Online Social Network Interactions: A Cross-cultural Comparison of Network Structure on McDonald's Facebook Sites between Taiwan and USA

  • Chang, Hui-Jung (Center for Computer-Mediated Communication, Indiana University)
  • Received : 2017.05.05
  • Accepted : 2017.12.02
  • Published : 2017.12.31


A cross-cultural comparison of social networking structure on McDonald's Facebook fan sites between Taiwan and the USA was conducted utilizing the individualism/collectivism dimension proposed by Hofstede. Four network indicators are used to describe the network structure of McDonald's Facebook fan sites: size, density, clique and centralization. Individuals who post on both Facebook sites for the year of 2012 were considered as network participants for the purpose of the study. Due to the huge amount of data, only one thread of postings was sampled from each month of the year of 2012. The final data consists of 1002 postings written by 896 individuals and 5962 postings written by 5532 individuals from Taiwan and the USA respectively. The results indicated that the USA McDonald's Facebook fan network has more fans, while Taiwan's McDonald's Facebook fan network is more densely connected. Cliques did form among the overall multiplex and within the individual uniplex networks in two countries, yet no significant differences were found between them. All the fan networks in both countries are relatively centralized, mostly on the site operators.


  1. Alexander, R., Thompson, N., & Murray, D. (2017). Towards cultural translation of websites: a large-scale study of Australian, Chinese, and Saudi Arabian design preferences. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(4), 351-363.
  2. Baym, N. (1998). The emergence of online community. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 35-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  3. Borgatti, S. P. (2002). NetDraw software for network visualization. Analytic Technologies: Lexington, KY.
  4. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G.., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
  5. Canary, D. J., Cody, M. J., & Manusov, V. L. (2008). Interpersonal communication: A goals based approach (4th ed.). Macmillan.
  6. Chang, H. J. (2009). Online supportive interactions: Using a network approach to examine communication patterns within a psychosis social support group in Taiwan. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(7), 1504-1517.
  7. da Silva, A. S., Avelar, A. B. A., & Farina, M. C. (2014). The nurse as an integration agent in handoff: A social networks analysis perspective. African Journal of Business Management, 8(19), 922.
  8. Emmanouloudis, A. (2015). You are not alone. The emergence of fan communities around user-generated content: a comparative analysis. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  9. Farrell, L. C., & Fudge, J. (2013). An exploration of a quasi-stable online network: A longitudinal perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 681-686.
  10. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.
  11. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  12. Hosti, O. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  13. Jalalkamali, M., Iranmanesh, M., Nikbin, D., & Hyun, S. S. (2016). An empirical analysis of the effects of humor on communication satisfaction and job performance in international joint ventures in Iran. Journal of Management & Organization, 1-17.
  14. Johnson, J. D. (1993). Organizational communication structure. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  15. Kincaid, D. L. (1993). Communication network dynamics: cohesion centrality and cultural evolution. Norwood: Ablex.
  16. Lönnqvist, J. E., & grosse Deters, F. (2016). Facebook friends, subjective well-being, social support, and personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 113-120.
  17. Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. Oxford University Press.
  18. Nabi, R. L., Prestin, A., & So, J. (2013). Facebook friends with (health) benefits? Exploring social network site use and perceptions of social support, stress, and well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(10), 721-727.
  19. Nooy, W. D., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2005). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Pelet, J. E., Ettis, S., Hammami, S., & Schwob, A. (2016). Social networks and online advertising: Should companies promote their brand fan page or their brand website?. In Marketing Challenges in a Turbulent Business Environment (pp. 549-562). Springer International Publishing.
  21. Price, L., & Robinson, L. (2017). Being in a knowledge space: Information behavior of cult media fan communities. Journal of Information Science, 43(5), 649-664.
  22. Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. MIT press.
  23. Rice, R. E. (1993). Using network concepts to clarify sources and mechanisms of social influence. In W. D. Richards & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Progress in Communication Sciences (pp. 43-62). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  24. Ruiz-Mafe, C., Marti-Parreno, J., & Sanz-Blas, S. (2014). Key drivers of consumer loyalty to Facebook fan pages. Online Information Review, 38(3), 362-380.
  25. Taras, V., Rowney, J., & Steel, P. (2009). Half a century of measuring culture: Approaches, challenges, limitations, and suggestions based on the analysis of 112 instruments for quantifying culture. Journal of International Management, 15, 357-373.
  26. Walker, M. E., Wasserman, S., & Wellman, B. (1994). Statistical models for social support networks. In Wasserman, S. & Galaskiewicz, J. (eds.), Advances in Social Network Analysis (pp. 53-78). SAGE.
  27. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  28. Wurtz, E. (2005). A cross-cultural analysis of websites from high-context cultures and low-context cultures. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), 274-299.