Cited by 732Impact of Technology on AdolescentsMedia and Digital CommunicationPersonality Traits and Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Too Much of a Good Thing? The Relationship Between Number of Friends and Interpersonal Impressions on Facebook

Open access
Tong, Stephanie Tom, Van Der Heide, Brandon, Langwell, Lindsey, Walther, Joseph B.·2008·Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Abstract

A central feature of the online social networking system, Facebook, is the connection to and links among friends. The sum of the number of one’s friends is a feature displayed on users’ profiles as a vestige of the friend connections a user has accrued. In contrast to offline social networks, individuals in online network systems frequently accrue friends numbering several hundred. The uncertain meaning of friend status in these systems raises questions about whether and how sociometric popularity conveys attractiveness in non-traditional, non-linear ways. An experiment examined the relationship between the number of friends a Facebook profile featured and observers’ ratings of attractiveness and extraversion. A curvilinear effect of sociometric popularity and social attractiveness emerged, as did a quartic relationship between friend count and perceived extraversion. These results suggest that an overabundance of friend connections raises doubts about Facebook users’ popularity and desirability.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00409.x

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 42 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Comscore . (2007, July 31). Social networking goes global. Retrieved Aug 2, 2007 from http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1555
  2. boyd, d . (2007, May). Error: You must be someone’s friend to comment on them. Paper presented at the annual conference of International Communication Association, San Francisco.
  3. Levy, 200720, Facebook grows up, Newsweek, 41
  4. Parks, 2007, Personal networks and personal relationships

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 724

Metadata

Authors
Tong, S. T., Van Der Heide, B., Langwell, L., & Walther, J. B.
Affiliations
Michigan State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
Published
2008-04
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
531-549
ISSN
1083-6101 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2151274814
Cited by
732
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 71 · 2014: 71 · 2013: 70 · 2012: 72
FWCI
134.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media and Digital Communication
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
Keywords
Facebook, sociometric popularity, perceived attractiveness, online social networking, social impressions, curvilinear effects

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review