lable at ScienceDirect

Technology in Society 44 (2016) 55e65

Contents lists avai

Technology in Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ techsoc

A systems approach to understanding the effect of Facebook use onthe quality of interpersonal communication

Megan Davies a, Josephine K. Musango b, *, Alan C. Brent c

a Master's in Sustainable Development, School of Public Leadership, Stellenbosch University, South Africab School of Public Leadership, Centre for Renewable and Sustainable Energy Studies, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602, South Africac Department of Industrial Engineering, Centre for Renewable and Sustainable Energy Studies, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602,South Africa

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 14 August 2015Received in revised form12 October 2015Accepted 23 October 2015Available online 12 January 2016

Keywords:TechnologyFacebookInterpersonal communicationSystems approachSystem dynamics

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: megdavies84@gmail.com (M. D

spl.sun.ac.za (J.K. Musango), acb@sun.ac.za (A.C. Bren

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2015.10.0030160-791X/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Social networking platforms such as Facebook have become integrated into the milieu of modern-daysocial interactions. Facebook, one of the most prominent social networking platforms globally, iswidely used as a primary medium for communicating and networking for personal, professional andrecreational purposes. To date, studies have focussed on developing an understanding of why peoplemake use of Facebook. Limited studies have explored the effect of Facebook use on interpersonalcommunication. This paper then investigated the tension between the use of Facebook and the quality ofinterpersonal communication. From the literature, the need to belong, and the need for self-presentation,were identified as the two main set of complex relations that justifies why people use Facebook.Qualitative system dynamics modelling, specifically causal loop diagrams, was used to gain more insightson the tension between Facebook and the quality of interpersonal communication from the perspectiveof a potential Facebook user. This tension was represented by the trade-off arising when considering theamount of time spent on Facebook and interpersonal communication. It is argued in this paper thatFacebook is not a sufficient substitute to interpersonal communication, as it tends to degrade the qualityof interpersonal relationships. Future investigation will require developing a simulation model for aspecific case to provide more insights on the extent of this trade-offs and potential interventionmeasures.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Social networking platforms have become integrated into themilieu of modern-day social interaction. Facebook is one suchplatform, and is the most prolific online social networks of thecontemporary era and the first of its kind in history. Created in 2004in the United States of America by Mark Zuckerberg and a group offellow Harvard University students, it reached 50 million users byOctober 2007 and an astonishing one billion monthly active userson 14th September 2012 from across the globe [1]. By the timeFacebook reached one billion users, the median age of the activeusers was 22 years and the top five countries where people wereconnected were Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico and the United

avies), josephine.musango@t).

States [1].Facebook enables users to create visible profiles with basic

personal information; users are able tomake available awide rangeof personal details thereafter. The platform boasts a host of featuresfacilitating virtual interaction that have the potential to beextended to offline environments. Some of these features includethe friends list, the wall, status, events, messages, video, photos,pokes, chat, groups and like functionality, as describe by Nadkarniand Hofman [2]:

“The friends list is a crucial component of Facebook because itallows the end user to create a public display of links to con-nections which viewers can in turn click through, to traverse thenetwork. The wall is a term given to the Facebook feature thatfunctions as a bulletin board and allows other users to postpersonal messages directed toward the end user. The pokesfunction allows users to offer initial greetings to other users.Status allows users to inform their friends of their whereabouts

M. Davies et al. / Technology in Society 44 (2016) 55e6556

and thoughts. The events feature enables users to plan meetingsor events that they can extend invitations for. Photos and videosallow users to upload albums, photos and videos which otherusers can comment on. Communication with friends is accom-plished through messages, which are public or private, but alsothrough a chat feature. The groups feature allows users to createand join interest groups. The like functionality allows users togive positive feedback about preferred content.”

Facebook's mission is to give people the power to share andmake the world more open and connected [1]. The above-mentioned technical features shed light on the myriad of oppor-tunities for engagement and sharing that Facebook makes possiblein the virtual social networking space. In social network theory, anetwork is understood as a set of relationships [3]. The Facebookplatform succeeds in incorporating a vast array of features thatculminate in a rich set of network interactions and relationships.However, the networks established on Facebook are anchored inoffline, real-life networks, relationships and connections, althoughthe possibility of connecting with people outside of establishednetworks is a distinguishing feature of the platform. Essentially,offline social networks are extending onto a virtual platform in away that codifies, externalises and collates an individual's family,friends, acquaintances and wider connections. “Facebook repre-sents a means for individuals to continue (and extend) their offlinerelationships and conversations in an online medium” [4].

Arnaboldi et al. [5] similarly affirms that the properties of offlinesocial networks are true for Facebook as well. Facebook users pri-marily communicate with people who are already part of theirextended social network [7]. As in offline contexts, Facebook usersare closely connected to a smaller group of people and looselyconnected to a larger group of people; however, it is acknowledgedthat Facebook makes it possible to connect or be ‘friends’ withconsiderably more people, as reflected in the friends list feature.Nonetheless, the number of relationships that an individual canactively sustain, even on Facebook, is approximately the same as inreal-life; Dunbar's number sets this at 150 individuals [5].

To date, studies have focussed on developing an understandingof why people make use of Facebook based on differing case studiesand potential factors influencing its growth. Most of these studiesdo not consider the dynamics of the Facebook use. The need forutilising system dynamics in analysing the dynamics of socialnetworks platforms such as Facebook was echoed by Pay et al. [6].They developed a system dynamics model to understand whystudents in Iran use Facebook. Similarly, students at MassachusettsInstitute of Technology (MIT) were given an assignment to developcausal loop diagrams of the main factors influencing exponentialgrowth in Facebook use.1 Limited studies have, however, exploredthe tension between the growing use of Facebook and the quality ofinterpersonal communication. This paper thus employed systemdynamicsmodelling in an attempt develop a dynamic hypothesis ofthe relationship between the use of Facebook and its impact on thequality of interpersonal communication. Given the highly subjec-tive and qualitative nature of this investigation, qualitative systemdynamics was deemed most appropriate to provide a richer un-derstanding of the identified problem.

2. The dynamics of Facebook

This section unpacks the motivations for people's use of

1 http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-871-introduction-to-system-dynamics-fall-2013/assignments/MIT15_871F13_ass2.pdf.

Facebook, as well as the reasons for the social networking plat-form's commendable success and continuous proliferation. Withtechnology increasingly shaping and being shaped by our lifestyles,it is imperative to shed light on the fundamental psychological andsocial drivers for the use of Facebook. Coupled to this is an expla-nation of the underlying logic of how Facebook works, and how itpropagates networks of relationships and connections in away thatbolsters the platform's mission to make the world a more open andconnected place.

2.1. Why do people use Facebook?

According to Facebook, people use the site to stay connectedwith friends and family, to discover what is going on in the worldand to share and express what matters to them [1]. Numerousstudies have investigated the psychological factors contributing toFacebook use ([7e11]).

Nadkarni and Hofmann [2] reviewed an array of studies andproposed a dual-factor model of Facebook use. In line with thismodel, Facebook use is primarily motivated by two basic socialneeds, namely: the need to belong, and the need for self-presentation. Even though humans are highly dependent on thesocial support of others [2] and Facebook provides a very concrete,accessible and traceable platform through which to foster this, therelationship between Facebook and social connection is complex.Nonetheless, the need to belong - connected to self-worth, self-esteem and so on - is acknowledged as a fundamental driver for theuse of Facebook.

The need for self-presentation is a closely connectedmotivation.Users are invited to create a personal profile through which theyestablish a presence on Facebook. Comprehensive research hasbeen conducted on the role that social networking sites play inidentity construction (e.g. Refs. [12e14]). Like other socialnetworking sites, Facebook “leaves itself open to the possibility itsusers display their idealised, rather than accurate, selves throughtheir profiles” [2]. Moreover, Facebook “has a number of charac-teristics (e.g. its ubiquitous nature, high visibility, direct connectionto a sizeable and heterogeneous network of known individuals)that provide unique and interesting conditions for investigating theinteraction of multiple selves … in self-expression” [4].

Crucial findings by Back et al. [14] and Zhao et al. [15] reveal that,unlike other anonymous online environments, Facebook users ex-press and communicate their real personality rather than pro-moting idealised versions of themselves. This is becauseinformation about a user's reputation or personality is difficult tocontrol (e.g. wall posts posted by other users) and the fact thatfriends provide accountability and subtle feedback on the self aspresented through the Facebook profile [14].

Thus, it can be seen how the reasons underpinning the use ofFacebook are intricately connected with complex psychologicalprocesses and patterns. Nonetheless, for the purpose of this paper, asimplistic understanding of the two overriding motivations issufficient.

2.2. Facebook: the strength of weak ties

As has been illustrated, Facebook replicates and extends thevast, varied and interlinking social networks that exist in real life;those constituting the rich social fabric of diverse societies. Simi-larly, many of the principles underpinning offline social networksare true also for online social networks. One of these principles isthe strength of weak ties and the nature of information dissemi-nation ([5,16e18]). Granovetter (1973) seminal text, The Strength ofWeak Ties, depicts the strategic functionality of weak ties in largescale social networks as small groups aggregate to form large-scale

M. Davies et al. / Technology in Society 44 (2016) 55e65 57

network patterns. Weak ties are indispensable to an individual'sopportunities and their integration into communities, as well as forthe dissemination of ideas, influence and information amongdiverse individuals and communities [19]. The article also outlinesthe nature of strong ties that constitute dense networks.

According to Granovetter [19], “the strength of a tie is a probablylinear combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity,the intimacy (mutual confiding) and the reciprocal services whichcharacterise the tie”. Additionally, “the more frequently personsinteract with one another, the stronger the sentiments of friendshipfor one another are apt to be” (Homan in Ref. [19]). In a network,“whatever is diffused can reach a larger number of people andtraverse greater social distance when passed through weak tiesrather than strong” [19]. Additionally, in terms of organisation ofcommunities and societies, “weak ties play a role in effecting socialcohesion” [19]. It becomes apparent that strong ties are notconducive to the widespread sharing of information. Facebookunderstands the power of weak ties as those responsible for themajority of information spread on its platform [18]. Facebook'ssuccess as an online social network can thus be understood on thebasis of and attributed to its ability to target fundamental socialneeds (belonging and self-presentation) using a platform, whichleverages the strength of weak ties.

Reflecting on Facebook's purpose to provide people with thepower to share information through a host of functionalities, andmaking the world more open and connected, it becomes apparentthat fostering loose, weak ties is the most fruitful way of spreadinginformation whilst ensuring that people feel connected to theirvirtual communities. Since more people can be connected throughweak ties, it makes logical sense for Facebook to cultivate onlinesocial network structures that are less dense and that constitute arichness of loose ties, over and above the strong ties in networksthat people identify with in both real and virtual life.

Against the above understanding of the functionality, purposeand nature of Facebook, as an online social networking site, aspecific problemwas identified in the relationship between the useof Facebook and the quality of interpersonal communication.Interpersonal communication in this paper was framed as the two-way communication or sharing that takes place between in-dividuals whereby specifically tailored messages find relevance inthe unique interpersonal relationship that exists between them.Although it is not limited to reciprocal communication betweentwo people, it was assumed that the intended audience is knownand constituting a small number of individuals only.

The specific problem to this study was thus built upon thecentral notion that Facebook tends towards the cultivation of weakties and loose connections, as opposed to the facilitation and sup-port of strong ties. It is understood that strong ties, or stronginterpersonal relationships, require considerable time andemotional investments as well as elements of mutual confiding andreciprocal services [19].

According to Marche [20] “our omniscient new technologieslure us towards increasingly superficial connections at exactly thesame moment they make avoiding the mess of human interactioneasy”. Herein lies the fundamental tension between the use ofFacebook relative to the use of interpersonal communication. Onone hand, Facebook appeals to fundamental human social needsand both facilitates and encourages loose connections for the pur-pose of creating a more connected world where people share morewith the people in their networks. On the other hand, Facebook iscriticised for its deleterious impact on the quality of interpersonalcommunication [20]; these kinds of negative sentiments are widelyheld [21].

From the above discussion, the assertion that the use of Face-book impacts the quality of interpersonal communication finds

justification. This paper thus asserts that the impact of Facebookuse on the quality of interpersonal communication entails complexpsychological processes patterns, and utilised qualitative systemdynamics modelling to explore the problem.

3. Qualitative system dynamics analysis

3.1. System dynamics: a brief overview

System dynamics is a useful tool in creating feedback theories. Itis based on feedback control theory and was developed by Forresterin the 1960's in order to understand the behaviour of problemswithin a system ([22,23]). System dynamics not only guide in un-derstanding the structures of systems and their dynamics; it alsoprovides vigorous approaches to building simulation models.

Several studies have developed guidelines for system dynamicsmodelling process ([23e28]). While the guidelines provide a rangefrom three to eight steps, all include similar iterative activities thatinvolve both qualitative modelling and quantitative modelling.

Qualitative modelling entails problem identification and con-ceptualisation, whereby, the issue being investigated is mapped outusing qualitative tools such as causal loop diagrams and influencediagrams. Qualitative modelling is a crucial component of thesystem dynamics modelling process given that qualitative data isusually the main source of information [29] that constitutes thestarting point for the modelling process. Mainstream authors in thesystem dynamics field ([23e27]) also share the view that qualita-tive modelling is a necessary aspect of system dynamics modelling.

Though many system dynamics practitioners place emphasis onthe importance of qualitative modelling, others stress the impor-tance of quantitative modelling in pursuit of robust knowledge (e.g.Refs. [23,30]). Proponents of quantitative modelling advocate thisapproach to problem conceptualisation since it: (i) utilises mentalmodels and structural elements of problems; (ii) specifies and in-tegrates both soft and hard variables; (iii) simulates dynamicbehaviour of the problem under investigation; and (iv) result ingreater problem understanding, as well as the enhanced ability toexplain and manage dynamic real world issues. Nonetheless,quantitative modelling faces a considerable challenge in theformulation and quantification of soft variables. Some expertsargue that simulation from such analysis could be misleading giventhe uncertainty associated with quantifying soft variables [31]. Forthis reason, others conclude that an emphasis should rather beplaced on qualitative system dynamics practice [27]. Although theauthors of this paper do not fully agree with Wolstenholme [27]and Coyle [31] in only advocating qualitative system dynamicspractice, it is considered sensible to use qualitative system dy-namics in some situations where the quantification of soft variablesis challenging and often unattainable.

Social networks like Facebook represent complex systemscharacterised by continuous changes, non-linear relationships, self-organising, adaptability and trade-offs, as discussed by Sterman[23]. This makes system dynamics an appropriate approach to gainmore insights on the dynamics and impact of Facebook use on thequality interpersonal communication. Given the considerableamount of soft variables involved, qualitative system dynamicsmodelling was found appropriate to the issue under investigationin this paper.

3.2. An application of qualitative system dynamics

Qualitative system dynamics is essentially the first attempt instructuring the essential elements or components of the problemwithin the system being studied. This can be done using variousqualitative system dynamics diagrams such as causal loop

M. Davies et al. / Technology in Society 44 (2016) 55e6558

diagrams, stock and flow diagrams, sector diagrams, bull's eye di-agrams, influence diagrams, and archetype diagrams [30]. Clearly,the objective of developing system dynamics diagrams is to mapthe overall relationships among factors or elements of a system. Asearlier indicated, this may be a sufficient level of analysis given theinherent complexity of the issue being investigated, particularlywhere data is mostly qualitative in nature. However, in some sit-uations where there is more information, knowledge or experienceregarding the different factors or elements, it may be possible tomove beyond qualitative analysis to quantitative modelling.

Causal loop diagramming is the most commonly utilised tool forqualitative system dynamics analysis. Casual loop diagrams revealthe causal interrelationships among sets of variables pertinent tothe problem. This is done for the purpose of generating greaterunderstanding of the nature of a problem with a view to enablinggreater insight into potential interventions or problem solutions.The following are the building blocks of causal loop diagrams [32]:

(i) Variables e this is a condition, situation, action or decisionthat can influence and can be influenced by other variables. Avariable can be quantitative or qualitative, since causal loopdiagrams have the ability to incorporate both of thesevariables.

(ii) Links/arrowse these show the relationship and the directionof influence or causation between variables.(iii) Direction of influence e this is represented by S's (þ),meaning ‘same direction’ or O's (�), meaning ‘opposite direc-tion’. These arrows indicate the way in which one variablemoves or changes in relation to another.(iv) Type of feedback loop e there are two types of feedbackloops: balancing feedback loops that seeks equilibrium and arerepresented by ‘B’ and reinforcing feedback loops that amplifychanges and are represented by ‘R’.

Based on the above understanding of the strengths and appli-cations of this form of qualitative system dynamics, the investiga-tion of the relationship between the use of Facebook and the qualityof interpersonal communication employed causal loop diagram-ming to map the pertinent qualitative causal relations. This form ofqualitative systems modelling is further supported by the fact thatcausal loop diagrams demand confronting mental models. In thiscase, surfacing assumptions and beliefs about the manner in whichpeople interact, connect and communicate with other people inperson, on communication platforms and virtually was necessary inorder to depict the causal relation between the use of Facebook andthe quality of interpersonal communication. This also demandedaddressing personal opinions and perceptions of Facebook and theimportance placed on interpersonal communication. Thus, thecausal loop diagrams is reflective of subjective, personally heldbeliefs and values with regard to what it means to be close toanother person, to be connected to networks of people and thenature of contemporary communication methods.

The process employed in this investigation emulated the phasesdescribed in qualitative system dynamics analysis [23], which in-cludes problem formulation, variable identification and causal loopconstruction and analysis. After the tension between the use ofFacebook and the quality of interpersonal communication had beenintroduced, the system boundaries and scope of investigation wasdemarcated. Given the myriad of opportunities for investigationaround issues of modern communication and the impact of socialnetworking platforms, stringently outlining the scope of investi-gation was crucial. In this way, the causal loop exploration wasguided by an established and clear boundary in line with theidentified problem. The basis for this problem statement was pri-marily an assertion from personal experience subsequently

grounded in supportive supplementary literature. In order toconstruct the causal loop diagrams, pertinent variables linked tothe use of Facebook and the quality of interpersonal relationshipswere identified. Using these preliminary variables, a series of causalloop diagrams were constructed, surfacing other significant vari-ables in an attempt to illustrate the causal relationship within thespecified problem. This iterative process culminated in the causalloop diagrams featured in this investigation.

3.2.1. Problem formulation and conceptualisationThe causal loop diagrams explored the interconnection between

the use of Facebook and the quality of interpersonal communica-tion. More significantly, this problem was personally experiencedand intuitively known by one of the co-authors of this paper. Thecausal loop diagrams explored the issue by delineating the causalrelations leading to a decrease in the quality of interpersonalcommunication. However, in order to investigate the problemproperly, a clear understanding of the fundamental principles andkey assumptions of the study was necessary.

The use of Facebook was presented as active engagement withthe multiplicity of public-oriented Facebook functionalities, thusexcluding the private messaging function, which would be cat-egorised as interpersonal communication. It was assumed in thisstudy that the use of Facebook equated to engagement with publiccommunication platforms on the online social network.

In an era in which a vast array of technological devices andplatforms enable this kind of communication, the concept ofinterpersonal communication is not limited to face-to-face inter-action. The quality of interpersonal communication is grounded inthe understanding of a strong interpersonal tie, as outlined byGranovetter [19]. Here a “combination of the amount of time, theemotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding) and thereciprocal services which characterise the tie” is what constitutes avaluable interpersonal relationship, made possible by the array ofcommunication tools as well as conventional face-to-face interac-tion [19].

The first assumption in this study concerned the definition ofinterpersonal communication. Since it groups an array of directcommunication mediums together with face-to-face interaction, itbecame evident that this variable equated the value of real-lifeinteraction with that of interpersonal communication on a tech-nological platform. This assumption was problematic in light of theattention given to the negative impact of social media, in general,on real-life human interaction [21]. Nonetheless, this assumptionwas important to understand the manner in which the use of thepublic-oriented functionalities of Facebook detracts from the inputinto direct interpersonal communication, whether in person or byusing one of the conventional interpersonal communicationmethods, and thus also the quality thereof. Related to this is the factthat the study employed generalities concerning the use of con-ventional interpersonal communicationmethods for the purpose ofillustrating the aforementioned point. Specifically, it is acknowl-edged that the use of a conventional interpersonal communicationmethod does not necessarily result in a higher quality of commu-nication, rather, the potential for more time and emotional in-vestment along with mutual confiding and reciprocal serviceswould be greater.

A second assumption to confront was that the nature and valueof connection via Facebook or conventional interpersonal methodswas not equated. This investigation recognised that people desireand to varying extents, requires both public (virtual) and inter-personal interaction (virtual and real-life). Given the fact thatpeople have a limited propensity to communicate and connect, itbecomes evident that the tension would then be where these ca-pabilities and energies are directed and the consequences of these

M. Davies et al. / Technology in Society 44 (2016) 55e65 59

choices made. The causal loop diagrams endeavoured to unpackthis dynamic interplay between the use of Facebook and the qualityof interpersonal communication.

In terms of the use of Facebook, a distinctionwas made betweenthe relationships and connections that can be established. Facebookreplicates and extends existing real-life social networks whilst alsoenabling and propagating abundant online connections. As in real-life, a relatively stable number of individuals can maintain re-lationships with on Facebook remain [5], as opposed to the count-less connections which that user can establish.

3.3. Identifying variables for causal loop diagrams

After the grounding principles and assumptions had been madeclear, variables that would be endogenous, exogenous, andexcluded ones were identified as shown in Table 1. Endogenousvariables are those influenced by the causal linkages constitutingthe core problem addressed in causal loop diagrams. The causalloop diagrams featured in this investigation attempted to capturethe tension in focus by introducing a central variable depicting thetime and effort investment in the use of Facebook relative tointerpersonal communication. The remainder of the endogenousvariables found relevance in how they related to the ratio of timeand effort invested into the use of Facebook relative to interper-sonal communication. It is acknowledged that this variable doesnot equate the nature or value of communicating interpersonally orvia Facebook but rather illustrates the tension that individualsexperience given the allure of Facebook and the messiness ofinterpersonal communication [20].

Conversely, exogenous variables fall outside of the boundary ofthe causal loop diagrams and are determined by factors outside ofthe system. In Section 1, two motives for the use of Facebook wereexplained: the need to belong, and the need for self-presentation.These, along with the three types of information disseminationand the interpersonal communication, information intake andnetwork communication thresholds, were considered exogenousvariables since they operate as constant variables. The perception ofFacebook and the expected derived value/utility from Facebookwere identified as exogenous variables that influence conditions forthe use of Facebook and the investment in Facebook identity.Endogenous and exogenous variables are referenced and elabo-rated on further in Section 4, where the dynamic analyses of thecausal loop diagrams are explained.

The excluded variables were those that were seen pertinent tothe qualitative investigation, but were omitted from the causal loop

Table 1Identified variables for causal loop diagrams*.

Endogenous variables Exogenous va

Use of Facebook relative to interpersonal communication OrganisationaUse of Facebook Cultural shariInformation dissemination Personal exprNetwork communication Need to belonGlobal awareness Need for self-Perception of network connection Perception ofDerived value/utility from Facebook Expected utiliDesire to connect through Facebook InterpersonalInvestment in Facebook identity Information iConventional interpersonal communication methods Network comQuality of interpersonal communicationDerived value/utility from interpersonal communicationDesire to connect interpersonallyQuantity of interpersonal communicationInformation intakeQuantity of Facebook relationships

Note: *The identified variables are elaborated on in Section 4.

diagrams as they were outside the scope analysis, as well as theneed to ensure brevity and simplicity. Face-to-face interaction wasconsidered an important component of interpersonal communi-cation. However, given the focus of the investigation was onmodern communication technologies enabling interpersonal andnetwork communication, this variable was excluded. The rela-tionship between the Facebook identity and real identity was alsoexcluded. Even though the dynamics and tensions are of integralimportance to the presentation of the self on Facebook and thusalso the investment in Facebook identity, research has indicatedthat there is significant congruence between the real and virtualidentities of Facebook users ([14,15]). It is for this reason that thesevariables were excluded. Amount of time, emotional intensity,mutual confiding and reciprocal services are related to the strengthof interpersonal relationship ties and thus relevant to the quality ofinterpersonal communication. However, these variables wereexcluded so as to focus on the aggregate nature of the quality ofinterpersonal communication. The quantity of Facebook connec-tions was excluded given that this aspect of the use of Facebookwasbeyond the scope of the study.

4. Results from causal loop analysis

The causal loop diagram consists of seven feedback loops, andeach is discussed in the sub-sections that follow.

4.1. The use of Facebook and the need to belong: R1, R2, R3

There are three reinforcing loops that were associated with theuse of facebook and need to belong, R1, R2 and R3 (see Fig. 1). Theuse of Facebook is motivated by a fundamental human social need,the need to belong. As an online social network, Facebook providespeople with the opportunity to engage with an array of networks,organisations, movements and interest groups. The use of Facebookcan also be attributed to the perceptions that users have about theplatform and their related positive, negative or ambivalent opin-ions thereof. Fundamental drivers and perceptions are closelyconnected to the expectations of users. Facebook users engage withFacebook with certain expectations about the value and utility thatcan be derived for their personal and professional lives from usingthe online social network.

Considering R1, the more an individual uses Facebook, the moretime and effort he/she invests into communication via this socialnetwork as opposed to interpersonal communication. Thus it isasserted that the more an individual uses Facebook, the less time

riables Excluded variables

l communication Face-to-face interactionng Facebook identityession Real identityg Amount of timepresentation Emotional intensityFacebook Mutual confidingty/derived value from Facebook Reciprocal servicescommunication threshold Quantity of Facebook connectionsntake thresholdmunication threshold

Fig. 1. The use of Facebook and the need to belong causal loop diagram.

M. Davies et al. / Technology in Society 44 (2016) 55e6560

and effort she/he puts into interpersonal communication given theperson's limited propensity to communicate. Given Facebook'sprimary function of making the world a more open and connectedplace, dissemination of information is the overarching outcome ofthe use of Facebook. The more a person uses Facebook, the moreinformation can be and is shared. Primarily, this information cantake the form of organisational communication, cultural sharing orpersonal expression.

Organisational communication refers to the information sharedto organise virtual and real-life gatherings, such as events, rallies orcelebrations. Cultural sharing refers to the interesting content thatpeople share, including current affairs, politics, art, humour and thelike. Personal expression refers to the information pertinent to thethoughts, beliefs and happenings relevant to an individual. Thesethree types of information dissemination make use of the widearray of both active and passive, and direct and indirect, Facebookfunctionalities. It has increasingly become easier to share thesekinds of information on Facebook, making it an attractive andhassle-free platform to share personal preferences, plans or senti-ments with a wide group of people. Sharing these same pieces ofinformation using conventional interpersonal communicationmethods is made to look relatively cumbersome and effortful;Facebook takes the hassle out of connecting people with theirnetworks.

The more information dissemination that takes place on theFacebook platform, the greater a user's awareness of global events,trends and affairs is, since the more information the user is able totake in, as depicted in R1. However, there is only so much that anindividual can come to know about what is taking place around theworld, given the extent of the information shared on Facebook.Encapsulating this tension, this information intake threshold is arelative variable however unpacking it was beyond the scope of thisinvestigation.

Similarly, as seen in R2, the more information is shared, themore network communication takes place, that is, more conversingand interaction takes place in the various networks accessible on

Facebook. Public sharing enriches the communication within net-works. The more network communication (refer R2) and globalawareness (refer R1), the greater the perception of networkconnection. Users feel more aware of what is happening in theworld, and thus they perceive a greater connection to a global so-ciety. The more information is shared, the more network commu-nication takes place and the greater the sense of global awareness,which in turn, induces an enhanced perception of connection andbelonging to these virtual networks. A greater desires to connectthrough Facebook result from the enhanced perception ofconnection and belonging since people derive greater value fromengagement with the social network.

The perception of network connection is positively related to thevalue and utility derived from Facebook. That is, the more peoplefeel connected to other people, the more (they think) they knowabout what is going on in their lives. In this way, Facebook is bothuseful and valuable, providing useful (practical reminders aboutbirthdays for example) and edifying (notifications about engage-ments, births and so forth) information. The more value is derived,the more users desire to connect through Facebook which in turnsboosts the use of Facebook. The ease of information sharing andthus the greater desire to connect through Facebook might alsocause a desire to connect with a greater number of people in thenetwork of relationships that a user has established on Facebook(refer R3). However, as it has been earlier indicated, there is a limitto the number of networked relationships that a Facebook user cansustain [5]. Thus, the network communication threshold keeps acheck on the quantity of Facebook relations.

The reinforcing loops R1, R2 and R3 illustrate how Facebooksuccessfully facilitates and encourages ease of communication andconnection within networks of people through the public dissem-ination of information, tapping into a fundamental human need tobelong. Conversely, though, these reinforcing loops, when framedand explained differently also illustrate the alienation that a poorperception of network connection fosters under conditions of lessinformation dissemination and reduced derived value/utility. The

M. Davies et al. / Technology in Society 44 (2016) 55e65 61

popular discourse around Facebook corroborates this finding;much is written about how Facebook makes people sad or lonely[21].

4.2. The use of Facebook and the need for self-presentation: R4, R5

Building on the explanation of R1, R2 and R3 above, the rein-forcing loops R4 and R5 (Fig. 2) illustrate how the use of Facebookrelates to the other fundamental driver: the need for self-presentation. The more an individual uses Facebook, relative tointerpersonal communication, the more information is shared andabsorbed and in turn, the greater the person's perception ofconnection because of enhanced global awareness (refer R4) andnetwork communication (refer R5). Therefore, the more one usesFacebook, the more value one can derive from Facebook, whichmotivates an investment in the Facebook identity. Interactions onFacebook are anchored by the personal profile. So, in order to derivegreater value from the platform, users invest more time and effortin crafting a rich and engaging Facebook profile grounded in theiractual identity. Themore a user invests in his/her Facebook identity,the more the person then uses Facebook.

This section concludes that the use of Facebook, motivated byfundamental human needs, can on one hand, foster a greater senseof connection and belonging to the groups and networks thatextend from users' real lives into the virtual world. On the otherhand, it can reduce an individual's perception about his/herconnection to these same networks and the world at large.

4.3. The use of conventional interpersonal communication methodsand the quality of interpersonal communication: R6, B1

Distinctive to the reinforcing loops connected to the use ofFacebook, R6 and B1 depict how the quality of interpersonal

Fig. 2. The use of Facebook and the need fo

communication is related to the use of conventional interpersonalcommunication methods (see Fig. 3). These communication toolsare understood to be those that make possible direct communica-tion either between two people or amongst a small group of in-dividuals. They include instant messaging tools such as Whatsapp,WeChat, BBM, Skype, private Facebook messages, traditional mail,email, phone calls, text and face-to-face interaction. These kinds ofcommunication platform allow for clearly directed, specific (insome cases, both verbal and non-verbal) messages from one indi-vidual to another. The excluded variables relating to the strength ofan interpersonal relationship are relevant here since conventionalinterpersonal communication methods require a degree of effortand investment more than the public declarations that constitutepublic information dissemination on Facebook. Therefore, it isasserted that the more conventional interpersonal communicationmethods are used, the greater the potential quality of these inter-personal interactions is, though this is not necessarily the case.Quality of interpersonal communication exhibits a level of timeinvestment, emotional intensity, mutual confiding and reciprocalservices that allows for strong interpersonal connections.

The more an individual employs conventional interpersonalcommunication methods, the greater the quality and the derivedvalue and utility from interpersonal communication are. This, inturn, prompts a greater desire to connect interpersonally asopposed to over Facebook as seen in B1. The more an individualfinds interpersonal communication valuable and useful, the less he/she will use Facebook. R6 shows that an individual who desires toconnect interpersonally will make an effort to do so, and thus thequantity of interpersonal connections will be greater. This ismonitored or checked by the interpersonal relationship threshold,a range around Dunbar's number of 150 people [5]. The quantity ofinterpersonal communication is positively related to the use ofconventional interpersonal communication methods.

r self-presentation causal loop diagram.

Fig. 3. The use of conventional interpersonal communication methods and the quality of interpersonal communication methods causal loop diagram.

M. Davies et al. / Technology in Society 44 (2016) 55e6562

4.4. The use of Facebook relative to interpersonal communication

Fig. 4 illustrates the dynamic interaction revolving around thecentral tension between the use of Facebook and the quality ofinterpersonal communication. It has been explained in Section 4.2and 4.3 how the use of Facebook results in a greater perception ofnetwork connection. The more a user feels connected to a networkthrough the use and engagement with Facebook, the less he/shemakes use of conventional interpersonal communication methods.The abundance of loose connections fostered by Facebook thatenable the increased sharing of information, opinion and influence,negatively impacts the quality of strong interpersonal communi-cation made possible through conventional communicationmethods.

Essentially, Facebook's attraction and the sense of belongingthat it brings reduce the effort that people put into interpersonalrelationships given their perception of connection informed by theabundance of information shared on Facebook. The users alreadyfeel connected to people, so they make less effort to engage ininterpersonal communication, which can often be unpredictableand messy as much as it might be rewarding and fruitful. The lesspeople use conventional interpersonal communication methods,the lower the quality of their (limited) interactions and the valuederived from them are. In turn, people feel less of a desire to con-nect interpersonally if they gain little from these interactions,which then prompts more use of Facebook as a means of fulfillingthe essential human desire to belong and connect with one another.

The attempt to unpack the causal relationship between the useof Facebook and the quality of interpersonal communication in thispaper has illuminated the dynamic process whereby the more anindividual uses Facebook relative to interpersonal communicationmethods and feels more connected to people across an array ofgroups and networks, the less he/she connects directly with peopleon an interpersonal basis, forfeiting valuable reciprocal intimacyfrom (potentially) strong interpersonal relationships. Thus, theperson turns once again to Facebook as a means of gaining access togroups of people with whom he/she has loose associations andwhere he/she can attain a sense of belonging and connection.

The problem of Facebook use competing with interpersonalcommunication for time (effort) resources presented in Fig. 4, cangenerally be represented by the success to the successful systemsarchetype (see Fig. 5). The archetype ‘relates to situations in whichtwo parties or activities compete for the same limited resources and aneven a small advantage results in more resources being allocated to themost successful party or activity, which reinforces the competition’[30]. This implies that growth in one activity results in decline inanother activity because the limited resources are shared, andresource allocation decision is governed by the most successfulactivity.

In this case, it is observed that the two activities, namely,Facebook use and interpersonal communication, compete for thesame limited resource of time (effort) that an individual can allo-cate to these. As observed in the causal loop analysis, derived value(utility) from one of these activity results in more time resourcebeing allocated to the activity that is perceived to yield more value(utility), in the case of our analysis, Facebook use. In this way, thereinforcing loops related to the use of Facebook are dominant. Theresulting dynamic behaviour of the two activities and the resourcesallocated to each are sketched in the behaviour over time graphpresented in Fig. 6.

The trap that the success to the successful systems archetypepresents is the possibility to displace the weaker activity or indi-vidual by possibly allocating all the resources to the successfulactivity/individual [33]. This raises the question of whether inter-personal communicationwill no longer be in existence at one pointin time, and, if so, what interventions can be made now to addressthis.

Based on the success to the successful system archetype, thesuccess or failure of one of the two activities may be due to initialconditions rather than to the intrinsic benefits. Some suggestedways of overcoming the success to the successful system archetypetrap include identifying potential success traps that can be keptunder control and identifying goals and objectives that definesuccess. One of the identified success traps was the networkcommunication threshold and information intake threshold.Hence, even if a Facebook user decides to allocate all his/her time to

Fig. 4. The use of Facebook relative to interpersonal communication causal loop diagram.

M.D

avieset

al./Technology

inSociety

44(2016)

55e65

63

Fig. 5. The success to the successful systems archetype.

Fig. 6. The use of Facebook relative to interpersonal communication.

M. Davies et al. / Technology in Society 44 (2016) 55e6564

Facebook use, there is only so much information that one canabsorb, as well as limited network communication. Facebook usersshould thus make an effort not to allocate so much time to Face-book that it would compromise conventional interpersonalcommunication.

Identifying the goals and objectives of the two activities inrelation to time resource allocated is more subjective and possiblynot within the scope of this paper and warrants further investiga-tion. It is, however, argued that individuals' propensity tocommunicate should be shared between engagement on Facebookand using conventional interpersonal communication methods.

5. Conclusions

This paper used qualitative system dynamics to provide an un-derstanding of the dynamics of Facebook use and quality of inter-personal communication. Facebook is a complex system and its useentails a multiplicity of complex psychological patterns and trends,which are mainly qualitative. By using causal loop diagrams, sevenfeedback loops were identified as inherent to the problem, of whichsix were reinforcing loops and one was a balancing loop. As a toolfor making sense of this particular problem, the causal loop dia-grams have given important insights into how Facebook emergedas a substitute for the connection that people lack in their inter-personal relationships. In order to deal with this problem, Facebookusers are encouraged to see interactions not as tradeoffs, but ratheras complementary, and the value of the respective communicationplatforms/mediums should be recognised.

The causal loop diagrams have illustrated the value of Facebookin developing networks of strategic and useful loose connectionsand also the importance of strong interpersonal relationships forpersonal development and fulfilment. The analysed problem cangenerally be represented by the success to the successful systemsarchetype. This archetype is represented by the trade-off whenconsidering the amount of time spent on Facebook and interper-sonal communication. In this investigation, Facebook users, moti-vated by the need to belong and need for self-presentation, are

found to allocate more time resource to Facebook use hence,compromising the time available for interpersonal communication.This implies that measures to deal with the potentially degradingquality of interpersonal communication need to be identified.Facebook users shouldmakemore of an effort to communicatewithpeople by using conventional communication methods so as tonurture the emotional intimacy valued in these strong interper-sonal relationships. Broadcasting and sharing on Facebook is not asufficient substitute and has been shown to degrade the quality ofinterpersonal relationships.

Future investigations will require applying the causal loop dia-grams to specific case study(ies) in order to quantitatively providemore insights on the extent to which Facebook use has beenimpacting interpersonal communication. This in turnwould enableexploration of potential intervention measures to deal with thetension between Facebook use and quality of interpersonalcommunication.

References

[1] Facebook. Key Facts, 2013. Available online: http://newsroom.fb.com/Key-Facts (accessed 12.10.13).

[2] A. Nadkarni, S.G. Hofmann, Why do people use Facebook? Personal. Individ.Differ. 52 (2012) 243e249.

[3] C. Kadushin, Introduction to Social Network Theory, 2004. Available online:http://melander335.wdfiles.com/localefiles/reading-history/kadushin.pdf(accessed 05.02.14).

[4] C.R. Hollenbeck, A.M. Kaikati, Consumers' use of brands to reflect their actualand ideal selves on Facebook, Int. J. Res. Mark. 29 (2012) 395e405.

[5] V. Arnaboldi, A. Guazzini, A. Passarella, Egocentric online social networks:analysis of key features and prediction of tie strength in Facebook, Comput.Commun. 36 (2013) 1130e1144.

[6] B.S. Pay, S.H. Hosseini, H.G. Shakouri, Why do students use virtual socialnetworks in Iran: a system approach, Interdiscip. Descr. complex Syst. 11(2013) 108e122.

[7] D.M. Boyd, N.B. Ellison, Social network sites: definition, history, and scholar-ship, J. Computer-Mediated Commun. 13 (2007) 210e230.

[8] N.B. Ellison, C. Steinfield, C. Lampe, The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Socialcapital and college students' use of online social network sites, J. Computer-Mediated Commun. 12 (2007) 1143e1168.

[9] J. Bonds-Raacke, J. Raacke, Myspace and Facebook: identifying dimensions ofuses and gratifications for friend networking sites, Individ. Differ. Res. 8(2010) 27e33.

[10] D. Boyd, E. Hargittai, Facebook privacy settings: who cares? First Monday 15(2010) 8.

[11] K.M. Sheldon, N. Abad, C. Hinsch, A two-process view of Facebook use andrelatedness need-satisfaction: disconnection drives use, and connection re-wards it, J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 100 (2011) 766e775.

[12] S.T. Tong, B. Van Der Heide, L. Langwell, J.B. Walther, Too much of a goodthing? The relationship between number of friends and interpersonal im-pressions on Facebook, J. Computer-Mediated Commun. 2008 (13) (2008)531e549.

[13] S.S. Wang, S.I. Moon, K.H. Kwon, C.A. Evans, M.A. Stefanone, Face off: impli-cations of visual cues on initiating friendship on Facebook, Comput. Hum.Behav. 26 (2010) 226e234.

[14] M.D. Back, J.M. Stopfer, S. Vazire, S. Gaddis, S.C. Schmukle, B. Egloff, et al.,Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization, Psychol. Sci.21 (2010) 372e374.

[15] S. Zhao, S. Grasmuck, J. Martin, Identity construction on Facebook: digitalempowerment in anchored relationships, Comput. Hum. Behav. 24 (2008)1816e1836.

[16] E. Gilbert, K. Karahalios, Predicting tie strength with social media, in: Pro-ceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,2009, pp. 210e220. Available online: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id¼1518736 (accessed 05.02.14).

[17] R. Xiang, J. Neville, M. Rogati, Modelling relationship strength in online socialnetworks, in: Proceedings of the 19th World Wide Web Conference, 2010, pp.981e990. Available online: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id¼1772790(accessed 05.02.14).

[18] E. Bakshy, I. Rosenn, The Role of Social Networks in Information Diffusion,2012. Available online: http://www.scribd.com/doc/78445521/Role-of-Social-Networks-in-Information-Diffusion (accessed 12.10.13).

[19] M.S. Granovetter, The strength of weak ties, Am. J. Sociol. 78 (1973)1360e1380.

[20] S. Marche, Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?, The Atlantic, 2 April 2012. Avail-able online: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/is-facebook-making-us-lonely/308930/ (accessed 12.10.13).

[21] M. Warrell, Seduced by Social Media: Is Facebook Making You Lonely?, 2013.Available online: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margiewarrell/social-

M. Davies et al. / Technology in Society 44 (2016) 55e65 65

media-lonely_b_4034744.html (accessed 01.03.14).[22] J.W. Forrester, Industrial Dynamics, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA, 1961.[23] J.D. Sterman, Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modelling for a

Complex World, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, 2000.[24] J. Randers, Guidelines for model conceptualization, in: J. Randers (Ed.), Ele-

ments of the System Dynamics Method, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1980, pp.117e139.

[25] G.P. Richardson, A.L. Pugh, Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling withDYNAMO, Productivity Press, Cambridge, 1981.

[26] N.H. Roberts, D.F. Anderson, R.M. Deal, M.S. Grant, W.A. Shaffer, Introductionto Computer Simulation: the System Dynamics Modeling Approach, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1983.

[27] E. Wolstenholme, System Enquiry: a System Dynamics Approach, Wiley,Chichester, 1990.

[28] J.W. Forrester, P. Senge, Tests for building confidence in S-D models, TIMSStud. Manag. Sci. 14 (1980) 208e228.

[29] J.W. Forrester, Industrial Dynamics - a Response to Ansoff and Slevin, Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1975, pp. 151e165.

[30] E. Pruyt, Small System Dynamics Models for Big Issues, 2013. Available online:http://simulation.tbm.tudelft.nl/smallSDmodels/News.html (accessed10.01.14).

[31] R.G. Coyle, Qualitative and quantitative modelling in system dynamics: someresearch questions, Syst. Dyn. Rev. 16 (2000) 225e244.

[32] E.F. Wolstenholme, Qualitative vs. quantitative modeling: the evolving bal-ance, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 50 (1999) 422e428.

[33] D.H. Meadows, Thinking in Systems - a Primer. USA, Chelsea Green PublishingCompany, 2008.