Influence of Social Networking Sites on Interpersonal Relationship of Nigerian Students.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND TO STUDY

The rise of new media has increased communication between people all over the world via the new communication technologies. These new communication technologies according to Popoola (2003:44) include but not limited to computer (technology), broadcast technology, cable television, internet, telecommunication, teletex, videotext and teleconferencing technologies.

The internet in particular has helped in turning the world into a global village as predicted by Marshall McLuhan. It has improved communication process which according to Ogwezzy (2008:18), is a process by which a sender passes information to the decoder or receiver. It has also allowed people to express themselves through blogs, websites, pictures, social networking sites and other user-generated media.

Flew (2002:13) stated that as a result of the evolution of new media technologies, globalization occurs. Globalization is generally stated as "more than expansion of activities beyond the boundaries of particular nation states". Globalization shortens the distance between people all over the world by the electronic communication. Carely 1992 in Flew (2002:13) and Cairncross (1998) express this great development as the "death of distance". New media "radically break the connection between physical place and social place, making physical location much less significant for our social relationships" (Croteau and Hoynes 2003: 311).
Through these globalised communities, "Virtual communities" are being established online and it transcends geographical boundaries, eliminating social restrictions. Rheingold cited in Slevin (2000:91) describes these globalised societies as “self-defined networks, which resemble what we do in real life”. According to him "People in virtual communities use words on screens to exchange pleasantries and argue, engage in intellectual discourse, conduct commerce, make plans, brainstorm, gossip, feud, fall in love, create a little high art and a lot of idle talk" (Rheingold cited in Slevin 2000: 91). For Sherry Turkle "making the computer into a second self, finding a soul in the machine, can substitute for human relationships" (Holmes 2005: 184). New media has the ability to connect like-minded others worldwide.
One of the major tools of achieving this globalization is the use of social networking sites (SNS). The SNS is “an online place where a user can create a profile and build a personal network that connects him or her to other users” (Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2007:1). Users can connect to friends and colleagues through sending emails and instant messages, posting information in the form of photos, video/audio files, images, and texts, and sharing personal profiles with other members.

Social Networking Sites (SNS) are one of the most popular topics being talked about by the Nigerian students. A social network service focuses on building and reflecting of social networks or social relations among people, e.g., people who share interests and/or activities.

A social network service essentially consists of a representation of each user (often a profile), his/her social links, and a variety of additional services. Most social network services are web based and provide means for users to interact over the internet, such as e-mail and instant messaging. Examples of social networking sites are Friendster, Facebook, Twitter, Plurk and even Lagbook (for University of Lagos students).

The main types of social networking services are those which contain category places (such as former school-year or classmates), means to connect with friends (usually with self-description pages) and a recommendation system linked to trust. Popular methods now combine many of these.
Facebook, Bebo and Twitter are widely used worldwide; MySpace and LinkedIn being the most widely used in North America; Nexopia (mostly in Canada); Bebo Hi5, Hyves (mostly in The Netherlands), StudiVZ (mostly in Germany), iWiW (mostly in Hungary), Tuenti (mostly in Spain), Decayenne, Tagged, XING, Badoo and Skyrock in parts of Europe; Orkut and Hi5 in South America and Central America; and Friendster, Mixi, Multiply, Orkut, Wretch, renren and Cyworld in Asia and the Pacific Islands and Facebook in Nigeria.(Wikipedia, 2010) Social Networking Sites help students to communicate with friends, classmates, and relatives but they also allow them to communicate with other people who share common interests with them. For instance a person added another person as a friend on Facebook since both of them are addicted to playing Restaurant City game. Through these SNS, students develop virtual interpersonal relationships.

An interpersonal relationship on the other hand is a relatively long-term association between two or more people (Manuel et al, 2010:2). This association may be based on emotions like love and liking, regular business interactions, or some other type of social commitments. Interpersonal relationships take place in a great variety of contexts, such as family, friends, marriage, acquaintances, work, clubs, neighborhoods, and churches. They may be regulated by law, custom, or mutual agreement, and are the basis of social groups and society as a whole. (Manuel et al, 2010:2). According to Akinfeleye (2007:4) interpersonal communication is one of the four kinds of communication, others include; intrapersonal, international and Mass communication.

Social networking sites typically offer many features and those features are positively the reason why many students are interested in checking out these sites. One of the general features of SNS is profiles. A profile contains all the information about the person plus their photos, videos, applications that they use and comments/messages posted by other persons. SNS also offers special features like for example, Facebook has social games like Restaurant City and Pet Society.

Manuel, et al(2010:8) say that It is evident that many students greatly rely on these SNS sites in order to interact with their friends and other people whether they know them or not. Being dependent on these sites promotes online friendships which may not be too good since they might encounter people that are suspicious in behavior. They went further to say that these sites hinder face-to-face friendship but many students reason out that they use SNS in order to communicate conveniently with their faraway friends.

However, (Vitak, 2008) says that in cases where factors such as distance change a face-to-face relationship into a primarily online relationship, strong ties are maintained and even strengthened further. He maintained that Social networking sites is a tool for person to keep in touch with his distant friends by following their updates, sending a message or posting comments—users have a quick and easy way to stay connected thus keep the relationship healthy when they are too busy to commit more time to face-to-face interaction.

Communication is a basic human need and for that reason, man has always found a means of meeting this need. The media, which is an umbrella term for various means of communication, has become an integral part of human life around the world. The earliest forms of personal media, speech and gestures, had the benefit of being easy to use and did not necessarily need complex technology.
The weaknesses of not being able to communicate to large audiences led to the development of mass media, such as writing. With these developments, the role of the media in the society became more and more significant. John Dewey emphasized the role of media for education as James Agee and Walter Lippmann also highlighted the functions of the media for entertainment and information.

New Media

New technologies can lead to new types of media and the ability to use a given form of media is related to the ability to use its related technology. Today, technology has made more universal, the ability to produce media. Printing, radio and television are some examples of mass media in that they are intended to reach vast audiences. But these forms of media previously could not be produced readily by the average person. The advent of relatively inexpensive, personal media technologies like blogging, podcasting and Internet video allowed the average literate person to do what was theretofore restricted to media companies. These forms of media are still referred to as new but they have become part of society even as much as the traditional media in some parts of the world. In a few years, the term “new media” might not be very suitable because these forms are becoming part of our daily lives and the fusion with traditional media might dilute the fact that it is new. They are also referred to as “alternative media”, but if compared to the roles of the media as defined by Walter Lippmann, John Dewey and James Agee, they satisfy the definition of any other kind of media and some theories which apply to traditional media might apply to new media as well.

Humanity has always lived through times of great change. Every age it has passed through has been based on beliefs and (new) technologies, responding to the needs of individuals anxious to adjust to new forms of socialization. A time of great change is a period in which society looks for meaning. Information is already a tool, the principal tool, which people use to perceive and understand their environment. Language and culture help people filter this information, while communication tools help them process it.
Whenever a group of individuals have to process a larger quantity of information, they invent a communication tool to assist with the transition from one period to another. When a great change occurs, a society swings between innovation, which keeps its systems in motion, and stability, which, in turn, prevents a descent into anarchy. Sociologists call this the “edge of chaos”; psychologists use the term “homeostasis”. This function ensures that the system remains stable by preserving what exists, while also incorporating the information likely to threaten its equilibrium. There is also the issue of self-regulation, in which the system transforms itself to adapt and remain stable.
At various periods in the past, a technical or technological innovation has contributed to the evolution of society. We have thus passed from the printing age to the energy age, and thence to the digital age. Means of communication are also means of speeding up access to knowledge. Our communication tools (engraving, slate, print, television, computer, etc.) and our behaviors when faced with these tools have not only modified time and space, but also the culture of societies. Each stage in the use of tools has modified the filters of our perception and the imagination of human beings.

Social Media

Social media is a form of electronic communication which facilitates interaction based on certain interests and characteristics. Social media are media for social interaction, using highly accessible and scalable publishing techniques. Social media use web-based technologies to transform and broadcast media monologues into social dialogues. They support the democratization of knowledge and information and transform people from content consumers to content producers. Social media are elements of the new media and according to Danny Shea in The Huffington Post accessed 20th June 2010 have become the highest activity on the internet. The rapid growth of social media activities that has been observed over the last two to three years is indicative of its entry into mainstream culture and its integration into the daily lives of many people. In parallel with this, social media have also gained considerable attention from the academic and business worlds.
HISTORY OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES
The history of "Social media is not really “new.” While it has only recently become part of mainstream culture and the business world, people have been using digital media for networking, socializing and information gathering – almost exactly like now – for over 30 years:"

-Sean Carton in his July 2009 blog posting: Defining social media, in ClickZ.

Idakwo (2011:4) is of the opinion that social media started as a concept many years ago but has evolved into sophisticated technology. The concept of social media can be dated back to the use of the analog telephone for social interaction. The most recognizable use of social media was through innovative application, an online dialogue framework, created by Ward Christensen, a former IBM employee and Randy Suess.

Initially, they envisioned a place where they could immediately contact their co-employees for announcements, i.e. meetings, reports, and other affairs, rather than making multiple phone calls, distributing memos, and the like. They were looking into creating a computerized bulletin board, which is why they named the program CBBS (Computerized Bulletin Board System).

Soon enough, more and more employees contributed their ideas and comments in the said online community. That event was a momentous episode in the history of computer and internet. It was the birth of online social networking. The CBBS platform was made known to other companies and has been used for specific purposes.

The Bulletin Board System expanded largely and began breaking into the mainstream much sooner than it was planned to. It was during the rise of the Internet Service Providers in the early 1990s when social networking sites began to flourish. Along with the availability of internet service to people, many people rummaged to have themselves acquainted with this new technology.

With the fast response of people to the budding internet community, the bulletin boards which were usually used by companies have started to expand their roles by offering their service to more people around the globe. More and more people joined the online community with the innate goal of creating an identity in this space and at the same time exploring the vast place that is the internet. Because of this, many internet-savvy companies gave what people wanted- getting to know more people and sharing common interests and points of view; that is through websites where they can socialize, websites which are now referred to as social networking sites.

Social networking began its influence in the late 1990’s, but reached a critical mass soon after 2003 wherein major social sites were launched (Boyd & Ellison, 2007: 449) While many of the early networks failed, two sites, MySpace and Facebook, have received unprecedented levels of popularity. The development of SNS has enabled computer-mediated communication (CMC) to enter into a new world of research.
Early social networking websites started in the form of generalized online communities such as The WELL (1985), Theglobe.com (1994), Geocities (1994) and Tripod.com (1995). These early communities focused on bringing people together to interact with each other through chat rooms, and share personal information and ideas around any topics via personal homepage publishing tools which was a precursor to the blogging phenomenon. Some communities took a different approach by simply having people link to each other via email addresses. These sites included Classmates.com (1995), focusing on ties with former school mates, and SixDegrees.com (1997), focusing on indirect ties. User profiles could be created, messages sent to users held on a "friends list" and other members could be sought out who had similar interests to yours in their profiles (Boyd & Ellison, 2010: 3).
Social media attained a great measure of success with the launch of the then very popular friendster.com. Creator of Friendster, Jonathan Abrams concocted a perfect mix of popular features from earlier social networking predecessors. Friendster became an instant success and gathered about three million members who signed up in its early months of launch. As years passed, Friendster reached an overwhelming hundred million users from all over the globe. With much demand from its users, Friendster unfortunately got out of hand and suffered from too many glitches in the server. (slideshare.com, 2011)

Today, Friendster has been announced as a newly owned entity of a Malaysian Company, and outshone by present social networking sites but still remains to be patronized most especially in Asia. The conception of myspace.com opened the internet users to vast opportunities of self-expression which include wide control over a user’s profile content. Practically different people from all walks of life have dedicated pages in MySpace. In MySpace, users experienced the best of creating unique identities to show to the online world.

MySpace remained as the uncontested favourite among all the social networking sites until 2005 when it met its future competitor in the market. Soon enough, MySpace created additional features like mobile applications in order to keep up with the latest trends in the online community; and at the same time be at par with the growing popularity of contemporary social networking sites, more specifically the next thing in line-Facebook.

Facebook started as a local social network made for the students of Harvard. It was developed by a sophomore, Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook was actually made by hacking Harvard’s database containing identification images of students. The initial idea was actually to compare the faces of students with images of animals, for entertainment purposes.

However, due to the potentially damaging contents of the site, the creators decided to put it down before it caught the attention of school authorities. The application was shut down, but the idea of creating an online community of students came to existence. The platform was then improved and sooner than they expected, Facebook was released in campuses other than Harvard. Thereafter, high schools were already starting to get attracted to the idea of having online communities, thus opening the website to the younger population.

In 2006, facebook.com ultimately offered the opportunity to the rest of the world. As 2007 approached, the registrants reached an overwhelming digit- roughly a million dozen. Facebook has grown to become the biggest and most popular social networking site today with a population of above 500 million active users. (facebook statistics, 2010)

Other social networking sites continued to appear in the scene. Blogging sites like Bebo, Multiply and many others came into view. Microblogging partnered with social networking became popular with the launch of Twitter. On Twitter, online users can post their Tweets, basically a 140 character phrase or line about what they have in mind. With the help of API (Application Programming Interface), microblogging sites like Twitter and Tumblr and other dedicated sites like Flickr, Photo bucket and many others were able to connect with popular social networking sites, making an unending link of information in the World Wide Web.

How Social Media Work/Characteristics Social media utilization is believed to be a driving force in defining the current period as what psychologists call the “Attention Age”. This is further enhanced by the recent reduction in the price of internet modem and the increase in the use of smartphones among young people especially in Nigeria.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

As one of the user-created contents (UCC) Website, social networking site (SNS) is the most popular and the fastest-growing sector in online business market. Although the ancestors of current SNS have existed for over 25 years (Ridings & Gefen, 2004: 10), the SNS now stands in the spotlight of world’s Internet users and business organizations with great business potentials. The SNS market was relatively small in 2006, coming in at $46.8 million, but at that time it was expected that market potential will grow to $428.3 million by 2009 (IDC, 2007).

According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project (2007), currently 55 percent of all online young people ages 12-17 use online SNS, and 48 percent of teens visit SNS daily or more often. As the SNS grows fast, however, parents, school officials, and government leaders have been worried about the potential risk to young people (Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2007).

It has been recorded that at least one million, seven hundred and fourteen Nigerians are on Facebook, with a good number of them being young. (Facebook statistics, 2010). There is no comprehensive knowledge of their activities as well as how this form of media can impact on various aspects of life.

However, with an average user on social networking site having about 180 online friends, which is far more “friends” than the average person would say they have in the real world (Golder et al., 2006 cited in Manuel et al 2010: 4). There seems to be increase in communication among people across the globe.

It was against this background that the researcher carried out this study on social networking sites to examine what influence the virtual friendship online have on interpersonal relationship of students with their offline friends.

Purpose of study

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the friendship created virtually online and the existing offline relationship. The study particularly examined what influence the virtual community created online through social networking sites have on interpersonal relationship of students with their offline friends.

Objectives of study
The aim of this research was therefore to provide evidence-based insights into the social media phenomenon which can be used to inform current understanding of usage and behaviour in Nigeria, and to help identify some of the current and potential future issues around people’s use of social media, especially as it involves interpersonal relationship. It sought to understand how people are using social networking sites as well as their attitudes to this form of communication.
The objectives of this research were as follow: • To understand the use of social media by young people in Nigeria. • To explore the access of students to the internet and social networking sites. • To understand the attitudes towards social networking sites and the wider issues that may arise from this.

• To explore any effect of this form of media on the interpersonal skill of the Nigerian youth

Research questions

1. What access do students have to the internet and social networking sites?

2. What social networking site is more preferred among students?

3. What do students use social networking sites for?

4. What is the relationship between online and offline friendships?

5. What influence do social networking sites have on interpersonal relationship of students?

Significance of Study

Fundamentally, the media is a tool and its uses are a reflection of the people who use it. So understanding the media itself and its dynamics will help in using it and in mitigating its downsides. The rapid growth of social media sites, their popularity among young people and their relative success in retaining users, has ensured that social media is never far from the news. It is clear from the development of social media to date that further evolution is uncharted territory for stakeholders and it is difficult to accurately predict what impact this will have on communications, ICT skills and social issues. As users, policy makers, businesses, educators and parents seek to understand many-to-many communication such as social media, it is essential we understand current usage and behaviour and identify potential problems so that they can be addressed.This can be seen in the amount of academic studies on social media within the last seven years.

However, Danah Boyd has gathered a collection of research about social networking sites that lists approximately one hundred and fifty research papers, three books, and seven research reports published in theyears 2003-2010. (Boyd, 2010:79) None of these papers covers Africa.This shows a lack of research that concerns the African region and especially Nigeria where this form of media is greatly used. Therefore the overall motivation for conducting this study is to contribute to research about social media in Nigeria. This research should also create a platform for further research in this field and how it affects business processes as well other spheres of life. This research should provide useful data for market researchers, marketing and product development professionals as well as educators as to how they can maximize social media for optimum benefit in their various fields.

Scope of Study

This study took into account the male and female undergraduate student of University of Lagos. These students were picked from the various department randomly selected from the various randomly selected faculties.

Limitation of Study

Out of the 200 questionnaires given out, only 198 were returned. It was also discovered that few of the questionnaires were incompletely filled which affected the total number of questionnaires available for analysis. According to Reinard (2001), respondents may refuse to participate in two ways. They can decline initially to accept a questionnaire, answer any questions, or return survey or they can provide incomplete responses. A little refusal may not pose serious threat to the research.

Definition of terms

This study, which was about the influence of social networking sites on the interpersonal relationship of the students, used the following terms defined conceptually and operationally. These terms are used within the context of the study.

Face – to – face friendship : It is a type of friendship wherein you can actually be with them and see them more often and you know about them well enough.

Influence: The effect that social networking site have on interpersonal relationship of students.

Offline Friend: It is a term used to call a person who is your friend in real life.

Online Friend: It is a term used to call a person added on your Social Networking Site account.

Privacy: It is the ability of an individual or group to secure their personal information and activities apart from others.

Profile: This is offered by social networking sites that contains all the personal information about the person and their activities.

Social behavior: It is behaviour directed towards society, or taking place between, members of the same species.

Social Games: They are defined as games found in social networking sites which allow social interaction with friends during the gameplay. (e.g. Pet Society)

Social Networking: It refers to making a social structure made of nodes that are tied by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as friendship, kinship, financial exchange, dislike, sexual relationships, or relationships of beliefs, knowledge or prestige.

Social Networking Sites: It focuses on building online communities of people who share interests and/or activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others. Social networking sites are web based and provide a variety of ways for users to interact.

REFERENCES

Akinfeleye, R.A. (ed.)(2007). Essentials of journalism: an introductory text

for beginners. Lagos: Unimedia Publishers.

Boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2010). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11
Croteau and Hoynes (2003) Media Society: Industries, Images and Audiences

(3rd ed.)Pine Forge Press: Thousand Oakes.
Facebook statistics. (2010, July 20). Facebook Statistics Pressroom.

Retrieved August 5, 2010, from www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics

Flew, T (2002), New Media: An Introduction. UK: Oxford University Press
Holmes (2005) "Telecommunity" in Communication Theory: Media, Technology and Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hunt C., Cairncross S., Dubey M. et al. 1998. Community-based environmental health indicators. In: Proceedings of the 24th WEDC conference, Islamabad. Loughborough,UK: Loughborough University.
Idakwo, L. (2011). The use of Social media among the Nigerian Youth (An Unpublished Project). An M.Sc project submitted to the School of Media and Communication, Pan African University, Lagos.

IDC. (2007). IDC Press release. Retrieved May 28, 2011 from http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerld =prUS20852407.
Manuel at al. (2010). Social media and interpersonal relationship of students (An Unpublished Project). A joint B.Sc project submitted to the department of mathematics, Rotagonist College, USA.

Ogwezzy, A.O. (2008). African communication system- concepts, channels and

messages. Lagos: African Renaissance Books Inc.

Pew Research (2007). Social networking websites and teens: An overview. Retrieved May 12, 2011 from: http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_SNS_Data_Memo_Jan_2007.pdf
Popoola, T. (2003). GSM as a tool for news reporting in Nigeria. Lagos: NUJ/Corporate Lifters Intl.

Reinard C. (2001). Introduction to communication Research. London: McGraw Hill

Ridings, C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Computer-mediated communication, 10(1).
Shea, D. (2009, 10 3). (D. Shea, Ed.) Retrieved 06 20, 2010, from The huffington

post: www.huffingtonpost.com/the-news/reporting/danny-shea

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviewed relevant works that exposit present knowledge in this area of study, which in this work is social networking sites (SNS) and interpersonal relationship of students. This helped to shape and sharpen the focus of this research so that new knowledge could be added to this field of interest from the premises of others’ efforts. Therefore, this chapter built on three platforms which are Conceptual Review- which dealt with scholars perception of some of the key concepts of the study, Empirical studies- which dealt with previous researches locally and internationally on the subject matter and Theoretical Framework- which reviewed relevant theories to explain the subject under discuss.

CONCEPTUAL REVIEW
Boyd and Ellison (2007:211) define social networking sites (SNS) as: Web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.
This can be said to be an extension of the definition of Wikipedia (2010) which defines social networking sites as a social network service that focuses on building and reflecting of social networks or social relations among people, e.g., who share interests and/or activities. A social network service essentially consists of a representation of each user (often a profile), his/her social links, and a variety of additional services. Most social network services are web based and provide means for users to interact over the internet, such as e-mail and instant messaging.
A profile in the above definition typically consists of the same kinds of information: A picture of the user, his or her name (or pseudonym), the user’s likes, dislikes, and a list of users that can connect the viewer to anyone else the user knows; in the case of Facebook and MySpace these people are known as “friends.”
Social network sites are a distinct subset of computer mediated communication (CMC), wherein individuals are not forced into immediate communicative situations (chat rooms, IM) but have the opportunity to provide information about their self (the profile) as well as make comments to friends and strangers alike through wall posts or individual website chat capabilities.
CLASSIFICATION OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES
Writing on the nature social media, Amobi (2010:23) notes that it consists of a much larger number of young people using social media technology through websites such as Facebook, Myspace, Bebo, Youtube, Wikis, twitter and many more to source and disseminate information, stay in touch with their friends, search for music videos, customize games and experiment with digital media production. By this she concluded that social networking site is a branch of social media.
The main types of social networking services according to Wikipedia (2010) are those which contain category places (such as former school-year or classmates), means to connect with friends (usually with self-description pages) and a recommendation system linked to trust.
Amobi (2010:28) also noted eight (8) categories of social media highlighting social networking sites as one of them.
Social networking sites according to her allows users to create a personal profile about themselves, then chat, discuss and share information with others such as friends and family, example of these are facebook, Myspace and Bebo among others. Other categories of social media according to her includes; ➢ Wikis: these are websites that allow you to create, edit, and share information about a subject or topic, e.g Wikipedia. ➢ Video sharing websites which allow you to allow you to upload and share your personal videos with the rest of the web community. A perfect example of this is the You Tube. ➢ Photo sharing websites which allow users to upload pictures and images to a personal account which can then be viewed by web users all over the world. Flickr is an example of this. ➢ News aggregation which provides a list of latest news stories published by users from a range of different websites; Digo is one of the biggest news aggregators. ➢ Social bookmarking websites that allow users to publicly bookmark webpages they find valuable in order to share them with other internet users. ➢ Online gaming which is often based around communities. World of war craft is an example of online gaming. ➢ Presence apps which allows users to post microblog-like posts to announce what they are currently doing. Twitter is a good example of this.
Popular methods now combine many of these formats of social networking sites, but Facebook, Bebo and Twitter widely used worldwide; MySpace and LinkedIn being the most widely used in North America; Nexopia (mostly in Canada); Bebo Hi5, Hyves (mostly in The Netherlands), StudiVZ (mostly in Germany), iWiW (mostly in Hungary), Tuenti (mostly in Spain), Decayenne, Tagged, XING, Badoo and Skyrock in parts of Europe; Orkut and Hi5 in South America and Central America; and Friendster, Mixi, Multiply, Orkut, Wretch, renren and Cyworld in Asia and the Pacific Islands and Orkut and Facebook, Twitter, Myspace among others are used in Nigeria.
Meanwhile, Idakwo ( 2011:10 ) is also of the opinion that social networking site is a category of social media. He maintained that Examples of social media based on their characteristics include:

Communication • Blogs: Blogger, LiveJournal, Open Diary, TypePad, WordPress, Vox, ExpressionEngine, Xanga • Micro-blogging / Presence applications: FMyLife, Jaiku, Plurk, Twitter, Tumblr, Posterous, Yammer, Qaiku • Social networking: Facebook, MySpace, Cyworld • Events: Upcoming, Eventful, Meetup.com,
Collaboration
• Wikis: Wikimedia, Wikia, PBworks, Wetpaint • Social bookmarking (or social tagging): Delicious, StumbleUpon, Google Reader, CiteULike • Social news: Digg, Mixx, Reddit, NowPublic
Multimedia
• Photography and art sharing: Deviantart, Flickr, Photobucket, Picasa, SmugMug, Zooomr • Video sharing: YouTube, Viddler, Vimeo, sevenload • Livecasting: Ustream.tv, Justin.tv, Stickam, Skype, OpenCU, Livestream • Music and audio sharing: MySpace Music, The Hype Machine, Last.fm, ccMixter, ShareTheMusic, ReverbNation • Presentation sharing: scribd
Reviews and opinions • Product reviews: epinions.com, MouthShut.com • Business reviews: Customer Lobby, yelp.com • Community Q&A: Yahoo! Answers, WikiAnswers, Askville, Google Answers
Entertainment
• Media and entertainment platforms: Cisco Eos • Virtual worlds: [Active Worlds], Second Life, The Sims Online, Forterra • Game sharing: Miniclip, Kongregate
Brand monitoring • Social media monitoring: Attensity Voice of the Customer, Attensity360, Sysomos Heartbeat • Social media analytics: Sysomos MAP
Other
• Information Aggregators: Netvibes, Twine (website) • Online Advocacy and Fundraising: Causes
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES
As noted by Idakwo (2011:23), a common thread running through all definitions of social media is a blending of technology and social interaction for the co-creation of value. One characteristic shared by both social media and industrial media is the capability to reach small or large audiences; for example, either a blog post or a television show may reach zero people or millions of people. The properties that help describe the differences between social media and industrial media depend on the study. Some of these properties are:

1. Reach - both industrial and social media technologies provide scale and enable anyone to reach a global audience.

2. Accessibility - the means of production for industrial media are typically owned privately or by government; social media tools are generally available to anyone at little or no cost.

3. Usability - industrial media production typically requires specialized skills and training. Most social media does not, or in some cases reinvent skills, so anyone can operate the means of production. 4. Response time - the time lag between communications produced by industrial media can be long (days, weeks, or even months) compared to social media (which is capable of virtually instantaneous responses; only the participants determine any delay in response). As industrial media are currently adopting social media tools, this feature may well not be distinctive anymore in some time.
5. Permanence - industrial media, once created, cannot be altered (once a magazine article is printed and distributed changes cannot be made to that same article) whereas social media can be altered almost instantaneously by comments or editing. Community media constitute an interesting hybrid of industrial and social media.
DEVELOPING SOCIAL NETWORKS
How individuals develop friendships and other forms of relationships have long been an area of study within the communication studies discipline. The existing literature base on developing relationships (Livingstone & Helsper, 2007:165; Mesch & Talmud, 2006:17; and Stritzke, Nguyen, & Durkin, 2004:287) examines socio-psychological factors that often influence an individual’s ability to develop relationships amongst peers from young adolescence well into the later teen years. It is no surprise that the most common personality factor that influences the ability to develop these ties is shyness. Research suggests that symptoms of shyness include: rejection sensitivity, initiating relationships, self-disclosure, and providing emotional support and advice. Individuals who exhibit any one of these symptoms will likely, according to studies conducted, have a statistically more difficult time developing social ties, (Stritzke et al., 2004:172).

Shyness does not make the development of ties impossible, but the studies have shown that individuals who struggle with communicating in social situations have an over all lower quality of life, the impact of their inability to communicate leading to depression and anxiety. As a result, the ability to develop high quality relationships at an early age is lauded as one of the most important skills needed in the process of adolescent adjustment. Students in a study where teachers were asked to say how well adjusted the youth were found that those considered “maladjusted” were the ones who often had fewer peer ties, (Waldrip, Malcolm, & Jensen-Campbell, 2008:12). By having friends that can be relied on, trusted, and form a close bond with, the literature shows that individuals are more socially capable and happier, and more apt to deal with the variety of issues that arise as an individual experiences adolescence. Researchers suggest that the importance of ties comes most often in the form of social support which is defined as “the exchange of verbal and nonverbal messages conveying emotion, information, or referral, to help reduce someone’s uncertainty or stress” (Walther & Boyd, 2002:153.) This need to socialize and receive support is often found in shy individuals, but the ability to provide support and allow for that social exchange becomes a challenge because the individual fears the feedback they will receive as being a rejection of the individual.

Adolescence is established as a time where developing a social network is crucial (Giordano, 1995:123), yet little research takes the extra step into analyzing the continued effects that being shy has on an individual throughout their campus years, where the drive to belong to a community and be “popular” is stronger than ever (Zywica & Danowski, 2008:19) Added to the struggle of finding a place within the campus community social network, individuals who choose to go on to college often find themselves having to completely redefine their networks, attending universities thousands of miles from home, without a single close friend going with them to a new place, with new people.
Walther & Boyd (2002:153) discovered through their research that developing social networks online would likely be productive to shy individuals because they can achieve that support they might otherwise not have offline. While they are not establishing the high-quality ties that Mesch & Talmud (2006:17) say are imperative to social development, they are developing a higher number of weak ties that allow them speak with candour (and without a fear of rejection) that comes with being highly invested in a relationship. Computer mediated communication (CMC) offers kinds of support through weak ties that are difficult when communicating with a member of a close social network—researchers found that more information can be gathered from a larger network while eliminating stigma associated to that information, and individuals find validation in larger networks due to sheer number (Walther & Boyd, 2002;154) The last statistic, regarding size of network, is also seen in research as a tool used to signal popularity: it was found that the larger the network connected to a profile (e.g. number of friends) the more attractive that person was thought to be (Tong, Van Der Heide, Langwell & Walther, 2008:49) Still, the impact of networking online and offline is still being determined as researchers consider the amount of time spent with (and without) technology by youth all over the world.

SOCIAL NETWORKING ON THE INTERNET
The ability to network socially through the Internet exists through a variety of avenues, a few more common ones being chat rooms, blogs, email, and social network sites. Preliminary research conducted by Baym & Lin (2004:299) sought to evaluate the Internet as a new avenue of communication often employed by college students in comparison to face-to-face and telephone communication.
Their study showed that participants used the Internet to maintain social networks, but not exclusively or as the main source of information. Participants relied heavily on e-mail over any other form of social media to interact, but face-to-face communication remained the primary source of maintenance in almost all local-distant social networks. Since this study, researchers have found a much heavier reliance on CMC as a way to communicate with social networks, with over 95% of college students at single university having active accounts on Facebook (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007:452)

Even more forms of online media were considered by Bryant, Sanders-Jackson, & Smallwood (2006:11) in their research on socially interactive technologies (SITs). The evolution of computer-mediated communication as a social network for adolescents led researchers to assess particular types of SITs, what they are being used for, and if that use differed from social networks for youth offline. Results from the research process suggested that there was little to no similarities between online and offline social networks, and that youth were using SITs for a variety of things, ranging from an opportunity to say something they would not normally say in person due the anonymity of the Internet, to breaking up with their significant other or asking a new person out. Researchers admitted that their sample could not be suggested as representative of youth use given that only 60% of participants had ever used IM, and only 20% had used text messaging, but encouraged future research in the field to ask many of the same questions, and consider the responses offered from those who had participated in SIT use. Bryant et al concluded that from their results individuals find the mediated effect of the Internet as a buffer to having to interact socially in a face-to-face situation that could put them at risk for embarrassment or rejection. Manning & Ray (1993:178) establish early on in the literature that these fears are common among youth who are shy or otherwise have difficulties in social settings articulating their personal thoughts and/or feelings, validating the belief that the Internet is an outlet for the shy to communicate on a regular basis.

Shyness has already been established as a barrier to developing social ties, and as much of the current literature shows (Cummings, Butler, & Kraut, 2002:103), is something that is often overcome due in large part the anonymous nature of communicating over the Internet. The difference between shy people and non-shy people online versus offline was seven times greater in an offline context, indicating the usefulness of CMC for shy individuals. Results from one study indicated that CMC reduces shyness in individuals’ due a variety of things including anonymity, less risk of rejection, or perceived interpersonal competence. Researchers use the self-presentational theory to explain this phenomenon, citing a lack of visual and auditory cues as a reason why shy individuals have an easier time using CMC (Stritzke et al, 2004:22) These results can be used to consider the connection between a low level of close friends offline (an indicator for a less outgoing individual) and the participation in social network sites.

Another area to take into consideration in regards to a larger online social network is a desire to be thought of as popular. Zywica & Danowski (2008:1) tested the social enhancement (“the rich get richer”) and the social compensation (“the poor get richer”) hypotheses on Facebook users to determine if popularity was a variable related to participation in the site. The question will be weather already popular individuals use Facebook to increase their popularity, or do individuals try to compensate for their lack of popularity through the website. As the researchers pointed out, what exactly it means to be “popular” is rarely universally defined. The results showed that number of friends is the highest indicator of popularity on the site. Both popular and unpopular participants referred to people who want to be popular on Facebook as “insecure” individuals, yet all still sought to be popular offline regardless. The findings showed that both social enhancement and social compensation are employed equally through SNS, while it is worth note that popular user’s spent more time on the site ensuring their popularity through, untagging pictures that made them look unattractive or deleting wall posts that spoke of the individual in an unfavourable way. Regardless of the cause for this disconnect, past studies suggest that there is a higher number of friends in online networks than offline.

Besides developing social networks, research suggests there are a variety of things that participants are using SNS for. Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield (2006:449) conducted a study at the University where they sought to ascertain the popularity of Facebook and what it was being used for. Over 1,000 first semester college students were surveyed. A second survey was administered the start of the following semester, with 1,085 students participating. In the first survey, 84% of respondents were Facebook users; as of the second survey, 95.5% of respondents were users, pointing to the sites growing popularity on college campuses within a short period of time. Respondents suggested that the people who most often viewed their profile were people they interacted with daily in person, contradicting Bryant et al (2006:11) who said that the people we communicate with online are separate from our face-to-face communication situations.

THE ROLE OF FRIENDSHIP AND ITS DETERMINANTS
The role of friendship in social networking cannot be over-emphasised, while some people use social networking sites to connect with existing friends, others use it to find new friends. Since some of these friendships are not like real life friendship, the quality of such friendship may be put to questioning.
To this end, three determinants of the quality of friendships have received particular attention in the literature: (a) proximity (e.g., Hays, 1985:909; Priest & Sawyer, 1967:633), (b) similarity (e.g., Duck, 1975:52; Kandel, 1978:427; Reagans, 2005:51; Wellman & Gulia, 1997:48), and (c) social attraction (e.g., Berndt, Hawkins, & Hoyle, 1986:57; Reagans, 2005:51). Proximity refers to the geographic closeness between friends (Burgoon et al., 2002:657). Similarity, in this study, refers to perceived attitudinal similarity, that is, the extent to which friends feel similar to each other with respect to their attitudes. Social attraction is the socio-emotional part of interpersonal attraction and is sometimes also called ‘liking.’ Social attraction implies that a target person is pleasant to be with, could become a friend, and would fit in the existing circle of friends (McCroskey & McCain, 1974:332).
Proximity: Research on offline friendships has shown that the closer the physical distance between subjects and their target friends, the more likely the friendship will be a success (Hays, 1985:909; Mesch & Talmud, 2007:19; Priest & Sawyer, 1967:633). Geographically close people become friends more easily not only because they can interact more easily (Berscheid & Walster, 1969:15; Schutte & Light, 1978:260), but also because they have more opportunity to exchange information between one another. As a result, they are more likely to become close to each other (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950:51; Newcomb, 1961:19).

Based on the global-village metaphor (e.g., McLuhan & Power, 1989:21), which means that the internet globalizes communication by allowing users from around the world to connect with each other, it is plausible to assume that proximity is less important in online and mixed-mode friendships than in offline friendships (e.g., McKenna & Bargh, 2000:9). Through the internet, one can meet people from all over the world. Consequently, the chances of meeting someone who lives nearby may be smaller on the Internet than in offline settings.

However, it has also been suggested that CMC may stimulate feelings of proximity between interaction partners, regardless of their actual geographic distance (Cooper & Sportolari, 1997:14). These virtual feelings of proximity have been explained with Zajonc’s (1968) mere exposure effect (e.g., McKenna & Bargh, 2000:31). The mere exposure effect implies that repeated exposure to an object elicits positive feelings toward this object. Based on the mere exposure effect, it can be predicted that, even without being geographically close, frequent contact with online communication partners lead to feelings of closeness between these partners. As a result, actual geographical proximity may be less important for the quality of online friendships, and perhaps also for the quality of mixed-mode friendships.

Empirical evidence on the relationship between the geographical proximity of friends and the quality of friendship is mixed. In one study, Mesch and Talmud (2006:17) found that proximity did not predict the quality of online friendships, whereas in another study, it did affect the quality of online friendships (Mesch & Talmud, 2007:44).

Similarity: Researchers agree that the more similar two people are, the stronger their relationship (Duck, 1983:52; Hallinan & Kubitschek, 1988; Kandel, 1978:81; Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954:22; Mesch & Talmud, 2007:44; Reagans, 2005:51). People are more likely to participate in joint activities with others who share their interests. By doing so, they receive validation of their attitudes and beliefs, which they perceive as rewarding (Aboud & Mendelson, 1996:112). These perceived rewards, in turn, stimulate further interactions and, thereby, the formation and maintenance of friendships (Reagans, 2005:51). Therefore, it is no surprise that friendships between similar people are usually of a higher quality than between dissimilar people (Mesch & Talmud, 2007:45).

Several CMC theories have suggested that CMC partners feel more similar than offline communication partners. For example, the hyperpersonal communication framework (Walther, 1996:3) and social identity deindividuation theory (SIDE; Lea & Spears, 1992:321; Spears & Lea, 1992:341) imply that online communication partners have less access to nonverbal cues, such as clothing and mimicry, which often uncover interpersonal differences in face-to-face settings. Online partners are thus forced to focus on whatever minimal cues appear in an online setting. In the absence of nonverbal cues, which typically prevent feelings of similarity, this over-reliance on available cues may lead online partners to easily feel similar to their communication partners.

The assumption that CMC increases feelings of similarity has received empirical support (Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991:119). However, this CMC-enhanced perceived similarity may not hold for CMC on social network sites. Social network sites provide more cues than text-based CMC.

Especially the availability of non-verbal cues on social network sites, for example through photos posted, may effectively impair the development of feelings of similarity.

Social attraction: Social attraction is one of the most important determinants of the quality of offline friendships (Aboud & Mendelson, 1996:87; Berndt et al., 1986:1284; Reagans, 2005:51). The formation of offline relationships does not occur with at least a minimum level of social attraction (Brehm, 1992:16; Reagans, 2005:51; Reis & Shaver, 1988:367). People prefer to interact with others to whom they feel socially attracted because they are more pleasant to be with (Vittengl & Holt, 2000:53). As a result, socially attracted people are more likely to communicate with each other (Berscheid & Walster, 1969:97; McCroskey & McCain, 1974:323), which eventually may result in a higher level of friendship quality (Reagans, 2005:51).

The level of social attraction may be higher in online friendships than in offline friendships. A series of studies have reported positive effects of CMC on social attraction (Antheunis, Valkenburg, & Peter, 2007:831; Bargh, McKenna, & Fitzsimons, 2002:9; McKenna, Green, & Gleason, 2002:9; Ramirez & Zhang, 2007:287). These positive effects have been explained by the use of two related interactive uncertainty reduction strategies in CMC: self-disclosure and direct questioning (Albada, Knapp, & Theune, 2002:8; Bargh et al., 2002:58; Collins & Miller, 1994:116; McKenna et al., 2002:9).

CMC stimulates the use of both self-disclosure and direct questioning (Antheunis et al., 2007:831; Tidwell & Walther, 2002:317). CMC-enhanced self-disclosure and direct questioning, in turn, stimulate social attraction (Antheunis et al., 2007:831). The finding that CMC enhances interpersonal attraction is based on research in CMC environments with no or limited non-verbal cues. As a result, it may be conceivable that interpersonal attraction may develop differently on social network sites.
APPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES
Government applications
Social networking is more recently being used by various government agencies. Social networking tools serve as a quick and easy way for the government to get the opinion of the public and to keep the public updated on their activity.
On 20th December 2010, at a book launch of the Nigerian president, Dr Goodluck Jonathan, the American social network guru, Joe Trippl, said “there are two million young Nigerians on Facebook out of the over 400 million worldwide” he went further to say that while the Obama campaign made use of Facebook to great effect, Nigeria is the first example of the networking site usage in governance. The president at that time was reported to have had 350,000 young Nigerian as his friends on Facebook.
Meanwhile, according to the report of an online source, “Since joining the Obama campaign in February 2007, Goodstein Scott, who is the External Online Director of Obama For America, has helped attract nearly two million supporters on MySpace, about 6.5 million supporters on Facebook, and 1.7 million supporters on Twitter. This strategy of using social networking tools worked well, enabling the Obama campaign to outmaneuver Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which was enjoying the support of the institutional base of the Democratic Party”

Business applications
The use of social network services in an enterprise context presents the potential of having a major impact on the world of business and work (Fraser HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking"&HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking" HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking"DuttaHYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking" 2008: 15).
Social networks connect people at low cost; this can be beneficial for entrepreneurs and small businesses looking to expand their contact bases. These networks often act as a customer relationship management tool for companies selling products and services. Companies can also use social networks for advertising in the form of banners and text ads. Since businesses operate globally, social networks can make it easier to keep in touch with contacts around the world. One example of social networking being used for business purposes is LinkedIn.com, which aims to interconnect professionals. LinkedIn has over 40 million users in over 200 countries including Nigeria (http://en.wikipedia.org, 2010)
Dating applications
Many social networks provide an online environment for people to communicate and exchange personal information for dating purposes. Intentions can vary from looking for a one time date, short-term relationships, and long-term relationships.
Most of these social networks, just like online dating services, require users to give out certain pieces of information. This usually includes a user 's age, gender, location, interests, and perhaps a picture. Releasing very personal information is usually discouraged for safety reasons. This allows other users to search or be searched by some sort of criteria, but at the same time people can maintain a degree of anonymity similar to most online dating services. Online dating sites are similar to social networks in the sense that users create profiles to meet and communicate with others, but their activities on such sites are for the sole purpose of finding a person of interest to date. Social networks do not necessarily have to be for dating; many users simply use it for keeping in touch with friends, and colleagues.
However, an important difference between social networks and online dating services is the fact that online dating sites sometimes require a fee, where social networks are free.
This difference is one of the reasons the online dating industry is seeing a massive decrease in revenue due to many users opting to use social networking services instead. Many popular online dating services such as Match.com, Yahoo Personals, and eHarmony.com are seeing a decrease in users, where social networks like MySpace and Facebook are experiencing an increase in users.
The number of internet users in the U.S. that visit online dating sites has fallen from a peak of 21% in 2003 to 10% in 2006 (http://wikipedia, 2011). Whether it is the cost of the services, the variety of users with different intentions, or any other reason, it is undeniable that social networking sites are quickly becoming the new way to find dates online
Educational applications
Some social networks focused on supporting relationships between teachers and between teachers and their students are now used for learning, educator’s professional development, and content sharing. Ning for teachers, Learn Central, TeachStreet and other sites are being built to foster relationships that include educational blogs, e-portfolios, formal and ad hoc communities, as well as communication such as chats, discussion threads, and synchronous forums. These sites also have content sharing and rating features. In Nigeria we are most familiar with forum nairaland.com and the educational forum of slideshare.com which is used for sharing term papers, projects and many other educational resource material (http://wikipedia, 2010)
Medical applications
Social networks are beginning to be adopted by healthcare professionals as a means to manage institutional knowledge, disseminate peer to peer knowledge and to highlight individual physicians and institutions.
A new trend is emerging with social networks created to help its members with various physical and mental ailments. For people suffering from life altering diseases, PatientsLikeMe offers its members the chance to connect with others dealing with similar issues and research patient data related to their condition. For alcoholics and addicts, SoberCircle gives people in recovery the ability to communicate with one another and strengthen their recovery through the encouragement of others who can relate to their situation. DailyStrength is also a website that offers support groups for a wide array of topics and conditions, including the support topics offered by PatientsLikeMe and SoberCircle. SparkPeople offers community and social networking tools for peer support during weight loss.
However, these benefits do not erase the fears associated with the usage of these forms of media. These fears range from privacy issues to the fear that social media can be addictive, thereby eliminating interpersonal communication in its most original form (http://wikipedia, 2010)

HAZARDS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING

INVATION OF PRIVACY

Many social networking services, such as facebook, provide the user with a choice of who can view their profile. This prevents unauthorized user(s) from accessing their information. By choosing to make their profile private, teens are able to select who can see their page and this prevents unwanted people from lurking. This will also mean that only people who are added as "friends" will be able to view the profile.
HOWEVER, THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL CASES OF ABUSE OF DATA. IN JULY 2008, A BRITON, GRANT RAPHAEL, WAS ORDERED TO PAY A TOTAL OF £22,000 (ABOUT USD $44,000) FOR LIBEL AND BREACH OF PRIVACY. RAPHAEL HAD POSTED A FAKE PAGE ON FACEBOOK PURPORTING TO BE THAT OF A FORMER SCHOOL-FRIEND, MATTHEW FIRSHT, WITH WHOM RAPHAEL HAD FALLEN OUT IN 2000. THE PAGE FALSELY CLAIMED THAT FIRSHT WAS HOMOSEXUAL AND THAT HE WAS DISHONEST. (HTTP;//WIKIPEDIA, 2010)

POTENTIAL FOR MISUSE

Genuine use of social networking services has been treated with suspicion on the ground of the services ' misuse.
IN SEPTEMBER 2008, THE PROFILE OF AUSTRALIAN FACEBOOK USER ELMO KEEP WAS BANNED BY THE SITE 'S ADMINISTRATORS ON THE GROUNDS THAT HE VIOLATED THE SITE 'S TERMS OF USE. KEEP IS ONE OF SEVERAL USERS OF FACEBOOK WHO WERE BANNED FROM THE SITE ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THEIR NAMES AREN 'T REAL, AS THEY BEAR RESEMBLANCE THE NAMES OF CHARACTERS LIKE SESAME STREET 'S ELMO (HTTP://WIKIPEDIA.COM, 2010).

RISK FOR CHILD SAFETY

Citizens and governments have been concerned by a misuse by child and teenagers of social network services, particularly in relation to online sexual predators. A certain number of actions have been engaged by governments to better understand the problem and find some solutions. A 2008 panel concluded that technological fixes such as age verification and scans are relatively ineffective means of apprehending online predators. In May 2010, a child pornography social networking site with hundreds of members was dismantled by law enforcement. It was deemed "the largest crimes against children case brought anywhere by anyone." (http://en.wikipedia.org)

TROLLING

A common misuse of social networking sites such as facebook is that it is occasionally used to emotionally abuse individuals. Such actions are often referred to as trolling. It is not rare for confrontations in the real world to be translated online. Online bullying (aka "cyber-bullying") is a relatively common occurrence and it can often result in emotional trauma for the victim. Depending on the networking outlet, up to 39% of users admit to being “cyber-bullied”. There are not many limitations as to what individuals can post when online. Inherently individuals are given the power to post offensive remarks or pictures that could potentially cause a great amount of emotional pain for another individual.
THE RELATIVE FREEDOM AFFORDED BY SOCIAL NETWORKING SERVICES HAS CAUSED CONCERN REGARDING THE POTENTIAL OF ITS MISUSE BY INDIVIDUAL PATRONS. IN OCTOBER 2006, A FAKE MYSPACE PROFILE CREATED IN THE NAME OF JOSH EVANS BY LORI JANINE DREW LED TO THE SUICIDE OF MEGAN MEIER. THE EVENT INCITED GLOBAL CONCERN REGARDING THE USE OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SERVICES FOR BULLYING PURPOSES (HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/MEAGAN_MEYER)

INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

Interpersonal communication has been a growing issue as more and more people have turned to social networking as a means of communication. (Benniger, 1987:226) describes how mass media has gradually replaced interpersonal communication as a socializing force. Further, social networking sites have become popular sites for youth culture to explore themselves, relationships, and share cultural artifacts". A privacy paradox many teens and social networking users may be harming their interpersonal communication by using sites such as facebook and myspace. Stated by Baroness Greenfield, an oxford university neuroscientist, "my fear is that these technologies are infantilizing the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment."
ABUSE AND ADDICTION

In a recent interview with the operators of the MTN internet library before its exit from university of Lagos, the number of registered students annually are low compare to their expectation irrespective of the fact that facility is as cheap as #1000 per annum. The reason they attributed to this was because all social networking sites and pornography have been disabled, but since those sites have become the primary addiction of young people at the expense of research they will rather go to other cyber-café where they will pay as much as #200 for just one hour.

THE NIGERIAN YOUTH AND SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES

A recent Facebook demographic data, as of July 3, 2010, indicates that there are about one million, seven hundred and eighteen thousand Nigerians on Facebook (http://www.facebookstatistics.com).
It is among the top three most visited sites by Nigerians and the most popular age demographic globally is 35-49." According to the BBC programme "Superpower", the Nigerian internet population stood at about twenty four million people in 2008, information sourced from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). This data places Nigeria as Africa’s biggest internet market (audience) dwarfing South Africa and Egypt. The internet offers a great platform to reach millions of Nigerians with amazing targeting possibilities including age, gender, interest and behavioral targeting. Despite the erratic power supply and expensive internet access, Nigerian users on facebook .com, increased from 99,720 in 2008 to 569,180 in 2009, before growing to the present number. This growth rate suggests that there exists some form of value or meaning derived by the users, most of them youths.

EMPERICAL REVIEW WITHIN NIGERIA AND OUTSIDE

In a research by Binuyo (2009), 82.6% of the students believe that the social network facebook which has the highest number of users in Nigeria has been a very effective means of communication them. 94.55% of the population also submitted that facebook has increased their frequency of communication with friends both known and unknown. 40.21% specifically acknowledge that they use the medium for keeping up with their existing friends from offline to online. By arithmetic, this would mean that the remaining 54.34% either use facebook to meet with new friends online or do both (meet new friends and keep up with old friends).

In regards to relationship with friends while 55.43% says they prefer to get across to friends via Facebook only 1.08% says they will rather go to visit friends. However, 91% of the same population believe that facebook has increased their relationship with friends. Drawing inference from the statistics provided by the research of Binuyo, it could be seen that most students use social networking sites more for purpose of keeping existing relationship than meeting new friends.

This is in correlation with the findings of (Idakwo, 2011:80) who found that a higher number of people join Facebook to communicate with existing friends. According to him 12% said they joined because they were invited and this is also based on existing relationships because only friends who have the contact details of others can invite them. Although 17% said they joined to make new friends, 23 % also said they joined to find old friends. These results suggest that a large number of young Nigerians join Facebook based on existing relationships and that it is a medium for maintaining those relationships and new ones.

On the foreign scene, Bryant et al (2006:11) researched other social interactive technologies (instant messaging and text messaging) and from their results reached the conclusion that there is little to no overlap between the people participants engaged in face-to-face conversation with and those they engaged through socially interactive technology. Results from the current study on online social networking revealed the opposite: over 80% of participants said that most or all of their close friends were also Facebook friends, with less than 1% indicating that none of their close friends were Facebook friends with them.

These numbers are consistent with the literature that suggested users of Facebook have perceptions of who views their profile (close friends, old high school friends, etc) and from those perceptions alter profiles accordingly (Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield, 2006:449) This would also partially validate Williams & Merten’s (2008:253) content analysis of SNS profiles that presumed that “we have real life contact with the majority of our Facebook friends”.

THEORETICAL REVIEW
SOCIAL NETWORKING THEORY
Social Network Theory by Emile Durkheim and Ferdinand Tonnies views relationships in form of nodes and ties. Nodes are the individual actors within the networks while ties are the relationships between the actors.

Since Social network theory views social relationships in terms of nodes and ties where Nodes are the individual actors within the networks, and ties are the relationships between the actors. There can be many kinds of ties between the nodes. In its most simple form, a social network is a map of all of the relevant ties between the nodes being studied. The network can also be used to determine the social capital of individual actors. These concepts are often displayed in a social network diagram, where nodes are the points and ties are the lines.

J.A Barnes (1954:57), using the concept of nodes and ties, states that the attributes of individuals are less important than their relationships and ties with other actors within the network. This network also summarizes the social capital of the individual actors: the value that an individual gets from the network.

The power of social network theory stems from its difference from traditional sociological studies, which assume that it is the attributes of individual actors -- whether they are friendly or unfriendly, smart or dumb, etc. -- that matter (http://www.socialnetworktheory.com).

Meanwhile, Idakwo (2011:27) says that Social network theory produces an alternate view, where the attributes of individuals are less important than their relationships and ties with other actors within the network. This approach has turned out to be useful for explaining many real-world phenomena, but leaves less room for individual agency, the ability for individuals to influence their success, so much of it rests within the structure of their network.

Social networks have also been used to examine how companies interact with each other, characterizing the many informal connections that link executives together, as well as associations and connections between individual employees at different companies. These networks provide ways for companies to gather information, deter competition, and even collude in setting prices or policies.

USES AND GRATIFICATION THEORY Propounded by Elihu Katz, Jay Bumler and Michael Gurevitch around 1974. The theory is a popular approach to understanding mass communication. The theory places more focus on the consumer, or audience, instead of the actual message itself by asking “what people do with media” rather than “what media does to people” (katz, 1959:24).

IT ASSUMES MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE ARE NOT PASSIVE BUT TAKE AN ACTIVE ROLE IN INTERPRETING AND INTEGRATING MEDIA INTO THEIR OWN LIVES. THE THEORY ALSO HOLDS AUDIENCES RESPONSIBLE FOR CHOOSING MEDIA TO MEET ITS NEEDS. THE APPROACH SUGGESTS THAT PEOPLE USE THE MEDIA TO FULFILL SPECIFIC GRATIFICATIONS. THIS THEORY WOULD THEN IMPLY THAT THE MEDIA COMPETE AGAINST OTHER INFORMATION SOURCES FOR THE VIEWER’S GRATIFICATION. (KATZ, BLUMLER & GUREVITCH, 1974:19).

ANAETO, OLUFEMI AND JAMES (2008: 71) OBSERVED THAT IN THE MASS COMMUNICATION PROCESS, MUCH INITIATIVE IN LINKING NEED GRATIFICATION AND MEDIA CHOICE LIES WITH THE AUDIENCE MEMBER. THIS IS ENCOMPASSING THE IDEA THAT PEOPLE USE THE MEDIA TO THEIR ADVANTAGE MORE OFTEN THAN THE MEDIA USE THEM. THE RECEIVER DETERMINES WHAT IS GOING TO BE ABSORBED AND DOES NOT ALLOW THE MEDIA TO INFLUENCE HIM OTHERWISE.

Blumler and katz’s take a non-prescriptive and non-predictive perspective on media effects. They postulate that individuals mix and match uses with goals, according to specific context, needs, social backgrounds and so on. Thus, they are seen as active participants in the media consumption process.

USES AND GRATIFICATION THEORY ACCORDING TO IDAKWO (2011:27) SUGGESTS THAT MEDIA USERS PLAY AN ACTIVE ROLE IN CHOOSING AND USING THE MEDIA. USERS TAKE AN ACTIVE PART IN THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS AND ARE GOAL ORIENTED IN THEIR MEDIA USE. THE THEORISTS SAY THAT A MEDIA USER SEEKS OUT A MEDIA SOURCE THAT BEST FULFILLS THE NEEDS OF THE USER. USES AND GRATIFICATIONS ASSUME THAT THE USER HAS ALTERNATE CHOICES TO SATISFY THEIR NEED.

A THEORY WHICH PLACES EMPHASIS ON AUDIENCE RECEPTION, WHICH IS A MAJOR FEATURE OF THE NEW MEDIA IS DENIS MCQUAIL 'S USES AND GRATIFICATIONS MODEL (IDAKWO, 2011:27). THIS PLACES EMPHASIS ON THE VARIOUS REASONS FOR WHICH AUDIENCES CONSUME MEDIA.

The first reason outlined in the model is the need to reinforce one’s own behaviour by identifying with roles, values and gender identities presented in the media. Secondly, consumers need to feel some kind of interaction with other people which is offered by text such as a soap opera or a lifestyle magazine. The third reason is the need for security. Media offer a window to the world that allows education and the acquisition of information. The final reason is the need for entertainment through both escapism, and the need for emotional release, such as laughter.
The concept of uses and gratification in social networking has been validated by the various works of Binuyo (2009 ) and Idakwo (2011: ). According to them, the social networking site-Facebook does not have any influence on the people, rather the people only use it for their own relational purposes.

Although the major strength of the Uses and Gratifications theory is the emphasis on the audience as active in the reception of media. However, one major argument against the theory is it suggests no passivity within the audience whatsoever. A person may, for example, be too lazy to turn off their television and as a result consume any media that is available, regardless of need.

In the case of online social networking, although a person deliberately registers his or identity with the social networking site, logs in when he/she decides to, and engages in activities he/she chooses to. However, there issues of junk mails, unsolicited mails, unknown friends and uncontrollable wall postings including pictures, videos and texts that may even be against the individual’s belief and ideology. He is however forced to consume them irrespective of need.

REFERENCES

Aboud, F. E., & Mendelson, M. J. (1996). Determinants of friendship

selection and quality: developmental perspectives. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 87-112). Cambridge: University Press.

Albada, K. F., Knapp, M. L., & Theune, K. E. (2002). Interaction

appearance theory: Changing perceptions of physical attractiveness through social interaction. Communication Theory, 12, 8-40.

Amobi I.T (2010). New Generation, New media and Digital Divide: ownership, Access and Usage of Social Media among Young People in Nigeria. Journal of the department of Mass Communication, University of Lagos 4(2),(pp.23-45)
Antheunis, M. L., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Computer

mediated communication and interpersonal attraction: An experimental test of two explanatory hypotheses. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 831-836.

Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the "true self" on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 33-48.

Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y. B., & Lin, M. (2004). Social interactions across media: Interpersonal communication on the Internet, telephone and face-to-face. New Media & Society, 6(3), 299-318.

Berndt, T. J., Hawkins, J. A., & Hoyle, S. G. (1986). Changes in

friendship during a school year: Effects of children 's and adolescents ' impressions of friendship and sharing with friends. Child Development, 57, 1284-1297.

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1969). Interpersonal Attraction. Reading,

Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Binuyo, K. (2009). The use of Facebook for communication among University of Lagos students (An Unpublished Project). An B.Sc project submitted to the department of Mass Communication, University of Lagos.

Boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11
Brehm, S. (1992). Intimate relationships. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bryant, J. A., Sanders-Jackson, A., & Smallwood, A. M. K. (2006). IMing, text messaging, and adolescent social networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), article 10.
Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Ramirez, A., Dunbar, N. E., Kam, K., &

Fischer, J. (2002). Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication, 52, 657-677.

Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457-475.

Cooper, A., & Sportolari, L. (1997). Romance in cyberspace:

Understanding online attraction. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 22, 7-14.

Cummings, J.N., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (2002) The quality of online

social relationships. Communication of the ACM, 45(7), 103-108.

Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization

phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-computer Interaction, 6, 119-146.

Duck, S. W. (1983). Friends for life. Brighton, UK: Harvester.

Durkheim, E. (1982). Rules of sociological methods. (S. Lukes, Ed.)

New york: Free Press.

Elihu Katz, Jay G Blumler, M Gurevitch. (1974). Utilization of Mass

Communication by the individual. Beverly Hills & London: Sage.

Facebook statistics. (2010, July 20). Facebook Statistics Pressroom.

Retrieved August 5, 2010, from www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in

informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. New York: Harper.

Hallinan, M. T., & Kubitschek, W. N. (1988). The effects of individual

and structural characteristics on intransivity in social networks. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 81-92.

Hays, R. B. (1985). A longitudinal study of friendship development.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 909-924.

Idakwo, L. (2011). The use of Social media among the Nigerian Youth (An Unpublished Project). An M.Sc project submitted to the School of Media and Communication, Pan African University, Lagos.

Kandel, D. B. (1978). Homophily, selection, and socialization in

adolescent friendship. The American Journal of Sociology, 84, 427-436.

Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as social process:

A substantive and methodological analysis. In M. Berger, T. Abel & C. H. Page (Eds.), Freedom and control in modern society. Toronto, Canada: Nostrand.

Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in

Computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321-341.

Livingstone, S. (2007). The challenge of engaging youth online:

contrasting producers ' and teenagers ' interpretations of websites. European Journal of Communication , 22 (2), 165-184.

Manning, P., & Ray, G. (1993). Shyness, self-confidence, and social

interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56(3), 178-193.

Mesch, G., & Talmud, I. (2006). The quality of online and offline relationships: the role of multiplexity and duration of social relationships. The Information Society, 22.
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Daly, J. A. (1975). The

development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 323-332.

McKenna, K. Y., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. (2002). Relationship formation on the internet: What 's the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9-31.

McLuhan, M., & Powers, B. R. (1989). The global village:

Transformations in worldlife and media in the 21st century. New York: Oxford University Press.

Newcomb, T. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.

Nicole B Ellison, C. Lampe and N. Steinfield. (2007). The benefit of

facebook friends; Exploring the relationship between college students ' use of online social networks and social capital. Journal of Computer-mediated comunication , 12 (3), 449-452.

Priest, R. F., & Sawyer, J. (1967). Proximity and peership: Bases of

balance in interpersonal attraction. The American Journal of Sociology, 72, 633-649.

Ramirez, A., & Zhang, S. (2007). When online meets offline: The effect of modality switching on relational communication. Communication Monographs, 74, 287-310.

Reagans, R. (2005). Preferences, identity, and competition: Predicting tie strength from demographic data. Management Science, 51, 1374-1383.

Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process.

In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367-390). New York: Wiley.

Schutte, J. G., & Light, J. M. (1978). The relative importance of

proximity and status for friendship choices in social hierarchies. Social Psychology, 41, 260-264.

Solomon G.A, James B.O & Onabanjo, O. (2008) Models and theories of communication, Lagos: ARBI books.
Stritzke, W. G., Nguyen, A., & Durkin, K. (2004). Shyness and

Computer-mediated communication: A self-presentational theory perspective. Media Psychology, 6, 1-22.

Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated

communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317-348.

Tong, S. T., Van Der Heide, B., Langwell, L., & Walther, J. B. (2008). Too Much of a Good Thing? The Relationship Between Number of Friends and Interpersonal Impressions on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(2), 531-549.
Vittengl, J. R., & Holt, G. S. (2000). Getting acquainted: the

relationship of self-disclosure and social attraction to positive affect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 53-66.

Volkmer, I. (1999) News in the Global Sphere. A Study of CNN and its impact on Global Communication, Luton: University of Luton Press.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication:

impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.

Walther, J. B., and Boyd, S. (2002). Attraction to Computer-mediated social support. In Communication technology and society: Audience adoption and uses, ed. C. A. Lin and D. Atkin, 153–188. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1997). Net surfers don 't ride alone: Virtual

communities as communities. In P. Kollock & M. Smith (Eds.), Communities and cyberspace. New York: Routledge.

Williams, A.L., & Merten, M.J. (2008). A review of online social networking profiles by adolescents: Implications for future research and intervention. Adolescence, 43(170), 253-275.
Williams, R. (1974) 'Television: Technology and Cultural Form, London, Routledge.
Wikipedia. (2010). Social networking. Retrieved May 27, 2011, from http://www.wikipedia.org
Slideshare. (2010). Use of social media. Retrieved May 27, 2011, from http://www.slideshare.com
Zywica, J. & Danowski, J. (2008) The faces of Facebookers: investigating social enhancement and social compensation hypotheses; predicting Facebook and offline popularity from sociability and self-esteem, and mapping the meanings of popularity with semantic networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1), 1-34.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

This chapter examined the research method that was employed to gather data for this research. A research method is essentially a method of inquiry that is scientifically adopted to generate reliable and valid facts (data), which would be analyzed and interpreted and from which reliable conclusions could be reached (Aborishade, 1997) RESEARCH METHOD

This is a quantitative research which used smaller samples of subjects or respondents. This form of research is concerned with how often a variable is present and generally uses numbers to communicate this amount. The questioning is static or standard-all respondents are asked the same questions (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006).

The method of research adopted for the study was the survey method. The reason for the use is premised on the fact that the population of study cannot be all studied within the time frame available for the research. Moreover, survey is suitable for collecting original data and in determining the inter-relationship among variables as well as focusing on vital facts.

According to Shoemaker and Mccombs (1989), surveys have proven to be an effective way to assess people’s vote intentions, to explain their votes, to predict use of products, and to assess changes in opinions. Survey research is an efficient means of gathering data from large numbers of people (Rubin & Rubin, 2005)

Data are collected from the population for intensive study and analysis.

POPULATION OF STUDY

The population of study was the entire full time students of the Akoka campus of the University of Lagos. It included the male and female at all level of studies. While some of them are resident on the campus some that are staying outside of the campus due to lack of insufficient hostels to serve the student populace of the campus.

SAMPLING METHOD

The simple random probability sampling was used in the course of the research. Probability sampling allows us to generalize from the sample being observed to the entire population from which that sample is chosen (Rubin & Rubin, 2005).

According to Wimmer and Dominick (2006), the most basic type of probability sampling is the simple random sample, where each subject or unit of the population has an equal chance of being selected. The advantage includes a representative group is easily obtainable, the possibility of classification error is eliminated and detailed knowledge of the population is not required.

SAMPLE SIZE

The sample size was two hundred respondents. The sample size was deemed satisfactory as a representation of the population of study.

Henn, Weinstein and Foard (2006) noted that it would be wrong to assume that increases in accuracy will follow proportionately with increases in sample size, or that sample size should be in proportion to the size of the population. Similarly, there is no optimum sample size- often it will be driven as much as by the level of research and resources available to the researcher.

SAMPLING PROCEDURE

The population of study was the University of Lagos main campus. Wimmer and Dominick (2006) noted that an entire population cannot be examined due to time and resource constraints. Studying every member of a population is also generally cost-prohibitive and may, in fact, confound the research because measurements of large numbers of people often affect measure quality.

This is why the university is broken down according to faculties. There are eight faculties on the main campus which includes:

1. Faculty of Arts 2. Faculty of Business Administration 3. Faculty of Education 4. Faculty of Engineering 5. Faculty of Environmental Sciences 6. Faculty of Law 7. Faculty of Sciences 8. Faculty of Social sciences

Each faculty has varying number of departments. Faculty of Arts has 6 departments; Business Administration has 5 departments; Education has 6 departments; Engineering has 7 departments; Environmental sciences has 4 departments; Law is one; Sciences has 9 departments; Social sciences has 5 departments. In all there are 43 departments.

All faculties were selected to give every one of them a fair chance of being represented. 8 departments were needed so as to distribute 25 questionnaires to each of them, i.e. one department for each faculty.

The departments in each faculty were listed under their faculty and papers were rolled to determine which of them would represent the faculty. To select the level of study that will participate in the selected department, the same simple random sampling was used depending on the number of years for each course and outcome was this:

|FACULTY |DEPARTMENT |LEVEL |
|Science |Botany |400 |
|Arts |English |300 |
|Environmental Science |Building |300 |
|Education |Education Administration |200 |
|Social sciences |Economics |100 |
|LAW |LAW |500 |
|Business Administration |Industrial relations and personnel management |200 |
|Engineering |Chemical engineering |300 |

DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT

Questionnaires were used to gather data for the research work. Reinard (2001) observed that questionnaires are survey forms in which individuals respond to written items; it asks people to report their understanding of things, often including their own behaviour. Shoemaker and Mccombs (1989) said that self-administered questionnaires avoid biases due to interviewers, ensure standardized presentation of questions, give respondents more privacy and may increase the validity of responses that require the respondent to check information or to think about his or her answer.

The questions in the distributed questionnaires were structured to answer all the research questions that the study intended to answer. The structure of the questions and the numbering of options also assisted in the encoding, decoding and data analysis for inferences and conclusions.

The questions were simple and comprehensible. All questions were close ended to facilitate the analysis and make for greater uniformity of responses. Provision was made for respondents to fill in omitted options through the inclusion of ‘others’.

REFERENCES

Aborisade, F. (1997). Research Methodology: A student 's handbook. Ibadan:

Multifir Limited.

Henn M, Weinstein M., & Foard N., (2006). A short introduction to Social Research.

London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Reinard C. (2001). Introduction to communication Research. London: McGraw Hill

Rubin R., & Rubin A, (2005). Communication Research: Strategies and Sources.

Belmont, C.A: Wadsworth

Shoemaker P., & McCombs M., (1989). Survey Research. In Stempel III H., Westley

B.(Ed.), Research methods in mass communication. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Wimmer D., & Dominick R. (2006). Mass media Research: An introduction.

Thompson:Wadsworth.

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATION

This study examined the influence of social networking sites on interpersonal relationship of University of Lagos students by examining their internet access, access to social networking sites, preferred social networking site and determine if the relationship they establish online have any influence on their real life relationship with friends. Percentages and tables were predominantly used to analyse the data collected from the population of study. Out of the 200 questionnaires distributed, only 198 were retrieved. Hence, the data analysed here only covered the returned questionnaires.

DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES (Table one and two)

Table one: Distribution of students by Faculty, Department, Level and Sex

|FACULTY |DEPARTMENT |LEVEL |MALE |FEMALE |
| | | |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |
|Science |Botany |400 |11 |5.5% |14 |7.1% |
|Arts |English |300 |6 |3.0% |19 |9.5% |
|Env.Sci. |Building |300 |14 |7.1% |9 |4.5% |
|Education |Edu. Admn. |200 |10 |5.1% |15 |7.5% |
|Social sci |Economics |100 |6 |3.0% |19 |9.2% |
|LAW |LAW |500 |9 |4.5% |16 |8.1% |
|Buss. Admn. |IRPM |200 |8 |4.0% |17 |8.5% |
| | | | | | | |
|Engineering |Chem. Eng. |300 |18 |9.1% | | |
| | | | | |7 |3.5% |
|TOTAL | | |82 |41.4% |116 |58.6% |

Table two: Distribution of respondents by Age and sex

|Age category |MALE |FEMALE |TOTAL |
| |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |
|18-25 |80 |40.4% |113 |56.5% |193 |96.5% |
|26-33 |2 |1.0% |3 |1.5% |5 |2.5% |
|34-41 |0 |0% |0 |0% |0 |0% |
|TOTAL |82 |41.4% |116 |58.6% |198 |100% |

Table two showed that 96.5% of the respondents were between the range of 18 to 25 years of age; 40.4% of them are male while 56.5% are females, 2.5% were between 26 to 33 years of age; 1.0% are male while 1.5% are females and no respondent was between 34 to 41 years of age.

RQ 1: What access do students have to the internet and social networking Sites

Table Three: Distribution of respondents by access to the internet and social networking sites

|SEX |YES |NO |TOTAL |
| |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |Frequency |Frequency |
|MALE |82 |41.4% |0 |0% |82 |41.4% |
|FEMALE |116 |58.6% |0 |0% |116 |58.6% |
|TOTAL |198 |100% |0 |0% |198 |100% |

Table three: showed that 198 students which make 100% of the entire respondents have access to the internet, of these students, 82 students making 41.1% are male while 116 which make a total of 58.6% are female.

Table Four: Distribution of students by Means of access to the internet

|Sources of Access |MALE |FEMALE |TOTAL |
| |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |
|Internet modem |23 |11.6% |30 |15.2% |53 |26.8% |
|Cybercafé |21 |10.6% |35 |17.7% |56 |28.3% |
|Wireless connection |20 |10.1% |20 |10.1% |40 |20.2% |
|Smartphones |18 |9.1% |31 |15.7% |49 |24.7% |
|TOTAL |82 |41.4% |116 |58.6% |198 |100% |

The data collected showed that 26.8% have access to the internet through internet modem, 28.3% have access to the internet through cybercafé, 20.2% have access to the internet though wireless connection while 24.7% have access to the internet through smartphones. Out of the 26.8% that have access through internet, 11.6% are male while 15.2% are females. Of the 28.3% that have access to the internet through cybercafé, 10.6% are male while 17.7% are females. Out of the 20.2% that have access to the internet through wireless connection, 10.1% are males while 10.1% are females while the remaining 24.7% that have access to the internet via smartphone, 9.1% are male while 15.1% are females.

Table Five: Distribution of respondents by registration on social networking sites

|SEX |YES |NO |TOTAL |
| |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |
|MALE |82 |41.4% |0 |0% |82 |41.4% |
|FEMALE |116 |58.6% |0 |0% |116 |58.6% |
|TOTAL |198 |100% |0 |0% |198 |100% |

Table Five showed that 198 students which make 100% of the entire respondents are registered on social networking sites, of these students, 82 students making 41.1% are male while 116 which make a total of 58.6% are female.

RQ 2: What social networking site is most preferred among students?

Table Six: Distribution of social networking sites and their registered users

|SNS |MALE |FEMALE |TOTAL |
| |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |
|Facebook |64 |32.3% |96 |48.4% |160 |80.8% |
|Twitter |16 |8.1% |34 |17.2% |50 |25.3% |
|LinkedIn |0 |0.0% |0 |0.0% |0 |0.0% |
|Bebo |12 |6.1% |9 |4.5% |21 |10.6% |
|My space |16 |8.1% |14 |7.1% |32 |16.2% |
|You tube |0 |0.0% |0 |0.0% |0 |0.0% |
|Hi 5 |6 |3.0% | | |7 |3.5% |
| | | |1 |0.5% | | |
|Flickr |0 |0.0% |0 |0.0% |0 |0.0% |
|Lagbook |2 |1.0 |6 |3.0% |8 |4.0% |
|Facebook, Twitter |20 |10.1% |30 |15.2% |50 |25.3% |
|Facebook/twitter,/Myspace |9 |4.5% |9 |4.5% |18 |9.1% |
|Facebook , Bebo |3 |1.5% |2 |1.0% |5 |2.5% |
|Facebook, Lagbook |2 |1.0% |3 |1.5% |5 |2.5% |

Table six showed the various social networking sites that students are registered with, while some are registered only one social networking site, some are however registered with more than one social networking sites. According to the table, 80.8% are registered with facebook only, 25.3% are registered with twitter only, bebo has 10.6% of the respondents, 16.2% are with My space, 3.5% are for Hi 5 while lagbook has 4.0. those who are both on facebook and twitter accounts for 25.3%, those on facebook, twitter and Myspace are 9.1%, facebook with Bebo has 2.5% , facebook and Lagbook has 2.5%

Table seven: Distribution of respondents by Preference of social networking sites (SNS)

|SNS |MALE |FEMALE |TOTAL |
| |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |
|Twitter |8.1% |16 |30 |15.2 |46 |23.2% |
|LinkedIn |0% |0 |0 |0% |0 |0% |
|Bebo |0% |0 |0 |0% |0 |0% |
|Myspace |0% |0 |0 |0% |0 |0% |
|You tube |0% |0 |0 |0% |0 |0% |
|Hi5 |0% |0 |0 |0% |0 |0% |
|Flickr |0% |0 |0 |0% |0 |0% |
|Facebook |33.3% |66 | | |152 |76.8% |
|Lagbook |0% |0 | | |0 |23.2% |
| | | |86 |43.4% | | |
| | | |0 |0% | | |
|TOTAL |41.4% |82 |116 |58.6% |198 |0% |

Table seven showed that 2 social networking sites are most preferred among students, twitter has a preference of 23.2% comprising of 8.1% male and 15.2% females. Facebook has a preference of 76.8% comprising 33.3 male and 43.4% females.

RQ 3: What do students use social networking sites for?

Table eight: Distribution of respondents based on reasons for registration on SNS

|REASONS FOR REGISTRATION OF SNS |MALE |FEMALE |TOTAL |
| |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |
|To communicate with existing friends |30 |15.2% |62 |31.3% |92 |46.5% |
|To find old friends |16 |8.1% |30 |15.2% |46 |23.2% |
|To make new friends |12 |6.1% |9 |4.5% |21 |10.6% |
|To find someone I can share a |18 |9.1% |14 |7.1% |32 | |
|relationship with |6 |3.0% |1 |0.5% |7 | |
|To run a business/promote a cause | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |16.2% |
| | | | | | |3.5% |
|TOTAL |82 |41.4% |116 |58.6% |198 |100% |

Table eight revealed that 46.5% of the students joined social networking sites to communicate with existing friends, this comprise 31.3% females and 15.2% male. 23.2% joined to find old friends, out of this 23.2%, 8.1% are male while 15.2% are females. 10.6% joined to make new friends out of which 6.1% are male and 4.5% are females. 16.2% joined to find someone they can share relationship with-9.1% of people in this category are male while 7.1% are females. 3.5% joined to run a business or promote a cause, out of the 3.5%, 3.0% are male while 0.5% are females.

Table Nine: Distribution of respondents based on activities on SNS

|ACTIVITIES ON SNS |MALE |FEMALE |TOTAL |
| |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |
|Posting messages and chatting|40 |20.2% |60 |30.3% |100 |50.5% |
|Updating profiles and status |16 |8.1% |30 |15.2% |46 |23.2% |
|Posting and viewing photos |8 |4.0% |11 |5.6% |19 |9.6% |
|Looking for friends |18 |9.1% |15 |7.6% |33 |16.7% |
|TOTAL |82 |41.4% |116 |58.6% |198 |100% |

According to table nine, 50.5% of the students use social networking sites for posting messages and chatting, out of this 50.5%, 30.3% are females, 20.2% are males. 23.2% use SNS for updating profiles and status, out of which 8.1% are male and 15.2% are females. 9.6% use SNS for posting and viewing photos-4.0% male, 5.6% female while 16.7% use SNS in looking for friends 9.1% of which are male and 7.6% female.

RQ 3: What is the relationship between online and offline friendships?

Table10: Distribution of respondents based on total number of friends

|Number of friends |MALE |FEMALE |TOTAL |
| |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |
|1-200 |28 |14.1% |50 |25.3% |78 |39.4% |
|200-500 |32 |16.2 % |32 |16.2% |64 |32.3% |
|500-1000 |16 |8.1% |24 |12.1% |40 |20.2% |
|1000 &above |6 |3.0% |10 |5.1% |16 |8.1% |
|TOTAL |82 |41.4% |116 |58.6% |198 |100% |

`

Table 10 revealed that 39.4% of the students have between 1-200 friends, of this, 14.1% are male while 25.3% are females, 32.3% have between 200-500 friends, 16.2% are male while the other 16.2% are females; 20.2% have between 500-1000 friends, this is made up of 8.1% males and 12.1% females; 8.1% have 1000 friends and above, 3.0% of these people are males while 5.1% are females.

Table11: Distribution of respondents based on number of new friends

|Number of new friends|MALE |FEMALE |TOTAL |
| |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |
|1-200 |60 |30.3% |68 |34.3% |128 |64.6% |
|200-500 |12 |6.1% |26 |13.1% |38 |19.2% |
|500-1000 |6 |3.0% |16 |8.1% |22 |11.1% |
|None |4 |2.0% |6 |3.0% |10 |5.1% |
|TOTAL |82 |41.4% |116 |58.6% |198 |100% |

Table 11 showed that 64.6% of the students have between 1-200 friends, of this, 30.3% are male while 34.3% are females, 19.2% have between 200-500 friends, 6.1% are male while the other 13.1% are females; 11.1% have between 500-1000 friends, this is made up of 3.0% males and 8.1% females; 5.1% have no friends, 2.0% of these are males while 3.0% are females.

Table12: Distribution of respondents based on number of re-united friends

|Number of re-united |MALE |FEMALE |TOTAL |
|friends | | | |
| |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |
|1-200 |54 |27.3% |86 |43.4% |140 |70.7% |
|200-500 |18 |9.1% |26 |13.1% |44 |22.2% |
|500-1000 |6 |3.0% |4 |2.0% |10 |5.1% |
|1000&above |4 |2.0% |0 |0.0% |4 |2.0% |
|TOTAL |82 |41.4% |116 |58.6% |198 |100% |

Table 12 revealed that 70.7% of the students have between 1-200 friends, of this, 27.3% are male while 43.4% are females, 22.2% have between 200-500 friends, 9.1% are male while 13.1% are females; 5.1% have between 500-1000 friends, this is made up of 3.0% males and 2.0% females; 2.0% have 1000 friends and above, 2.0% of these people are males while 0.0% are females.

Table13: Distribution of respondents based on real life friends who are also friends on SNS

|Number of friends |MALE |FEMALE |TOTAL |
| |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |
|1-200 |52 |26.3% |76 |38.4% |128 |64.7% |
|200-500 |22 |11.1% |24 |12.1% |46 |23.2% |
|500-1000 |7 |3.5% |11 |5.6% | | |
|None |1 |0.5% |5 |2.5% | | |
| | | | | |18 |9.1% |
| | | | | |6 |3.0% |
|TOTAL |82 |41.4% |116 |58.6% |198 |100% |

Table 13 revealed that 64.7% of the students have between 1-200 friends, of this, 26.3% are male while 38.4% are females, 23.2% have between 200-500 friends, 11.1% are male while the other 12.1% are females; 9.1% have between 500-1000 friends, this is made up of 3.5% males and 5.6% females; 3.0% have no friends, 0.5% of these people are males while 2.5% are females.

RQ 5: What influence do social networking sites have on interpersonal relationship of students?

Table 14: Distribution of respondents based on benefits of social networking sites

|BENEFITS OF PREFERED SNS |MALE |FEMALE |TOTAL |
| |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |
|I am able to connect easily with |30 |15.2% |62 |31.3% |92 |46.5% |
|existing friends |16 |8.1% |30 |15.2% |46 |23.2% |
|I express myself better |12 |6.1% |9 |4.5% |21 |10.6% |
|I have found a life partner |18 |9.1% |14 |7.1% |32 |16.2% |
|through SNS |6 |3.0% |1 |0.5% |7 |3.5% |
|I have more friends | | | | | | |
|I find it a great way to enjoy | | | | | | |
|leisure whenever I am alone. | | | | | | |
|TOTAL |82 |41.4% |116 |58.6% |198 |100% |

According to table 14, 46.5% said they were able to connect easily with existing friends, of this percentage, 15.2% are males while 31.3% are females; for 23.2% it helped them to express themselves better, of this 8.1% are male while 15.2% are females; 10.6% have found a life partner through social networking sites, 6.1% are male while 4.5% are females. 16.2% have more friends out of which 9.1% are male and 7.1% are female. 3.5% find it a great way to enjoy leisure whenever they are alone, of this, 3.0% are male while 0.5% are females.

Table15: Distribution of respondents based on how friendlier they become through SNS

|RESPONSES |MALE |FEMALE |TOTAL |
| |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |
|YES |68 |34.3% |98 |49.5% |166 |83.8% |
|NO |14 |7.1% |18 |9.1% |32 |16.2% |
|TOTAL |82 |41.4% |116 |58.6% |198 |100% |

From table 15, 83.8% said social networking sites have helped them to be friendlier; 34.3% of them are male while 49.5% of them are females. On the other hand 16.2% have never met someone in real life who they have come to know through SNS; 7.1% of these students are male while 9.1% are females.

Table 16: Distribution of respondents based on negative influence of SNS

|RESPONSES |MALE |FEMALE |TOTAL |
| |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |
|YES |20 |10.1% |16 |8.1% |36 |18.2% |
|NO |62 |31.3% |100 |50.5% |162 |81.8% |
|TOTAL |82 |41.4% |116 |58.6% |198 |100% |

According to table 16, 18.2% feel that social networking sites have created negative influence on their lives; 10.1% of them are male while 18.1% of them are females. On the other hand 81.8% feel that SNS has not created any negative impact on their lives; 31.3% of whom were male while 50.5% were females.

Table 17: Distribution of Negative influence of social networking sites on respondents

|Negative influence of SNS|MALE |FEMALE |TOTAL |
| |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |Frequency |% |
|Loss of privacy |8 |4.0% |2 |1.0% |10 |5.1% |
|More reliance on electronic|7 |3.5% |14 |7.1% |21 |10.6% |
|media |0 |0.0% |0 |0.0% |0 |0.0% |
|Less emotional bonding in |0 |0.0% |0 |0.0% |0 |0.0% |
|relations |5 |2.5% |0 |0.0% |5 |2.5% |
|Emotional disturbance | | | | | | |
|Loss of time | | | | | | |
|TOTAL |20 |10.1% |16 |8.1% |36 |18.2% |

From table 16, only 36 students said social networking sites have negative influence on them, this make up the 18.2% of the entire respondents. For 5.1% of the students the impact of SNS on them is loss of privacy, this is made up of 4.0% male and 1.0%. 10.6% rely more on electronic media, 3.5% of them are male while 7.1% of them are female. Nobody has developed less emotional bonding through the use of social networking sites or have emotional disturbance (0%). Meanwhile 2.5% had loss of time, all of which are male.

INTERPRETATION OF DATA

The aim of this study is to examine the influence that social networking sites have on the interpersonal relationship of students by examining the relationship between the virtual friendship created online and the daily face-to –face friendship of students. The findings from the study are interpreted below based on the research questions earlier asked in chapter 1.

Research question 1: What access do students have to the internet and social networking sites?

This research showed that 198 students which make 100% of the entire respondents have access to the internet and one social networking site or the other, of these students, 82 students making 41.1% are male while 116 which make a total of 58.6% are female.

This research also revealed that 26.8% of the students have access to the internet through internet modem, 28.3% have access to the internet through cybercafé, 20.2% have access to the internet though wireless connection while 24.7% have access to the internet through smartphones.

Research question 2: What social networking site is more preferred among students?

Considering the various social networking sites that students are registered with, while some are registered only one social networking site, some are however registered with more than one social networking sites. According to this research, 80.8% are registered with facebook only, 25.3% are registered with twitter only, bebo has 10.6% of the respondents, 16.2% are with My space, 3.5% are for Hi5 while lagbook has 4.0%. Those who are both on facebook and twitter accounts for 25.3%, those on facebook, twitter and Myspace are 9.1%, facebook with Bebo has 2.5% , facebook and Lagbook has 2.5%

However, this research showed that only 2 social networking sites are most preferred among students, these are; twitter which has a preference of 23.2% comprising of 8.1% male and 15.2% females and Facebook which has a preference of 76.8% comprising 33.3 male and 43.4% females. This revealed that facebook is the most preferred social networking site among students and followed closely by twitter. It also revealed a massive ratio between males and females using twitter by revealing the fact that more females use twitter than male.

Research question 3: What do students use social networking sites for?

To determine what students use social networking sites for, questions were asked on why they register with social networking sites and what they spent most time doing. The result showed that 46.5% of the students joined social networking sites to communicate with existing friends. 23.2% joined to find old friends, 10.6% joined to make new friends, 16.2% joined to find someone they can share relationship with while 3.5% joined to run a business or promote a cause. The result also showed that 50.5% of the students use social networking sites for posting messages and chatting. 23.2% use SNS for updating profiles and status, 9.6% use SNS for posting and viewing photos while 16.7% use SNS in looking for friends.

From this result, while 69.7% joined social networking sites primarily to keep up with friends, 50.5% use it to posting and chatting with friends.

Research question 4: What is the relationship between online and offline friendships?

39.4% of the students have between 1-200 friends, of this, 32.3% have between 200-500 friends, 20.2% have between 500-1000 friends, 8.1% have 1000 friends and above.

64.6% of the students have between 1-200 new friends, 19.2% have between 200-500 new friends, 11.1% have between 500-1000 new friends while 5.1% have no new friends.

64.7% of the students have between 1-200 real life friends as online friends, 23.2% have between 200-500 real life friends as online friends, real life friends as online friends 9.1% have between 500-1000 real life friends as online friends, 3.0% have no real life friends as online friends

First, this contradicts Golder et al 2006 cited in manuel et al 2010 that an average SNS user has an average of 180 friends. From this research, 60.6% of the respondents have over 200 friends, this is due to the rate at which registration on social networking sites are increasing in recent time.

However, with 5.1% saying they have no new friend but that their online friends are strictly their existing friends and just 3.0% saying otherwise, this research agrees with the earlier work of Bryant et al (2006:11) which says that over 80% of participants said that most or all of their close friends were also Facebook friends, with less than 1% indicating that none of their close friends were Facebook friends with them. It also agrees with Williams & Merten’s (2008:253) content analysis of SNS profiles that presumed that “we have real life contact with the majority of our Facebook friends”.

Research question 5: What influence does social networking sites have on interpersonal relationship of students?
83.8% said that social networking sites have helped them to be friendlier while 16.2% said it has not. While 81.8% feel that SNS has not had any negative influence on their lives, only 18.2% feel that social networking sites have created negative inlfuence on their lives,

However, out of this 18.2% which accounts for just 36 out of 198 respondents, 5.1% of the students attributed the influence to be loss of privacy, 10.6% said they rely more on electronic media, nobody has developed less emotional bonding through the use of social networking sites or have emotional disturbance (0%). Meanwhile 2.5% said they had loss of time.

As outlined by scholars, that friendship is the backbone of social networking sites and that social networking sites provide a good platform for the three basic determinants of friendship:

(a) proximity (e.g., Hays, 1985:909; Priest & Sawyer, 1967:633), (b) similarity (e.g., Duck, 1975:52; Kandel, 1978:427; Reagans, 2005:51; Wellman & Gulia, 1997:48), and (c) social attraction (e.g., Berndt, Hawkins, & Hoyle, 1986:57; Reagans, 2005:51). The positive influence shown by this research is that students become friendlier with the use of social networking sites.

On the other hand, social networking sites also have negative influence on a few number of people, this people account for less than one –fourth of the sample. The negative influences include; more reliance on electronic media, loss of privacy and loss of time with more reliance on electronic media taking the lead. This also agrees with Cummings, Butler, & Kraut,( 2002:103) and Stritzke et al,( 2004:22) who attributes more friendship online to be the outcome shyness of some individual and as a means of better expression since it has no audio or visual.

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY

It has been noted that an average person on the social networking sites have 180 friends which is far more than the number of friends that they would say they have in real life, it is against this backdrop that this research examined the influence of social networking sites on interpersonal relationship of students. The research built on the social networking theory and uses and gratification theory and employed the survey method using questionnaire. 200 questionnaires were distributed to the students of University of Lagos main campus, Akoka across different eight faculties.

FINDINGS

1. From the research it has been discovered that all students have access to the internet either through modem, cybercafé, wireless network or their phones.

2. It was discovered that all the students are registered on one social network or the other but the most preferred social network site is Facebook which is followed closely by twitter.

3. The research also found that most students use social networking sites for keeping up with friends and not creating new friends.

4. Majority of the students feel that SNS has not had any negative influence on their lives but rather help them to be friendlier since most of their online friends are their face-to-face friends.

5. The major influence of SNS on the interpersonal relationship of students is more reliance on electronic media rather than face-to-face interaction.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, this research negates the earlier research of Golder et al (2006) cited in Manuel et al 2010) stating that an average user of social networking site has 180 friends. This study has shown that an average user of social networking site has an average of 200 friends and above, this shift may be due to the continuous increase in the number of people that registered with social networking sites between 2006 and 2011.

However, since 50.5% of the students said they use social networking sites for posting messages and chatting with friends, this study validates the research of Vitak (2008) who maintained that “Social networking sites is a tool for person to keep in touch with his distant friends by following their updates, sending a message or posting comments” he went further to say that users of SNS have a quick and easy way to stay connected thus keeping their relationship healthy when they are too busy to commit more time to face-to-face interaction,

Finally, it is clear from this study that social networking sites have both positive and negative influence on students. The major positive influence it has is the ability to bridge proximity gap and increase more conversation among friends at little or no cost. On the other hand, it has not allowed shy individuals to develop the confidence of face-to-face interaction; instead it has enhanced more reliance on electronic media. Other negative influence includes loss of privacy and loss of time.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This study was able to expose various insights into the uses of social networking sites by Nigerian youths and, also, other issues that may arise. Therefore, the following recommendations have been made for obtaining maximum benefits from this form of media:

For social networking sites users:

1. There is a need for Facebook users to ensure they understand why they are joining the social media site in the first place so that they would not be overcome by any negative impacts but rather they can use these sites for maximum benefit.

2. Young Nigerian users need to also make efficient use of such social media sites for other benefits such as education or business and also to create applications so that they can participate as full producers rather than consumers who only create content from a limited point of view.

3. Young Nigerian users should also make good use of converged media so that they are not limited to one or few sources of information when there are numerous sources.

4. Young Nigerians should also ensure they maintain their existing offline relationships while creating value even though these forms of electronic media are available.

5. Young Nigerians on Facebook should also use these media to promote their talents, interests and causes since they are available at little or no cost.

For social networking sites owners

1. The Facebook owners especially need to see Facebook as a service and not just a business and ensure they bring value to all their users

2. Another future tool social networking websites could use would be a licensing agreement with certain parties to prevent copyright infringement from happening on the Internet.

Adults and older citizens
It is important to bridge the digital divide between the young and old to allow the best use of these media. Social media has become mainstream media and is likely to be used in many areas. Parents and guardians need to understand the use of these forms of media and, if possible, attempt to use them, and try to be involved. This is because the use of social media by youths is worrisome to some parents who are not sure of the reasons the youths use these media. Various ways of achieving this can be through the use of social media in delivering news, education, in small business managements and others.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
1. Researchers should conduct surveys that will trigger the students to talk about such personal issue like social identity.
2. Other researchers can explore the role of social media in the concluded 2011 elections in Nigeria as a measure of the role it plays in politics.
3. Researchers can also conduct a study which will compare the way social media is used in various parts of the country and how this might relate to various cultures.
4. With the growing interest in social media, other researchers can also study the impact of social media in marketing and advertising especially in third world countries like Nigeria.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Aborisade, F. (1997). Research Methodology: A student 's handbook. Ibadan:

Multifirm Limited.

Aboud, F. E., & Mendelson, M. J. (1996). Determinants of friendship selection and

quality: developmental perspectives. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The Company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence. Cambridge: University Press.

Akinfeleye, R.A. (ed.)(2007). Essentials of journalism: an introductory text

for beginners. Lagos: Unimedia Publishers.

Berndt, T. J., Hawkins, J. A., & Hoyle, S. G. (1986). Child Development: New York:

Free Press.

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1969). Interpersonal Attraction. Denver, U.S : Addison

Wesley.

Brehm, S. (1992). Intimate relationships. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Croteau and Hoynes (2003) Media Society: Industries, Images and Audiences

(3rd ed.)Pine Forge Press: Thousand Oakes.
Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). Human-computer Interaction.

Massachussets: Charles Rivers Media Inc.

Duck, S. W. (1983). Friends for life. Brighton, UK: Harvester.

Durkheim, E. (1982). Rules of sociological methods. New york: Free Press.

Elihu Katz, Jay G Blumler, M Gurevitch. (1974). Utilization of Mass

Communication by the individual. Beverly Hills & London: Sage.

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in

informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. New York: Harper.

Flew, T. (2002). New Media: An Introduction. UK: Oxford University Press
Holmes (2005). "Telecommunity" in Communication Theory: Media,Technology and Society. Cambridge: Polity press.
Henn, M., Weinstein M., Foard N., (2006). A short introduction to Social Research.

London: Sage publications Ltd.

Hunt, C., Cairncross S., Dubey M. et al. 1998. Community-based

environmental health indicators. In: Proceedings of the 24th WEDC conference, Islamabad. Loughborough,UK: Loughborough University.

Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as social process:

A substantive and methodological analysis. In M. Berger, T. Abel & C. H. Page (Eds.), Freedom and control in modern society. Toronto, Canada: Nostrand.

McLuhan, M., & Powers, B. R. (1989). The global Village: Transformations in

worldlife and media in the 21st century. New York: Oxford University Press.

Newcomb, T. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.

Onabanjo, O, Solomon G.A & James B.O (2008) Models and theories of communication. Lagos: African Renaissance Books Inc.

Ogwezzy, A.O. (2008). African communication system- concepts, channels and

messages. Lagos: African Renaissance Books Inc.

Popoola, T. (2003). GSM as a tool for news reporting in Nigeria. Lagos: NUJ/Corporate Lifters Intl.

Reinard, C. (2001), Introduction to communication Research. New York: McGraw

Hill

Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process.

In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships.New York: Wiley.

Rubin R., & Rubin A, (2005). Communication Research: Strategies and Sources.

Belmont,C.A: Wadsworth

Shoemaker P., & McCombs M., (1989). Survey Research. In Stempel III H., &

Westley B. (Ed.), Research methods in mass communication. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,

Volkmer, I. (1999). News in the Global Sphere. A Study of CNN and its impact on Global Communication. Luton: University of Luton Press.
Walther, J. B., & Boyd, S. (2002). Attraction to Computer-mediated social support. In C. A. Lin and D. Atkin (Ed.) Communication technology and society: Audience adoption and uses. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1997). Net surfers don 't ride alone: Virtual

communities as communities. In P. Kollock & M. Smith (Eds.), Communities and cyberspace. New York: Routledge.

Williams, R. (1974) 'Television: Technology and Cultural Form, London, Routledge.
Wimmer D., & Dominick R. (2006), Mass media Research: An introduction.

ThompsonWadsworth.

JOURNALS

Amobi I.T (2010). New Generation, New media and Digital Divide: ownership, Access and Usage of Social Media among Young People in Nigeria. Journal of Communication Review4(2). Department of Mass Communication, University of Lagos.
Albada, K. F., Knapp, M. L., & Theune, K. E. (2002). Interaction

appearance theory: Changing perceptions of physical attractiveness through social interaction. Journal of Communication Theory, 1(2), 8-40.

Antheunis, M. L., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Computer

mediated communication and interpersonal attraction: An experimental test of two explanatory hypotheses. Journal of CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 831-836.

Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y. B., & Lin, M. (2004). Social interactions across media: Interpersonal communication on the Internet, telephone and face-to-face. Journal of New Media & Society, 6(3), 299-318.

Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the "true self" on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 5(8), 33-48.

Boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11
Bryant, J. A., Sanders-Jackson, A., & Smallwood, A. M. K. (2006). IMing, text messaging, and adolescent social networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), article 10.
Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Ramirez, A., Dunbar, N. E., Kam, K., &

Fischer, J. (2002). Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication, 52, 657-677.

Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457-475.

Cooper, A., & Sportolari, L. (1997). Romance in cyberspace:

Understanding online attraction. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 22, 7-14.

Cummings, J.N., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (2002) The quality of online

social relationships. Communication of the ACM, 45(7), 103-108.

Hallinan, M. T., & Kubitschek, W. N. (1988). The effects of individual

and structural characteristics on intransivity in social networks. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 81-92.

Hays, R. B. (1985). A longitudinal study of friendship development.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 909-924.

Kandel, D. B. (1978). Homophily, selection, and socialization in

adolescent friendship. The American Journal of Sociology, 84, 427-436.

Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in

Computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321-341.

Livingstone, S. (2007). The challenge of engaging youth online:

contrasting producers ' and teenagers ' interpretations of websites. European Journal of Communication , 22 (2), 165-184.

Manning, P., & Ray, G. (1993). Shyness, self-confidence, and social

interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56(3), 178-193.

Mesch, G., & Talmud, I. (2006). The quality of online and offline relationships: the role of multiplexity and duration of social relationships. The Information Society, 22.
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Daly, J. A. (1975). The

development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 323-332.

McKenna, K. Y., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. (2002). Relationship formation on

the internet: What 's the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9-31.

Nicole B Ellison, C. Lampe and N. Steinfield. (2007). The benefit of

facebook friends; Exploring the relationship between college students ' use of online social networks and social capital. Journal of Computer-mediated comunication , 12 (3), 449-452.

Priest, R. F., & Sawyer, J. (1967). Proximity and peership: Bases of

balance in interpersonal attraction. The American Journal of Sociology, 72, 633-649.

Ramirez, A., & Zhang, S. (2007). When online meets offline: The effect of modality switching on relational communication. Communication Monographs, 74, 287-310.

Reagans, R. (2005). Preferences, identity, and competition: Predicting tie strength

from demographic data. Journal of Management Science, 51, 1374-1383.

Ridings, C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 10(1).
Schutte, J. G., & Light, J. M. (1978). The relative importance of proximity and status

for friendship choices in social hierarchies. Social Psychology, 41, 260-264.

Stritzke, W. G., Nguyen, A., & Durkin, K. (2004). Shyness and Computer-mediated

Communication: A self-presentational theory perspective. Media Psychology, 6, 1-22.

Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated

Communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317-348.

Tong, S. T., Van Der Heide, B., Langwell, L., & Walther, J. B. (2008). Too Much of a Good Thing? The Relationship Between Number of Friends and Interpersonal Impressions on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(2), 531-549.
Vittengl, J. R., & Holt, G. S. (2000). Getting acquainted: the

relationship of self-disclosure and social attraction to positive affect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 53-66.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated Communication:

impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.

Williams, A.L., & Merten, M.J. (2008). A review of online social networking profiles by adolescents: Implications for future research and intervention. Adolescence, 43(170), 253-275.
Zywica, J. & Danowski, J. (2008) The faces of Facebookers: investigating social enhancement and social compensation hypotheses; predicting Facebook and offline popularity from sociability and self-esteem, and mapping the meanings of popularity with semantic networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1), 1-34

UNPUBLISHED WORKS
Binuyo, K. (2009). The use of Facebook for communication among University of Lagos students (An Unpublished Project). A B.Sc project submitted to the department of Mass Communication, University of Lagos.

Idakwo, L. (2011). The use of Social media among the Nigerian Youth (An

Unpublished Project). An M.Sc project submitted to the School of Media and Communication, Pan African University, Lagos.

Manuel at al. (2010). Social media and interpersonal relationship of students (An Unpublished Project). A joint B.Sc project submitted to the department of mathematics, Rotagonist College, USA.

INTERNET SOURCES
Facebook statistics. (2010, July 20). Facebook Statistics Pressroom.

Retrieved August 5, 2010, from www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics

IDC. (2007). IDC Press release. Retrieved May 28, 2011 from http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerld=prUS20852407.
Pew Research (2007). Social networking websites and teens: An

overview. Retrieved May 12, 2011 from:

http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_SNS_Data_Memo_Jan_2007.pdf

Slideshare. (2010). Use of social media. Retrieved May 27, 2011, from http://www.slideshare.com
Wikipedia. (2010). Social networking. Retrieved May 27, 2011, from http://www.wikipedia.org

References: Aborisade, F. (1997). Research Methodology: A student 's handbook. Ibadan: Multifir Limited. Henn M, Weinstein M., & Foard N., (2006). A short introduction to Social Research. Reinard C. (2001). Introduction to communication Research. London: McGraw Hill Rubin R., & Rubin A, (2005) Belmont, C.A: Wadsworth Shoemaker P., & McCombs M., (1989) Wimmer D., & Dominick R. (2006). Mass media Research: An introduction.