1 Mean S.D. Self Esteem Scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87) 4.30 0.55 I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others 4.50 0.60 I feel that I have a number of good qualities 4.54 0.57 All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure (reversed) 4.27 0.86 I am able to do things as well as most other people 4.29 0.63 I feel I do not have much to be proud of (reversed) 4.26 0.89 I take a positive attitude toward myself 4.17 0.75 On the whole, I am satisfied with myself 4.07 0.84 Satisfaction with MSU Life Scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87) 2 3.55 0.74 In most ways my life at MSU is close to my ideal. 3.42 0.96 The conditions of my life at MSU are excellent. 3.54 0.91 I am satisfied with my life at MSU. 3.85 0.84 So far I have gotten the important things I want at MSU. 3.74 0.81 If I could live my time at MSU over, I would change almost nothing. 3.18 1.05 Satisfaction with Life at MSU The scale of satisfaction with life at MSU was adapted from the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener, Suh, & Oishi, 1997; Pavot & Diener, 1993), a five‐item instrument designed to measure global cognitive judgments of one’s life. We amended each item slightly to refer specifically to the MSU context, on the assumption that restricting participants was more appropriate given our hypotheses and more likely to elicit accurate answers. The reliability test for this 5‐point Likert scale showed a relatively high reliability (see Table 4). Measures of Social Capital Our three measures of social capital—bridging, bonding, and maintained social capital—were created by adapting existing scales, with wording changed to reflect the context of the study, and creating new items designed to capture Internet‐specific social capital (Quan‐Haase and Wellman, 2004). The full set of social capital items was factor analyzed to ensure that the items reflected three distinct dimensions (see Table 5). Table 5. Summary statistics and factor analysis results for social capital items Individual Items and Scales2 Mean S.D. Factor Loadings1 Bridging Social Capital Maintained Social Capital Bonding Social Capital Bridging Social Capital Scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87) 3.81 0.53 I feel I am part of the MSU community 3.78 0.80 0.70 −0.24 0.13 I am interested in what goes on at Michigan State University 3.98 0.64 0.73 −0.10 0.13 MSU is a good place to be 4.22 0.78 0.73 −0.12 0.18 I would be willing to contribute money to Michigan State University after graduation 3.35 0.95 0.66 −0.04 0.13 Interacting with people at MSU makes me want to try new things 3.74 0.68 0.60 −0.04 0.15 Interacting with people at MSU makes me feel like a part of a larger community 3.81 0.68 0.72 −0.09 0.23 I am willing to spend time to support general MSU activities 3.70 0.77 0.76 −0.10 0.16 At MSU, I come into contact with new people all the time 4.05 0.69 0.54 −0.17 0.13 Interacting with people at MSU reminds me that everyone in the world is connected 3.65 0.88 0.60 −0.07 0.04 Bonding Social Capital Scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75) 3.72 0.66 There are several people at MSU I trust to solve my problems 3.22 1.01 0.17 −0.07 0.60 If I needed an emergency loan of $100, I know someone at MSU I can turn to 3.75 1.09 0.02 −0.18 0.76 There is someone at MSU I can turn to for advice about making very important decisions 3.98 0.85 0.27 −0.09 0.76 The people I interact with at MSU would be good job references for me 3.88 0.79 0.32 0.07 0.63 I do not know people at MSU well enough to get them to do anything important (reversed) 3.78 0.87 0.13 −0.23 0.61 Maintained Social Capital Scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81) 3.77 0.67 I’d be able to find out about events in another town from a high school acquaintance living there 3.59 0.88 0.20 −0.58 0.05 If I needed to, I could ask a high school acquaintance to do a small favor for me 3.92 0.89 0.06 −0.86 0.18 I’d be able to stay with a high school acquaintance if traveling to a different city 3.85 0.94 −0.02 −0.85 0.15 I would be able to find information about a job or internship from a high school acquaintance 3.58 0.89 0.11 −0.79 0.02 It would be easy to find people to invite to my high school reunion 3.90 0.88 0.29 −0.56 0.14 Bridging Social Capital This measure assessed the extent to which participants experienced bridging social capital, which is believed to be better‐suited for linking to external assets and for information diffusion (Putnam, 2000). According to Williams (2006), “members of weak‐tie networks are thought to be outward looking and to include people from a broad range of backgrounds. The social capital created by these networks generates broader identities and generalized reciprocity” (n.p.). We therefore adapted five items from Williams’ (2006) bridging social capital subscale and created three additional items intended to measure bridging social capital in the MSU context to create our bridging social capital scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .87). One item, “MSU is a good place to be,” was included because it loaded on the same factor and tapped into an outcome of bridging social capital. Bonding Social Capital Bonding was assessed using five items from the bonding subscale of the Internet social capital scales developed and validated by Williams (2006). Responses were reported on a five‐point Likert scale. These items were adapted to the MSU context (Cronbach’s alpha = .75.) Maintained Social Capital This original scale was inspired by our pilot interviews,3 media coverage of Facebook, and anecdotal evidence that suggested that keeping in touch with high school friends was a primary use of Facebook. These items were adapted from traditional measures of social capital which assess an individual’s ability to mobilize support or action (Cronbach’s alpha = .81) but focus on the ability to get assistance from a previously inhabited community.

Discussion Returning to our original research question, we can definitively state that there is a positive relationship between certain kinds of Facebook use and the maintenance and creation of social capital. Although we cannot say which precedes the other, Facebook appears to play an important role in the process by which students form and maintain social capital, with usage associated with all three kinds of social capital included in our instrument. Although representation of non‐users is low in our sample, when we compare members vs. nonmembers, we see no real difference in demographics, with the exception of class year and age (which is strongly correlated with class year). This is most likely due to the fact that Facebook is a relatively recent phenomenon, and we would expect senior students to be less likely to join. The high penetration and lack of any systematic difference between members and non‐members suggests that Facebook has broad appeal, does not exclude particular social groups, and has not had a noticeable effect on participants’ grades. Our participants overwhelmingly used Facebook to keep in touch with old friends and to maintain or intensify relationships characterized by some form of offline connection such as dormitory proximity or a shared class. For many, Facebook provided a way to keep in touch with high school friends and acquaintances. This was demonstrated through the fact that the most commonly included information on users’ profiles was likely to be relevant for existing acquaintances trying to find them (e.g., their high school) and that nearly all users felt that their high school friends had viewed their profile, and through respondents’ self‐reported types of use (connecting with offline contacts as opposed to meeting new people). This offline to online movement differs from the patterns observed by early researchers examining computer‐mediated communication and virtual communities. Due to the structure of the site, which blocks entry to those without a school email address and then places individuals into communities based on that email address, Facebook serves a geographically‐bound user base.6 Our first dimension of social capital—bridging—assessed the extent to which participants were integrated into the MSU community, their willingness to support the community, and the extent to which these experiences broadened their social horizons or worldview. Our findings suggest that certain kinds of Facebook use (articulated by our Facebook intensity items) can help students accumulate and maintain bridging social capital. This form of social capital—which is closely linked to the notion of “weak ties”—seems well‐suited to social software applications, as suggested by Donath and boyd (2004), because it enables users to maintain such ties cheaply and easily. Although more research is needed to understand the nature of this trend, we suspect that Facebook serves to lower the barriers to participation so that students who might otherwise shy away from initiating communication with or responding to others are encouraged to do so through Facebook’s affordances. Participants’ reports about who is viewing their profile provide insight into this dynamic. As depicted in Figure 2, students report that the primary audiences for their profiles are high school friends and people they know from an MSU context. This implies that highly engaged users are using Facebook to crystallize relationships that might otherwise remain ephemeral. Haythornthwaite (2005) discusses the implications of media that “create latent tie connectivity among group members that provides the technical means for activating weak ties” (p. 125). Latent ties are those social network ties that are “technically possible but not activated socially” (p. 137). Facebook might make it easier to convert latent ties into weak ties, in that the site provides personal information about others, makes visible one’s connections to a wide range of individuals, and enables students to identify those who might be useful in some capacity (such as the math major in a required calculus class), thus providing the motivation to activate a latent tie. These weak ties may provide additional information and opportunities, which are expressed as dimensions of bridging social capital that speak to interaction with a wide range of people and the more tolerant perspective this might encourage. Facebook seems well‐suited to facilitate these experiences, in that detailed profiles highlight both commonalities and differences among participants. We also found an interaction between bridging social capital and subjective well‐being measures. For less intense Facebook users, students who reported low satisfaction with MSU life also reported having much lower bridging social capital than those who used Facebook more intensely. The same was true for self‐esteem. Conversely, there was little difference in bridging social capital among those who reported high satisfaction with life at MSU and high self‐esteem relative to Facebook use intensity. One explanation consistent with these interaction effects is that Facebook use may be helping to overcome barriers faced by students who have low satisfaction and low self‐esteem. Because bridging social capital provides benefits such as increased information and opportunities, we suspect that participants who use Facebook in this way are able to get more out of their college experience. The suggestion that Facebook use supports a “poor get richer” hypothesis, as opposed to the “rich get richer” findings reported in other contexts (Kraut, Kiesler, Boneva, Cummings, Helgeson, & Crawford, 2002), may be of special interest to Internet researchers. Bonding social capital was also predicted by high self‐esteem, satisfaction with university life, and intense Facebook use, although overall, the regression model predicting bonding social capital accounted for less of the variation for this dependent variable than for bridging social capital. However, Facebook appears to be much less useful for maintaining or creating bonding social capital, as indicated by the fact that the bonding model only accounted for 22% of the variance (versus 46% in the bridging social capital models). We might expect Facebook usage to have less of an impact on bonding than bridging social capital given the affordances of this service. It can lower barriers to participation and therefore may encourage the formation of weak ties but not necessarily create the close kinds of relationships that are associated with bonding social capital. Yet the strong coefficient for Facebook intensity suggests that Facebook use is important for bonding social capital as well. One explanation is that it may help individuals to maintain pre‐existing close relationships, just as it can be used as a low‐maintenance way to keep tabs on distant acquaintances. For instance, in our pilot interviews, students discussed the “birthday” feature of Facebook, which prompted them to send birthday greetings to friends with minimal effort. Finally, Facebook intensity predicted increased levels of maintained social capital, which assessed the extent to which participants could rely on high school acquaintances to do small favors. For college students, many of whom have moved away for the first time, the ability to stay in touch with these high school acquaintances may illustrate most clearly the “strength of weak ties” outlined by Granovetter (1973, 1982). These potentially useful connections may be valuable sources of new information and resources. Additionally, the ability to stay in touch with these networks may offset feelings of “friendsickness,” the distress caused by the loss of old friends. Limitations to this study include the fact that we examined only one community. Because the college years are a unique developmental period in the life cycle and because the MSU Facebook community is closely coupled with the geographically bounded MSU community, we are not able to generalize these findings to other kinds of communities or social network tools. It may be that the positive outcomes linked to Facebook use discussed here are limited to this special case in which the offline community is bounded spatially and to the unique nature of the undergraduate experience. Future research could explore Facebook use in other contexts, such as organizations and high schools. Because we used a one‐time survey, we cannot establish causality. Additionally, the extremely low incidence of non‐members, non‐White, or international students in our sample hampered our ability to assess the effects of Facebook membership on these groups. Finally, respondents may have misreported behavioral or demographic information, as we used self‐reported rather than direct measures of Facebook use and other variables. To address these concerns, future research should approach Facebook use and the generation of social capital via multiple methodologies. Profile capture and analysis would allow researchers to marry survey responses with direct behavioral measures. Additionally, experimental interventions would support causal claims; these interventions could be in the form of a survey, with pre‐ and post‐test data collected from the site itself. Collecting longitudinal data over a series of years, tracking incoming first‐year students and following them after they graduate, is also a necessary next step.

Conclusions Our empirical results contrast with the anecdotal evidence dominating the popular press. Although there are clearly some image management problems experienced by students as reported in the press, and the potential does exist for privacy abuses, our findings demonstrate a robust connection between Facebook usage and indicators of social capital, especially of the bridging type. Internet use alone did not predict social capital accumulation, but intensive use of Facebook did. The strong linkage between Facebook use and high school connections suggests how SNSs help maintain relations as people move from one offline community to another. It may facilitate the same when students graduate from college, with alumni keeping their school email address and using Facebook to stay in touch with the college community. Such connections could have strong payoffs in terms of jobs, internships, and other opportunities. Colleges may want to explore ways to encourage this sort of usage. Online social network sites may play a role different from that described in early literature on virtual communities. Online interactions do not necessarily remove people from their offline world but may indeed be used to support relationships and keep people in contact, even when life changes move them away from each other. In addition to helping student populations, this use of technology could support a variety of populations, including professional researchers, neighborhood and community members, employees of companies, or others who benefit from maintained ties.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Dean Chuck Salmon and the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University for their generous support of this research.