Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

The Relationship Between Facebook Use and

Well-Being Depends on Communication Type and
Tie Strength
Moira Burke
Facebook

Robert E. Kraut
School of Computer Science and Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University

An extensive literature shows that social relationships influence psychological well-being, but the
underlying mechanisms remain unclear. We test predictions about online interactions and well-being
made by theories of belongingness, relationship maintenance, relational investment, social support,
and social comparison. An opt-in panel study of 1,910 Facebook users linked self-reported measures
of well-being to counts of respondents’ Facebook activities from server logs. Specific uses of the
site were associated with improvements in well-being: Receiving targeted, composed communi-
cation from strong ties was associated with improvements in well-being while viewing friends’
wide-audience broadcasts and receiving one-click feedback were not. These results suggest that
people derive benefits from online communication, as long it comes from people they care about and
has been tailored for them.

Keywords: Social Networking Sites, Psychological Well-Being, Social Support, Tie Strength.

doi:10.1111/jcc4.12162

New communication technologies are often met with questions about their impact on psychological
well-being. Today the spotlight is on social networking sites (SNSs), with scholars testing the relation-
ship between online communication and such outcomes as social support, loneliness, and affect (Burke,
Kraut, & Marlow, 2011; Deters & Mehl, 2012; Verduyn et al., 2014). Early research on the Internet’s
impact tended to use overly simplistic measures, treating online activities as interchangeable, and much
current research on SNSs falls into the same trap (see Kraut & Burke, 2015 for a review). However, there
is now emerging consensus that the impact of online communication on well-being is contingent on a
person’s goals, the nature of the communication exchanged, and the closeness of communication part-
ners (Huang, 2010; Burke & Kraut, 2013; Burke et al., 2011). Despite consensus that the relationship
between SNS use and well-being depends on the ways the technology is used, there is substantially less
agreement on what the important factors are.

Editorial Record: First manuscript received on February 26, 2015. Revisions received on July 13, 2015, October 28, 2015
and March 29, 2016. Accepted by Nicole Ellison on May 25, 2016. Final manuscript received on May 26, 2016.
[Correction added on 8/1/2016, after first online publication: ‘Depends’ and ‘between’ were lowercase in title; changed to
uppercase.]

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (2016) 265–281 © 2016 International Communication Association 265
 In the present paper, we explore predictions made from complementary theories on how commu-
nication type and partner in an SNS influence psychological well-being. We describe predictions made
by theories of belongingness, relationship maintenance, signals of relational investment, social support,
and social comparison. SNSs support different kinds of communication that allow us to distinguish
between the theories. In particular, we differentiate (1) targeted, composed communication consisting
of original text written for a specific person, such as a wall post or comment; (2) stylized or “one-click”
communication, that provides low-effort but targeted feedback such as a “like” or “favorite” on an SNS;
and (3) composed, broadcast communication, such as a status update, blog post, or tweet aimed at a
wide audience. We also distinguish between communication sent by stronger and weaker ties.
Although the theories suggest different routes through which communication influences well-being,
together they imply that targeted, composed communication with strong ties will lead to the greatest
benefits. This prediction is consistent with results from a three-wave, opt-in panel study of 1,910 Face-
book users, linking counts of respondents’ activities derived from server logs to changes in self-report
measures of well-being. Individuals who received targeted, composed communication from strong ties
showed improvements in well-being, but their well-being did not improve after viewing wide-audience
broadcasts, receiving one-click feedback, or receiving composed communication from weak ties. These
results suggest that people derive benefits from receiving online communication, as long it comes from
people they care about and has been tailored for them. Although the results are generally consistent with
all five theories, theories of social support best fit the data because of their focus on targeted interactions
with strong ties.
We first define what we mean by psychological well-being and briefly derive predictions from five
theoretical perspectives, identifying conceptually distinct, but complementary routes through which
communication in SNSs could influence well-being. We then describe the methods and empirical results
from a longitudinal study of Facebook users.
Psychological Well-Being
There are many definitions of psychological well-being in the literature, with some scholars focusing on
positive mental health—such as positive affect, cognitive evaluation of one’s life as satisfying, having
a meaningful purpose, or good mental health—while others focus on the absence of negative mental
health, including anxiety, loneliness, depression, and stress. (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 2010).
In this paper we take a broad view, using a composite measure of multiple related indicators that many
researchers consider aspects of well-being, including mood, perceived social support, satisfaction with
life, depression, stress, and loneliness. Many previous studies linking Internet use to well-being have
included one or more of these indicators as outcomes. For example, in Huang’s (2010) meta-analysis of
40 studies, 37 used loneliness as an indicator of well-being, 33 used depression, and 7 used life satisfac-
tion. Others used short-term measures of mood and loneliness (Kross et al., 2013; Verduyn et al., 2015)
or perceived social support (Kraut et al., 1998; Ellison et al., 2007). Collectively, these scales measure dis-
tinct but related concepts from the psychological literature. Some are hypothesized to be causally related
while others are conceptually similar constructs at different time scales or intensities (e.g., depression,
negative mood, and positive mood are all measures of affect). Our goal is not to unpack the components
of well-being or their causal relationships (see Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999 for a review), but to
assess how online communication influences well-being broadly construed.

Social Networking Sites and Psychological Well-Being

Much research on the social impact of SNSs rests on the assumption that people benefit from social inter-
action with others. Decades of research in the offline world have demonstrated that social connections,
social support, and social interaction all lead to improvements in happiness, mental health, and physical

266 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (2016) 265–281 © 2016 International Communication Association
health, although the precise mechanisms for these effects are still being debated (see Thoits, 2011 for a
review). Here we briefly discuss several mechanisms through which social interaction might influence
well-being and differential predictions one can derive from them about the type of social interactions
in SNSs that will change participants’ well-being. We summarize the mechanisms and predictions in
Table 1.

The need to belong

Humans are a social species, with many survival advantages accruing from our connections to others
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Because humans have a fundamental need to feel that they belong to a group,
social interaction should improve well-being by fulfilling these needs. Satisfaction will be greatest if the
communication is with strong ties (p. 500). This is because the need to belong is not satisfied by social
interaction alone, but also requires stable interpersonal relationships marked by positive concern and
caring. If this variant of the theory were correct, then we would expect that an aggregate measure of
an individual’s Facebook communication with strong ties would predict improvements in well being
more than would communication with weaker ties. However, the theory is silent about the nature of the
communication, including its content or the effort involved to produce it.

Relationship maintenance
Related theories argue that online communication can influence psychological well-being by helping
people maintain their stock of friendships. Thoits reviews the substantial evidence that social ties are
causally related to improvements in mental health, physical health, and longevity (2011, p. 145). Social
ties have been operationalized in many ways across studies, including the number of close friends and
relatives, marital status, and membership in religious and voluntary associations. Social ties need a regu-
lar investment of effort to stay alive (Roberts & Dunbar, 2010). Frequent communication increases liking
(Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950) and provides opportunities for reciprocal self-disclosure and social
support, which deepen relationships (Collins & Miller, 1994).
This mechanism requires substantive communication between parties in order to maintain rela-
tionships. The theory would predict that having moderately substantive interactions, such as gossiping
about a mutual friend or talking about an upcoming family trip, should help maintain friendships, as is
generally consistent with previous research on SNSs. For example, Ellison et al.’s Facebook Relationship
Maintenance Behaviors primarily consist of substantive communication—responding to others’ news,
offering advice, and responding to their questions (Ellison, Vitak, Gray & Lampe, 2014). Moreover, this
mechanism does not exclusively require one-on-one communication; newsy, meaningful broadcasts to
many friends at once may also maintain relationships. Burke and Kraut (2014) showed that broadcast
wall posts on Facebook as well as targeted comments were associated with increases in tie strength while
exchanges of one-click communications such as likes and pokes were not. However, while reading broad-
casts was associated with increases in tie strength, it was not linked to improvements in perceived social
support in prior work (Burke et al., 2011), casting doubt on this theory’s predictions.

Signals of relational investment

In addition to directly maintaining relationships though substantive communication, the symbolic value
of communication also can maintain relationships independent of the content exchanged. For example,
according to the theory of relational investment (Lin, 2001; Donath, 2008; Ellison et. al, 2014), the fre-
quency and length of messages serve as signals of relationship value. Donath (2008) argues that “cost in
time is a signal of the resources one is willing to commit to this relationship” (p. 238) over and above

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (2016) 265–281 © 2016 International Communication Association 267
268
Table 1 Five theoretical mechanisms through which online communication affects well-being, and predictions from them.

Effect of communication type/partner on well-being

Theory Mechanism Hypothesis Targeted, composed One-click Broadcast Strong tie

Belongingness The need to belong is Well-being improves by +

satisfied most by receiving strong-tie
communication with communication,
close ties. regardless of
communication type.
Relational Frequent, substantive Well-being improves by + +
maintenance communication grows receiving composed
and maintains social ties. communication, whether
targeted at the recipient,
or broadcast to many
recipients.
Signals of Effortful communication Well-being improves by +
relational indicates that the sender receiving targeted,
investment cares for the receiver. composed
communication
regardless of who sends it.
Social support Mundane interactions with Well-being improves by + + +
strong ties cause receiving targeted
recipients to believe that communication from
they will have support strong ties.
when needed.
Social Comparing one’s life to Well-being declines by −
comparison others’ broadcasts makes reading broadcast
one feel worse. content, regardless of
who posts it.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (2016) 265–281 © 2016 International Communication Association

the value that comes from the content of the communication itself. According to this take on rela-
tionships, more effortful communication should have a greater impact on well-being. Concretely, the
comments that people use on SNSs to reply to each other should have more symbolic importance than
low-effort, stylized communication, such as “likes” that are also used as replies. Similarly, as Latane’s
(1981) social impact model demonstrates, messages addressed toward a single other person are more
powerful than messages broadcast toward larger audiences; with broadcast communication the effort
is amortized over more recipients. As a result, signaling theory suggests that receiving targeted, com-
posed communication will have a larger impact on well-being than receiving broadcast or one-click
communication.

Social support
Perceived social support is another mechanism through which social interactions may improve
well-being. Building a support network through routine interactions, especially with close friends,
increases the perception that friends will be available when needed. People with more perceived
social support are happier, healthier, and live longer (see Gleason & Iida, 2015 for a recent review).
While Thoits (2011) argues that perceived support derives from a history of received support, she
believes this received support comprises the “everyday interactions [that] are so minor, so com-
monplace, and so taken for granted as to be virtually invisible as support provisions” (p. 150).
The theory does not specify how minor an interaction can be and still lead to a perception of
support, but translated to an online environment, these commonplace markers of support might
include very lightweight actions such as “likes” or “pokes” in addition to more substantive text-based
interactions.
Moreover, the social support literature distinguishes the roles of strong and weak ties: Strong ties pro-
vide more effortful, empathic support, while weak ties are less willing to provide significant services, but
instead provide access to new opportunities and ideas (Granovetter, 1973). As Albrecht et al. note, “Nur-
turing, caring, and tangible assistance are more likely to be expected and provided more readily in closer,
multiplex, dense relationships, which also likely carry a presumption of reciprocity of supportive behav-
ior” (2003). Thoits argues that everyday support received from strong ties is what promotes well-being,
confirming the recipients’ sense of mattering to other people and sustaining a sense of self-worth (Thoits,
2011).
This reasoning suggests that online communication with stronger ties rather than with weaker ones
should lead to larger improvements in well-being. This conclusion is consistent with empirical evi-
dence. Teens who use Instant Messenger with strong ties have much higher levels of life satisfaction than
those who talk to strangers (Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). Adults talking to strong ties online experience
emotional support and declines in depression symptoms, benefits not associated with communication
with weaker ties (Bessière et al., 2008). Communicating with strong ties on Facebook is associated with
increases in perceived social support and reductions in stress (Burke & Kraut, 2013).

Social comparison
Social comparison theory suggests that some types of online communication can harm well-being.
Humans have a bias towards sharing positive news (Bond & Anderson, 1997), and seek to present
themselves in a generally self-enhancing way (Goffman, 1959). Therefore, the kinds of stories that
people broadcast in social media tend to skew positive and be less intimate (Bazarova et al., 2015).
Offline, these positivity biases cause people to underestimate others’ difficulties and overestimate
their happiness (Jordan et al., 2011). This misperception may persist in social media as well, where
viewers see dozens of rosy stories by their social connections. Surveys of college students have

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (2016) 265–281 © 2016 International Communication Association 269
linked reading others’ stories in social media with ego-deflation, upward social comparison, envy,
and subsequent feelings of depression (Steers, Wickham, & Acitelli, 2014; Chou & Edge, 2012). Par-
ticipants in lab experiments shown fake profiles of beautiful, successful people felt upward social
comparison (Haferkamp & Krämer, 2011; Johnson & Knobloch-Westerwick, 2014). Participants
assigned to browse Facebook for 10 minutes without interacting with friends felt envy and lower affect
(Verduyn et al., 2015).

Summary
The theoretical perspectives above present complementary predictions about the mechanisms through
which communication types and partners could influence psychological well-being in SNSs. Although
none of the theories are wholly incompatible with each other, they make somewhat different predic-
tions. Theories of belongingness predict that more communication with stronger ties, independent of
its content, should lead to improvements in psychological well-being. This model does not distinguish
between targeted and broadcast communication nor does it distinguish composed text from one-click
interactions. In contrast, theories of relationship maintenance predict that substantive communi-
cation will enhance relationships, regardless of whether it’s targeted at an individual or broadcast
to many viewers, and that one-click communication will not. Signaling theory predicts that only
composed, targeted communication will enhance well-being by making recipients feel that others
are investing in their relationships and care about them. However, both relationship maintenance
and signaling theories are silent about the role of tie strength. For example, Ellison et al.’s Facebook
Relationship Maintenance Behaviors (2014) do not differentiate communication exchanged with close
versus weak ties. Theories of social support imply that the most valuable communication consists
of targeted interactions with strong ties, but the “everyday” and “invisible” support variant suggests
that small actions, like one-click “likes” could also generate feelings that supportive friends will be
available when needed. Broadcast communication and communication from weak ties should not
have similar effects. Finally, social comparison theory predicts that reading broadcast communication
will lower well-being. However, targeted, composed communication and one-click communication
should not have similar effects. This theory is silent on the role that tie strength would play. Table 1
summarizes the theoretical pathways by which SNS communication could influence psychological
well-being.

Method
To analyze the relationship between communication on SNSs and well-being, we conducted an opt-in,
three-wave panel survey of Facebook users from June to August 2011. Respondents completed validated
scales measuring aspects of well-being and questions about their relationships with a set of eight Face-
book friends. Survey responses were matched to the server logs of the participants’ activity on Facebook
beginning one month prior to the first survey and concluding on the date of the last survey. All data were
de-identified and aggregated.
Measuring the relationship between Internet use and well-being poses several methodological chal-
lenges that can lead to misleading results, including treating all activities as interchangeable, relying on
inaccurate self-reports, and using cross-sectional data, thereby confounding dispositions for using tech-
nology with its effects (see Kraut & Burke, 2015 for methodological critiques). The approach used here
mitigates some of these problems. We use a panel design to link granular and objective measures of
SNS use collected from Facebook’s servers with month-to-month changes in participants’ self-reports of
psychological well-being.

270 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (2016) 265–281 © 2016 International Communication Association
Research site
We conducted this research on Facebook for multiple reasons. First is Facebook’s importance as an Inter-
net service; its large size makes it worthy of study in its own right. More than 60% of its 1.4 billion active
users use the site on any given day (Facebook, 2015). Second, Facebook is a microcosm of the Inter-
net and its variety of services. Third, Facebook provides new affordances, such as one-click “likes” and
“pokes,” which allow us to test theoretical mechanisms on a wider range of communication actions than
are available offline.

Participants
Participants were recruited through Facebook ads and e-mail targeted at adult English-speakers around
the world who had been active on the site in the previous 30 days, stratified by gender and activity
level. Respondents were informed that they would complete three surveys a month apart and that their
responses would be joined with counts of their behavior on Facebook. Participants were not compen-
sated. The respondents (N = 10,557) who completed all three waves (N = 1,910) are included in the
analyses that follow. There are minor differences between dropouts and returnees in age (M = 41.2 versus
46.2 years old, respectively, p < 0.001) and gender (59% of returnees were female versus 52% of dropouts,
𝜒 2 = 32.5, p < 0.001), but no differences in friend count or site use. Survey takers were approximately 15
years older than a random sample of Facebook users, a difference partially caused by excluding minors
from the survey. The people in the sample were 11% more likely to be female (𝜒 2 = 108.1, p < 0.001).
They were heavier Facebook users, with about twice the likelihood of logging in during the week prior
to the survey and approximately 70 more friends than the average user. The discussion section addresses
potential biases related to these selection effects.

Dependent variable: Psychological well-being

Participants completed an online survey including seven validated scales measuring aspects of social
and psychological well-being: Perceived Social Support (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88; Cohen, Mermelstein,
Kamarck, & Hoberman, 1985); Satisfaction With Life (alpha = 0.86; Diener et al., 2010); Depression
(alpha = 0.87; Radloff, 1977); UCLA Loneliness Scale (alpha = 0.87; Russell, 1996); Positive and Neg-
ative Affect Scale (positive alpha = 0.82; negative alpha = 0.81; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988); and
the Perceived Stress Scale (alpha = 0.87; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). All were measured on
5-point Likert scales and standardized. We excluded Williams’ bridging social capital (2006) because
it is not necessarily a component of psychological well-being, but rather a measure of connectedness
to diverse people and opportunities; does not have convergent validity with structural measures; con-
founds measures with potential outcomes, and fails to discriminate bridging capital from institutional
attachment and belonging (Appel et al., 2014).
The seven scales were correlated (mean absolute r = 0.55, range r = 0.33 to 0.82). A confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) revealed a common factor underlying these scales and that a one-factor solution
was an acceptable fit to the data (CFI = .991, SRMR = .026, RMSEA = .071). Given the substantial corre-
lations among the discrete scales and the CFA results, we treat the seven scales as multiple indicators of a
single, latent well-being variable. We constructed a composite well-being measure by reversing the sign
of the negatively loading scales (depression, stress, loneliness and negative affect), standardizing the mea-
sures, and averaging. In the remainder of the paper we refer to this composite measure as “well-being.”
This composite measure of well-being had high internal consistency (alpha = 0.89).

Independent variables: Facebook communication and tie strength

With informed consent from respondents, we analyzed counts of their activity on Facebook for 3
months, beginning one month prior to the first survey. All variables were aggregated from server logs

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (2016) 265–281 © 2016 International Communication Association 271
Table 2 Descriptive statistics for Facebook activity variables. Variables are monthly averages from
three months’ data. Composite scales were created by averaging the log-transformed, standardized
versions of these variables.

Corr.
Facebook activities per month Median Mean Std. Dev. with scale

Composed communication received (scale alpha = 0.80)

Comments received 12.0 47.8 104.3 0.83
Messages received 7.0 22.8 69.5 0.65
Wall posts received 1.0 5.4 17.3 0.46
One-click communication received (scale alpha = 0.54)
Likes received 14.0 53.6 127.1 0.83
Pokes received 0.0 8.1 51.4 0.42
Broadcast communication viewed (scale alpha = 0.58)
Profiles viewed 130.0 333.9 657.6 0.91
News feed stories clicked on 22.0 75.9 284.6 0.53
Photos viewed 0.0 73.4 302.8 0.55
Distinct people whose broadcasts respondent viewed 58.0 112.8 168.2 0.83

and de-identified; no communication content was analyzed. The research was approved by Carnegie
Mellon’s Institutional Review Board and all analysis took place on Facebook’s servers in line with the
company’s Data Use Policy. All data were observational; no Facebook user’s experience was affected by
this research.

Facebook communication
The five theories discussed above indicate that different forms of communication should have different
well-being effects. In particular, theories of relationship maintenance, relationship investment, and social
support all suggest that receiving written communication aimed at oneself should improve well-being,
while they make varying predictions about the importance of less effortful activities like “likes” and
broadcast communication like status updates. Therefore, we categorized the communication partici-
pants received into three categories: composed, one-click, and broadcast. Targeted, composed com-
munication consists of one-on-one exchanges between a user and another particular Facebook friend
that included text. The measure was constructed by averaging the variables listed in the top section of
Table 2, including the number of messages, wall posts, and comments received. Targeted, composed
communication may be visible to other mutual friends of the sender and recipient (as in the case of a
comment), but unlike broadcast communication, it targets a specific person. One-click communica-
tion consists of targeted, single-click actions directed at a particular friend: “like” and “poke.” Poking
and liking occurred regularly; 81% of participants received at least one “like” and 30% at least one
poke. Broadcast communication consists of views of broadcast content, such as reading News Feed
stories, viewing others’ photos, and visiting profiles. To determine whether the data support separating
composed, one-click, and broadcast communication, we compared two CFAs, one assuming a single
latent factor representing all communication and the second distinguishing composed, one-click, and
broadcast communication. According to a log likelihood ratio test, the three-factor model fit the data
better (𝜒2 = 694.9, df = 1, p < .0001): For the one-factor model, CFI = .773, RMSEA = .241, and for the
three-factor model CFI = .950, RMSEA = .120.

272 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (2016) 265–281 © 2016 International Communication Association
Tie strength
We automatically categorized each respondent’s friends as strong or weak ties using the following
method. On the survey, participants selected up to six Facebook friends to whom they felt close.
Respondents were instructed to select ties “ … you discuss important matters with, really enjoy
socializing with, or anyone else you feel especially close to” (Marin & Hampton, 2007). On average,
participants selected 4.4 close friends. After participants selected close ties, the survey software ran-
domly selected additional Facebook friends to bring the total to eight. For each of the eight friends,
participants then reported “How close do you feel to [tie name]?” on a 7-point scale ranging from “Not
at all close” to “Extremely close.”
These self-reported tie strength ratings were used to train a multilevel linear regression model of
tie strength at the dyad level across all of their Facebook friends, with independent variables coming
from Facebook’s server logs and users’ profiles for the 90 days prior to the first survey. For each dyad,
tie strength is a linear combination of features from users’ Facebook histories that indicate homophily,
family and romantic relationships, and communication frequency. There were 77 features included in
the model (see Burke, 2011, p. 153 for complete list). In a held-out sample, tie strength predicted by this
algorithm was highly correlated with self-reported tie strength (r = 0.66). This model was then applied
to the social networks from participants in the present study, generating a tie strength estimate for each
of their friendships.
For ease of presentation and computational feasibility in the subsequent models, tie strength was
converted to a binary variable for each friend, with ties of strength 5 or higher classified as “strong”
and all others “weak.” This threshold of 5 was chosen because it was both the mean and median
self-reported closeness value for ties participants selected as their “closest” friends on the original
survey. With this threshold, the median participant had 14 close friends out of 116 (Mean = 21 out of
207). Participants received approximately half of their composed and one-click communication from
strong ties (M = 52.2%). Though dichotomization of continuous variables reduces power and may yield
misleading results in some cases (MacCallum, Zhang, Preacher, & Rucker, 2002), robustness checks
show that the results described below were substantively the same with higher thresholds for a “strong”
tie—6 or 7 on the 7-point scale—or comparing each person’s top quartile of friends to their bottom
quartile.

Control variables
Several variables were included as controls in the following models (see Table 3). Participants reported
major life events (Holmes & Rahe, 1967) that occurred during the data collection period including
marriage, divorce, losing a job, or the death of a loved one. We included these items to control for
effects of exogenous events that might influence well-being. Only divorce, illness, and job loss were
associated with changes in the well-being measures in this sample so we only include them as controls.
Respondents described their overall health using a single item from the MOS Short-Form Health
Survey (Ware & Sherbourne, 1992): “In general, would you say your health is Poor/Fair/Good/Very
Good/Excellent?” A binary variable indicates whether the respondent had used Facebook the day before
completing the survey as a proxy for engagement, and Facebook friend count is a proxy for the respon-
dent’s opportunities for communication. Country was not a significant predictor and was excluded
from the models.

Method of analysis
To determine how different types of inbound communication predict changes in well-being, we con-
ducted a multilevel regression analysis that included a lagged dependent variable and participant as a

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (2016) 265–281 © 2016 International Communication Association 273
Table 3 Descriptive statistics for control variables.

Control variables Median Mean Std. Dev.

Age 47.3 46.3 17.4

Gender 40.5% female
Overall Facebook use
Was active on FB yesterday (binary) 1.0 0.9 0.3
Friend count 116.0 207.2 301.5
Major life events and health (from survey)
Overall health (range 1–5) 4.0 3.5 1.0
Pct. experienced event
Moved to a new city 3.9%
Divorce or relationship breakup 3.8%
Fired or lost job 2.4%
New job 6.9%
Pregnancy or new family member 4.1%
Death of close friend or family 11.5%
Personal injury or illness 14.2%

random effect. Coefficients represent the impact on changes in well-being from a unit increase of an
independent variable (e.g., a standard deviation more composed communication in the month between
surveys). While it is impossible to truly determine a causal relationship without randomized assignment
of participants—e.g., randomly reducing or encouraging the flow of inbound communication to Face-
book users for a month—the regression analysis is appropriate for observational studies. By including
the lagged well-being measure, the analysis controls for an individual’s previous level of well-being and
the unmeasured factors that contributed to it. Lagged independent variables (i.e., online communica-
tion the previous month) were not included because they were highly collinear with communication in
the current month and would produce biased estimates. All continuous independent variables were stan-
dardized. Multicollinearity was not a problem, with all variance inflation factors less than 4. A robustness
check in which we controlled for outbound Facebook communication (communication that partici-
pants initiated) produced substantively similar results. The dataset includes three questionnaires for each
respondent, and thus two observations of the lagged dependent variable (the participant’s well-being in
the previous month).

Results
We present the results through a series of regressions in Table 4, with each analysis breaking apart aggre-
gate communication variables in the preceding analysis. We start by examining the overall effect of
receiving Facebook communication (Model A); then break it down into communication with strong vs.
weak ties (Model B); then differentiate the effects of receiving composed, one-click, or broadcast com-
munication (Model C); and finally examine whether the effects of the three types of communication
depend upon tie strength with the sender (Model D). This analysis cascade reveals that respondents’
well-being increased most when they received composed, targeted communication from strong ties.
Receiving broadcasts, weak-tie communication, or one-click feedback from strong ties did not have
similar beneficial effects.

274 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (2016) 265–281 © 2016 International Communication Association
 Table 4 Estimated changes in psychological well-being from Facebook communication.

Model A Model B Model C Model D

Composed vs. Communication
Overall Communication Strong vs. Weak Ties One-Click vs. Broadcast Type x Tie Strength
Coef SE p-value Coef SE p-value Coef SE p-value Coef SE p-value

Intercept 0.03 0.04 0.41 0.03 0.04 0.37 0.03 0.04 0.42 0.03 0.04 0.42
Lagged well-being 0.85 0.01 0.00*** 0.85 0.01 0.00*** 0.85 0.01 0.00*** 0.85 0.01 0.00***

Controls
Wave −0.01 0.01 0.41 −0.01 0.01 0.41 −0.01 0.01 0.35 −0.01 0.01 0.39
Male 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.02 0.01 0.21 0.01 0.01 0.15
Age (years) 0.02 0.00 0.00*** 0.02 0.00 0.00*** 0.02 0.00 0.00*** 0.02 0.00 0.00***
Active on FB prev. day 0.00 0.02 0.93 0.00 0.02 0.93 0.01 0.02 0.71 0.01 0.02 0.79
Facebook friend count 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.01 0.01 0.13
Overall health 0.08 0.01 0.00*** 0.08 0.01 0.00*** 0.08 0.01 0.00*** 0.08 0.01 0.00***
Divorce −0.07 0.03 0.03* −0.07 0.03 0.03* −0.07 0.03 0.03* −0.07 0.03 0.04*
Illness −0.04 0.02 0.04* −0.04 0.02 0.04* −0.04 0.02 0.04* −0.04 0.02 0.02*
Lost job −0.10 0.04 0.01* −0.10 0.04 0.01* −0.10 0.04 0.01* −0.10 0.04 0.01*

Facebook communication
received or viewed
Overall FB comm. 0.01 0.01 0.49
From strong ties 0.04 0.01 0.00**
From weak ties −0.01 0.01 0.17
Composed communication 0.02 0.01 0.06
From strong ties 0.02 0.01 0.04*
From weak ties 0.01 0.01 0.70
One-click communication −0.00 0.01 0.86
From strong ties 0.01 0.01 0.67
From weak ties −0.01 0.01 0.33

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (2016) 265–281 © 2016 International Communication Association

Broadcast communication −0.02 0.01 0.10
From strong ties 0.01 0.01 0.67
From weak ties −0.02 0.01 0.10

AIC/BIC 3234.51 / 3321.3 3228.02/3321.06 3234.07/3333.3 3233.87 / 3351.7

Log Likelihood −1603.25 −1599.01 −1601.0 −1597.9

275
Residual Std. Dev. 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.37
Overall Facebook communication
Model A in Table 4 shows how aggregate communication received on Facebook relates to changes in
well-being month-to-month, after taking the controls into account. The intercept of 0.03 is the average
well-being score for a typical person in the sample. The coefficient for lagged well-being (𝛽 = .850) shows
that well-being was very stable month-to-month. Aggregating over all the communication activities from
Table 2, Model A shows that receiving more Facebook communication in general was not associated with
changes in well-being (𝛽 = .010, p = .493).

Strong vs. weak ties

Model B distinguishes between overall communication with strong vs. weak ties, and provides results
consistent with the theory of belongingness: Receiving communication from strong ties is associated
with improvements in well-being (𝛽 = .04, p = .003) while receiving communication from weak ties is
not (𝛽 = −0.02, p = .174). The magnitude of the effect of strong-tie communication in a month is roughly
the same, but in the opposite direction, as having a personal injury or illness (𝛽 = −.04, p = .029).

Composed vs. one-click vs. broadcast communication

Model C separates the effect of the three classes of communication. Receiving composed communica-
tion, such as wall posts or comments, was associated with a marginally significant increase in well-being
(𝛽 = .020, p = .063), while receiving one-click communication (𝛽 = −0.002, p = .860) or viewing broad-
cast communication intended for a wider audience (𝛽 = −.018, p = .102) were not. Open-ended survey
responses provide insight into the way that receiving comments and Timeline posts could lead to greater
well-being: “[He] frequently comments on my stuff and I feel loved,” and “I’ve been able to reach out and
share what I’ve been going through and have my friends support me. [Facebook has] increased my support
network and helps me feel not so alone in what I’m facing.”

Communication types and tie strength

Model D shows that receiving composed, targeted communication from strong ties was associated with
increases in well-being (𝛽 = 0.02, p = 0.04), while the same actions from weak ties showed no impact
(𝛽 = 0.01, p = 0.70). Receiving one-click communication or broadcasts from strong or weak ties was not
associated with changes in well-being.

Discussion
Our research derived predictions from five complementary theories about how social interaction on
Facebook should affect changes in individuals’ psychological well-being. It provides evidence that the
effects depend on the nature of the communication and the relationship between communicators.
Receiving more personalized communication—targeted, composed text—from strong ties was linked
to improvements in well-being. In contrast, receiving text from weak ties, receiving easy-to-produce,
one-click interactions, and viewing generic broadcasts of social news even with strong ties were not
associated with improvements in well-being over and above the targeted communication they elicited.
The five theories from which we derived predictions supplement each other. Theories of social
support, maintenance, and relational investment all predict that well-being improves with composed
communication, while both theories of social support and belonging predict that strong-tie communi-
cation is crucial. Together the empirical results are most consistent with social support theory. Although
the theories fit the data to different degrees, none are perfect matches. Some of the inconsistencies

276 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (2016) 265–281 © 2016 International Communication Association
between theory and empirical results may result from the slipperiness of the theoretical descrip-
tions. The finding that only effortful communication from strong ties was linked to improvements in
well-being seems inconsistent with signaling theories of relational investment, but is signaling theory
really agnostic about the distinction between strong and weak ties, as we presumed? The finding that
lightweight, content-free, everyday actions like “likes” and “pokes” may not be sufficient to generate
the perception that a friend will invest more tangible, effortful support when needed is not completely
consistent with Thoit’s theory of social support. But what does the “invisible support” of Thoit’s (2011)
theory really consist of? Certainly much of the composed communication on Facebook may still
be trivial but generate perceived support. Respondents noted the importance of seemingly trivial
interactions, such as sharing jokes or videos: “I post funny cat videos to her wall and she writes on my
wall counting down the days until we’re in the same town and get to see each other.” “His comments are
hilarious, we get to trade jabs online.” Future work thus requires more precise theory with stronger
boundary conditions.
Our research did not identify uses of Facebook significantly associated with declines in overall
well-being. Thus, the results do not support the thesis that browsing others’ status updates leads to
depression or loneliness. Inconsistencies between these results and those of prior survey and lab studies
(e.g., Kross, et al. 2013; Verduyn et al., 2015) may result from the short time windows used in prior
research; specific episodes of browsing may elicit negative mood or envy that is detectable within a few
hours, but the effects may dissipate. Other methodological challenges that may explain the differences
are reviewed by Kraut and Burke (2015).
Though our research did not analyze text and thus cannot identify whether the substance of com-
posed communications mattered or if just the symbol of receiving a more effortful communication
sufficed, we speculate that the communication content plays an important role. Prior research shows
that Facebook communication is substantive. While Facebook posts are typically short, they are used to
maintain friendships by exchanging good and bad news (Ellison et al., 2014) and requesting resources
from friends (Lampe, Gray, Fiore, & Ellison, 2014). By definition, composed communication will have
more of this substantive content than will one-click communication. It is also plausible that personal-
ized communication sent to a particular friend will have more intimate and substantive content useful
for relationship maintenance than will broadcast communication sent to a wide audience. Targeted com-
munication such as a wall post tends to be more other-focused than broadcast status updates, which tend
to be more self-focused (Bazarova, Taft, Choi, & Cosley, 2012). So targeted communication may thus be
more personally relevant to the receivers than the other broadcast content in their feeds. And receiving
comments on one’s own posts may further validate one’s self-presentation goals, causing increases in
self-esteem and affirmation.
Similarly, without content analysis it is impossible to differentiate the effects of standard, pleasant
communication and disagreements or other negative interactions online. Though there is a slight posi-
tivity bias among the stories that people share (Burke & Develin, 2016), people also post about distressing
world events, political arguments, and personal drama. Broadcast posts describing friends’ achieve-
ments may elicit upward social comparison or sympathetic joy. Although we do not find any relationship
between browsing friends’ broadcasts and changes in well-being, it is likely that effects vary widely by
the valence of the story and tie strength.
The effect sizes for the SNS variables were modest, both because well-being was stable month-to-
month, leaving little variance left to explain, and because well-being is shaped by many factors beyond
SNS interaction. To better understand the magnitude of these effects, we examined changes in well-being
for participants who reported going through major life events on the survey (e.g., death of a close friend,
getting married or having a personal injury). Most of these events were not significantly associated with

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (2016) 265–281 © 2016 International Communication Association 277
either positive or negative changes in well-being in the current data, perhaps because of the short inter-
val between surveys. Of the major life events associated with changes in well-being here, the effects of
strong-tie communication were roughly comparable (though in the opposite direction) to the effect of
an illness, and half to a third of the size of divorce or losing a job. In summary, although the effects
of SNS communication were modest, they were the same order of magnitude as effects associated with
some major life events.
These findings underline why accurate, granular measurement of online activity and longitudinal
data collection are critical when attempting to answer questions about the impact of social technology. In
self-reports of activity, respondents are unlikely to be able to remember the amount of different types of
communication they had or their closeness to the partners for particular exchanges. For example, when
retrospectively reporting on their SNS usage, they are unlikely to be able to differentiate the number of
stories they read online from weak ties or comments received from close friends. And the popular belief
that the Internet causes loneliness may jointly bias self-reports of Internet use and well-being when
included on the same survey.

Limitations and Future Work

Unlike participants in an experiment randomly assigned to receive different types of communication
from different partners, participants in this research decided whether and how to use Facebook. Even
the communication they received was partly determined by the communication they sent out. Therefore,
this research is open to the critique that time-varying factors changed during the measurement period
and influenced both Facebook use and well-being. Only the use of a random-assignment experiment
can completely control for self-selection. Yet the methods in this research mitigate some standard
concerns about causal inference from correlational data. Because the independent variables, which were
objectively measured from the server logs, predicted dependent variables measured through self-report
questionnaires, the research design mitigated problems of common method variance which plagues
much survey-only research on this topic. Because Facebook use preceded measurement of well-being,
the research design reduced problems of reverse causality. By using each respondent as his or her own
control and including the lagged dependent variable in the analysis, the research design diminishes the
concern that static pre-existing differences among participants, such as their education, extroversion, or
mental health influenced both their Facebook use and their well-being. Sensitivity tests controlling for a
participant’s outbound communication each month produced qualitatively similar results, diminishing
these concerns.
One potential concern is endogeneity in the measure of tie strength. In this case, tie strength was
inferred from communication patterns for the 3 months prior to the first survey and was not updated
based on communication in subsequent waves. This choice minimizes measurement overlap but does
not completely eradicate it. The well-being outcome is measured independently, and so is not subject to
endogeneity. One interpretation of the results involving tie strength is that receiving recent composed,
targeted communication with people with whom one has historically communicated often is linked to
improvements in well-being.
Our results may be affected by sampling biases. The participants in the current study were older
and had larger networks than typical users. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results are similar
across different age brackets and there were no interactions between age and the variables of inter-
est. The participants came from 91 countries and varied widely in age, increasing generalizability
of these findings. Moreover, results for large self-selected samples of Internet users are generally
comparable to participants in traditional paper-and-pencil studies (Gosling et al., 2004) and this
sample is larger and more representative than surveys of college students upon which much of the
literature now rests.

278 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (2016) 265–281 © 2016 International Communication Association
Conclusion
Scholars and the popular press have questioned the impact of social network sites on the well-being of
their users. The present data support the idea that online interactions do influence well-being. Yet the
effects depend on how people use the sites: simply reading about friends, receiving text communication
from weak ties, and receiving one-click communication did not affect well-being, while receiving per-
sonalized, effortful communication from close friends was linked to improvements in well-being. People
derive benefits from online communication, as long it comes from others they care about and has been
tailored for them.

References
Albrecht, T., Goldsmith, D., & Thompson, T. (2003). Social support, social networks, and health.
Handbook of Health Communication, 263–284.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a
fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497.
Bazarova, N., Choi, Y., Sosik, V., Cosley, D., & Whitlock, J. (2015). Social sharing of emotions on
Facebook: Channel differences, satisfaction, and replies. ACM Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 154–164.
Bazarova, N., Taft, J., Choi, Y., & Cosley, D. (2012). Managing impressions and relationships on
Facebook: Self-presentational and relational concerns revealed through the analysis of language
style. J. Language and Social Psychology, 32(2), 121–141.
Bessière, K., Kiesler, S., Kraut, R., & Boneva, B. (2008). Effects of Internet use and social resources on
changes in depression. Information, Communication & Society, 11(1), 47–70.
Bond, C. & Anderson, E. L. (1987). The reluctance to transmit bad news: Private discomfort or public
display? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23(2), 176–187.
Burke, M. (2011). Reading, writing, relationships: The impact of social network sites on relations and
well-being. http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/hcii/CMU-HCII-11-107.pdf
Burke, M., & Develin, M. (2016). Once more with feeling: Supportive responses to social sharing on
Facebook. ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing,
1462–1474.
Burke, M., & Kraut, R. (2013). Using Facebook after losing a job: Differential benefits of strong and
weak ties. Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 1419–1430.
Burke, M., & Kraut, R. (2014). Growing closer on Facebook: Changes in tie strength through social
network site use. ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 4187–4196.
Burke, M., Kraut, R., & Marlow, C. (2011). Social capital on Facebook: Differentiating uses and users.
Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 571–580.
Chou, H.-T. G., & 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), 117–121.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 385–396.
Collins, N., & Miller, L. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological
Bulletin, 116(3), 457–475.
Deters, F., & Mehl, M. (2012). Does posting Facebook status updates increase or decrease loneliness?
An online social networking experiment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(5).
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (2010). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (2016) 265–281 © 2016 International Communication Association 279
Diener, E., Suh, B., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of
progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.
Donath, J. (2008). Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1),
231–251.
Ellison, N., Vitak, J., Gray, R., & Lampe, C. (2014). Cultivating social resources on social network sites:
Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(4), 855–870.
Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook ’friends‘: Social capital and
college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
12(4), 1143–1168.
Facebook. (2015). Facebook Statistics. Retrieved July 17, 2015, from
http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. W. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human
factors in housing. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gleason, M., & Iida, M. (2015). Social support. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), APA Handbook
of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 3. Interpersonal Relations, pp. 351–370). Washington
DC: American Psychological Association.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A
comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist,
59(2), 93.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
Holmes, T., & Rahe, R. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research,
11(2), 213–218.
Huang, C. (2010). Internet use and psychological well-being: A Meta-Analysis. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(3), 241–249.
Johnson, B., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2014). Glancing up or down: Mood management and
selective social comparisons on social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 33–39.
Jordan, A., Monin, B., Dweck, C., Lovett, B., John, O., & Gross, J. (2011). Misery has more company
than people think: Underestimating the prevalence of others’ negative emotions. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(1), 120.
Kraut, R. & Burke, M. (2015). Internet use and psychological well-being: Effects of activity and
audience. Communications of the ACM, 58(12), 94–100.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet
paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?
American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017–1031.
Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Lee, D. S., Lin, N., et al. (2013). Facebook Use Predicts
Declines in Subjective Well-Being in Young Adults. PLoS ONE, 8(8).
Lampe, C., Gray, R., Fiore, A. T., & Ellison, N. (2014). Help is on the way: Patterns of responses to
resource requests on Facebook. ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work &
Social Computing, 3–15.
Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: a theory of social structure and action. Cambridge.
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of
dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 19–40.
Marin, A., & Hampton, K. (2007). Simplifying the personal network name generator. Field Methods,
19(2), 163–193.

280 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (2016) 265–281 © 2016 International Communication Association
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self report depression scale for research in the general.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401.
Roberts, S., & Dunbar, R. (2010). Communication in social networks: Effects of kinship, network size,
and emotional closeness. Personal Relationships, 18(3), 439–452.
Russell, D. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 66, 20–40.
Steers, M. & Wickham, R. (2014). Seeing everyone else’s highlight reels: How Facebook usage is linked
to depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 33(8), 701–731.
Steinfield, C., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social
network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6),
434–445.
Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 52(2), 145–161.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Preadolescents’ and adolescents’ online communication and their
closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 43(2), 267.
Verduyn, P., Lee, D. S., Park, J., Shablack, H., Orvell, A., Bayer, J., et al. (2015). Passive Facebook usage
undermines affective well-being: Experimental and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 144(2), 480–488.
Ware, J. & Sherbourne, C. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): Conceptual
framework and item selection. Medical Care, 473–483.
Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive
and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063.
Williams, D. (2006). On and off the ’net: Scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 593–628.

About the Authors

Moira Burke (http://www.thoughtcrumbs.com) is a Research Scientist at Facebook with a Ph.D. from
the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. Her research focuses on the
impact of online social interactions on well-being, with an emphasis on day-to-day experiences on social
network sites. E-mail: [email protected]

Robert E. Kraut (http://kraut.hciresearch.org; Ph.D. 1973, Yale University) is the Herbert A. Simon
Professor of Human-Computer Interaction in the School of Computer Science and Tepper School of
Business at Carnegie Mellon University. He has broad research interests in the impact of computing
and telecommunications on individuals, groups and organizations and ways to design them to improve
human lives. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (2016) 265–281 © 2016 International Communication Association 281