Cited by 552Impact of Technology on AdolescentsPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionMedia and Digital Communication

The Relationship Between Facebook Use and Well-Being Depends on Communication Type and Tie Strength: FACEBOOK AND WELL-BEING

Open access
Burke, Moira, Kraut, Robert E.·2016·Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Abstract

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 communication 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.

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/jcc4.12162

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Burke, M., & Kraut, R. E.
Affiliations
  • Meta (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
Published
2016-07
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
265-281
ISSN
1083-6101 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2497165680
Cited by
552
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 57 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 3
FWCI
133.07
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 › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
Keywords
Facebook use, psychological well-being, tie strength, strong ties, online communication, social support, social comparison, relationship maintenance, relational investment, sense of belonging, targeted communication

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