Social networking sites with its functions and abilities has connected users into networks, built up social structures which is close to reality. In reality, people choose different ways to interact based on their relationship strength. The interaction on SNSs can clue the tie strength between users friendship, as interaction can do in the real world. Recent studies have been devoted to analyzing user behavior on SNSs, especially on Facebook, and adopted the definition of tie strength to evaluate the consequences by different relationship ties. This study focused on building tie strength predicting models and analyzing Facebook interaction records. The aim of this study was to provide a more theoretical way to measure tie strength on SNSs. In this study, we used a tie strength survey to collect interaction records and the friendship level between Facebook users and their friends. The survey collected a dataset of over 1,400 relationships, we examined the availability of the information Facebook provides and found out those are more effective in measuring tie strength. From the result we built five types of tie strength predicting models. By examining the result, we found a different trend from previous scholars.

Social networking sites with its functions and abilities has connected users into networks, built up social structures which is close to reality. In reality, people choose different ways to interact based on their relationship strength. The interaction on SNSs can clue the tie strength between users friendship, as interaction can do in the real world. Recent studies have been devoted to analyzing user behavior on SNSs, especially on Facebook, and adopted the definition of tie strength to evaluate the consequences by different relationship ties. This study focused on building tie strength predicting models and analyzing Facebook interaction records. The aim of this study was to provide a more theoretical way to measure tie strength on SNSs. In this study, we used a tie strength survey to collect interaction records and the friendship level between Facebook users and their friends. The survey collected a dataset of over 1,400 relationships, we examined the availability of the information Facebook provides and found out those are more effective in measuring tie strength. From the result we built five types of tie strength predicting models. By examining the result, we found a different trend from previous scholars.

1. Alba, R.D., and Kadushin, C. (1976). The Intersection of Social Circles: A New Measure of Social Proximity in Networks. Sociological Methods and Research, 5:77-102.
2. Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social Network Use and Personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1289-1295.
3. Bakshy, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C., Adamic, L. (2012). The Role of Social Networks in Information Diffusion. WWW’12, 519-528.
4. boyd, D. M. and Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
5. Chun, H., Kwak, H., Eom, Y.-H., Ahn, Y.-Y., Moon, S. and Jeong, H. (2008). Comparison of Online Social Relations in Volume vs. Interaction: A Case Study of Cyworld. IMC’08, 57-70.
6. Constant, D., Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1996). The Kindness of Strangers: The Usefulness of Electronic Weak Ties for Technical Advice. Organization Science, 7(2), 119-135.
7. Donath, J. and boyd, D. (2004). Public Displays of Connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71-82.
8. Ellison, N., Steinfield, C. and Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143-1168.
9. Erickson, B., Lind, E. A., Johnson, B. C. and O’Barr, W. M. (1978). Speech Style and Impression Formation in a Court Setting: The Effects of Powerful and Powerless Speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 266-279.
10. Facebook developer : http://developer.facebook.com
11. Gilbert, E. and Karahalios, K. (2009). Predicting Tie Strength With Social Media. CHI 2009, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 211-220.
12. Gonzales, A. L., and Hancock, J.T. (2011). Mirror, Mirror on my Facebook Wall: Effects of Exposure to Facebook on Self-Esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 79-83.
13. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
14. Granovetter, M. S. (1974). Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15. Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201-233.
16. Haghirian, P., Madlberger, M., Tanuskova, A. (2005). Increasing Advertising Value of Mobile Marketing – An Empirical Study of Antecedents, 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
17. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge Across Organization Subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82-111.
18. Harary, F., Norman, R. Z. and Cartwright, D. (1965). Structural Models: An Introduction to the Theory of Directed Graphs. New York: Wiley.
19. Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, Weak, and Latent Ties and the Impact of New Media. The Information Society, 18, 385-401.
20. Hsu, C.-W., Wang, C.-C., Tai, Y.-T. (2011). The Closer the Relationship, The More the Interaction on Facebook? Investigating the Case of Taiwan Users. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 473-476
21. Katterbach, W., (2002). Die SMS-Verkaufer. Impulse February 1st, 76.
22. Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The Importance of Philos in Organizations. Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action. 216-239.
23. Krackhardt, D. and Stern, R. N. (1988). Informal Networks and Organizational Crises: An Experimental Simulation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(2), 123-140.
24. Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., Gonzalez, M., Wimmer, A. and Christakis, N. (2008). Tastes, Ties, and Time: A New Social Network Dataset Using Facebook.com. Social Networks,30(4), 330-342.
25. Liang, T., Ho, Y., Li, Y. and Turban, E. (2011). What Drives Social Commerce: The Role of Social Support and Relationship Quality. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16(2), 69-90.
26. Lin, N. and Bian, Y. (1991). Getting Ahead in Urban China. American Journal of Sociology, 97(3), 657-688.
27. Lin, N., Vaughn, J.C. and Ensel, W.M. (1981). Social Resources and Occupational Status Attainment. Social Forces, 59, 1163-81.
28. Marsden, P. V. and Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring Tie Strength. Social Forces Volume, 63(2), 482-501.
29. Mathews, K. M., White, M. C., Long, R. G., Soper, B. (1998). Associaltion of Indicators and Predictors of Tie Strength. Psychological Reports, 83, 1459-1469.
30. Mehdizaden, S. (2010). Self-Presentation 2.0: Narcissism and Self-Esteem on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(4), 357-364.
31. Murray, S. O., Rankin J. H. and Magill, D. W. (1981). Strong Ties and Job Information. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 8(1), 119-136.
32. Petroczi, A., Nepusz, T., and Bazso, F. (2007). Measuring Tie-strength in Virtual Social Networks. Connections, 27(2), 39–52.
33. Robers, S. B. G. and Dunbar, R. I. M. (2011). The Costs of Family and Friends: An 18-months Longitudinal Study of Relationship Maintenance and Decay. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(3), 186-197.
34. Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
35. Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M. (2009). Presonality and Motivations Associated with Facebook Use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 578–586.
36. Ryan, T., Xenos, S. (2011). Who Use Facebook? An Investigation into the Relationship Between the Big Five, Shyness, Narcissism, Loneliness, and Facebook usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1658-1664.
37. Schaefer, C., Coyne, J. C. and Lazarus, R. S. (1982). The Health-related Functions of Social Support. Journal of Behavior Medicine, 4, 381-406.
38. Scott, J. (1990). Social Network Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
39. Simmel, G. (1950). The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: Free Press.
40. SocialBakers : http://www.socialbakers.com
41. Steffes, E. M. and Burgee, L. E. (2009). Social Ties and Online Word of Mouth. Internet Research, 19(1), 42-59.
42. Stephen, A.T., Dover, Y., Muchnik, L., Goldenberg, J. (2012). The Effect of Transmitter Activity on Information Dissemination.
43. Walker, M. E., Wasserman, S. and Wellman, B. (1994). Statistical Models for Social Support Networks. In Wasserman, S. and Galaskiewicz, J. (eds.) Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social Behavioral Sciences. Newbury Park, CA:Sage, 53-78.
44. Waters, S. and Ackerman, J. (2011). Exploring Privacy Management on Facebook: Motivations and Perceived Consequences of Voluntary Disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 101-115.
45. Wellman, B. (1988). Structural Analysis: From Method and Metaphor to Theory and Substance. In B. Wellman & S. D. Berkowitz (Eds.), Social Structures: A Network Approach (pp. 19-61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46. Wellman, B. and Wortley, S. (1990). Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support. The American Journal of Sociology, 96(3), 558-588.
47. Wilson, T. D. (1998). Weak Ties, Strong Ties: Network Principles in Mexican Migration. Human Organization, 57(4), 394-403.
48. Zhao, S., Grasmuch, S. and Martin, J. (2008). Identity Construction on Facebook: Digital Empowerment in Anchored Relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1816-1836.