This research investigates two competing hypotheses from the literature: 1) the Social Enhancement (“Rich Get Richer”) hypothesis that those more popular offline augment their popularity by increasing it on Facebook™, and 2) the “Social Compensation” (“Poor Get Richer”) hypothesis that users attempt to increase their Facebook™ popularity to compensate for inadequate offline popularity. Participants (n= 614) at a large, urban university in the Midwestern United States completed an online survey. Results are that a subset of users, those more extroverted and with higher self‐esteem, support the Social Enhancement hypothesis, being more popular both offline and on Facebook™. Another subset of users, those less popular offline, support the Social Compensation hypotheses because they are more introverted, have lower self‐esteem and strive more to look popular on Facebook™. Semantic network analysis of open‐ended responses reveals that these two user subsets also have different meanings for offline and online popularity. Furthermore, regression explains nearly twice the variance in offline popularity as in Facebook™ popularity, indicating the latter is not as socially grounded or defined as offline popularity.

Older persons increasingly use TV more for process than for content. ,In recent years the "uses and gratifications" approach has had a resurgence of popularity in mass communication research.' While studies from this perspective have been more sensitive to what the user brings to the c o m m u n i c a t i o n s i t u a t i o n , a s a determinant of what is taken from it. than have studies in the"effects" tradition, there has been little sensitivity to rime as a factor in uses and gratifications.2 Media use motivations have been largely treated as stable over time and insensitive to changes over the life-cycle.This time insensitivity in uses and gratifications research is probably more attributable to methodological default. than it is to reasoned formulation, in that most research is cross-sectional. At a conceptual level, contrasting the uses and gratifications perspective with a n "effects" perspective, it seems that the former would be more likely to consider time as an important factor. The concern for differences in individual needs and motivations, a n d . differences in social networks and environments as mediators of mass communication effects, seems potentially compatible with a concern for changes in these factors at different Igestages. The general question which the present research addresses is: are there I Elihu Katr. Jay (i. Blumlcr. and Michael Gurcvitch. "Uses and Gratifications Rexarch." Public Opinion Q u o r r d i . 37 509-23 f 1974) ,Walter Weirs. 'Effects of the Mass Media of Cornrnunicalion." in Gardner Lindiey and Elliot Aronron. cds . Thr Handbook of SdrraI t'Jvrho/og?. Vol. V (Rading. Mauachusclts: Addison-Wesley. 1969). Chapter 38.JSec. for example. the reviews by Rohcrt C Atchlcy. Thr

This research examines the prestige of doctoral degree programs in communication based on a network analysis of program links among 102 doctoral programs and 2,194 tenure-track faculty members. University of Wisconsin-Madison (Journalism & Mass Communication), Michigan State University (Communication), University of Texas-Austin (Communication Studies), and University of Illinois (Speech Communication) are the top four programs in terms of placement centrality in communication. Centrality of programs in this network, measured by out-degree, closeness centrality, and eigenvector indices, is positively related to subjective prestige ratings of faculty and department chairs (Neuendorf, Skalski, Atkin, Kogler-Hill, & Perloff, 2007). Faculty size was also related to network centrality and interdisciplinarity of program. Further, centrality of programs is positively related to program prestige controlling for faculty size.

No abstract

No abstract