Social Inclusion through sports for children with intellectual disabilities

Leveraging Social Capital of Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities through Participation on Facebook Carmit-Noa Shpigelman

Department of Community Mental Health, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

Accepted for publication 23 October 2016

Background Participation in social networking sites has

considerable potential to leverage the individual’s social

capital, including persons with intellectual disabilities,

whose real-world social networks are fairly limited.

Method This study aimed to understand how individuals

with intellectual disabilities use Facebook to access social

capital benefits, if at all. Qualitative interviews and

observations were conducted with 20 adult Facebook

users with intellectual disabilities.

Results The online participation enhanced their bonding

social capital as well as contributed to their psychological

well-being through increasing their online visibility,

popularity and sense of belonging. At the same time, they

experienced stress and frustration due to usage

difficulties, which prevented them from enhancing their

bridging social capital.

Conclusions Participation in social networking sites may

also leverage bridging social capital of persons with

intellectual disabilities, but they need a more accessible

platform and ongoing support to ensure safe and fruitful

participation.

Keywords: disability, Facebook, social capital, social

media, social networking sites, well-being

Introduction

Participation in social networking sites (SNSs) can

leverage the individual’s social capital and contribute to

his/her psychological well-being (Bradley & Poppen

2003; Valkenburg et al. 2006; Steinfield et al. 2008; Mauri

et al. 2011). Potentially, participation in SNSs could have

similar social and emotional benefits for persons with

intellectual disabilities. However, to date, the

phenomenon of participation of persons with intellectual

disabilities in SNSs has received relatively scant attention

in research and practice (McClimens & Gordon 2009;

Shpigelman & Gill 2014b; Davies et al. 2015). Persons

with intellectual disabilities are often subject to public

stigma and feel the absence of peer friendships,

especially in the hours after school or work, and as a

result may experience social and emotional isolation in

the real world (Knox & Hickson 2001; Hamill 2003;

Emerson & McVilly 2004; Jahoda & Markova 2004; Pottie

& Sumarah 2004; Buckley et al. 2005; D’Haem 2008;

Lippold & Burns 2009). Their limited social networks

may restrict their opportunity to build social capital and

a sense of community belonging (Kampert & Goreczny

2007; Clement & Bigby 2009; Shogren 2012). The growing

role of information and communication technologies

(ICT), including SNSs, in shaping access to community

and social life has created an opportunity to leverage

social capital of marginalized groups in society, such as

persons with intellectual disabilities.

Social capital refers to the resources (financial, social

or emotional) that become available to the individual

through one’s social interactions (Putnam 2000; Lin

2001). Social capital is inherent to social networks and is

determined by one’s location within its structures (Burt

2005). The concept of social capital was previously

applied to research on social media (Ellison et al. 2007,

2010; de Z�u~niga et al. 2012). Putnam (2000) discerned

two basic forms of social capital: bonding and bridging.

Bonding social capital describes benefits from close

personal relationships, such as emotional or

instrumental support. Bridging social capital is

comprised of what Granovetter (1973) referred to as

‘weak ties’, that is, the relationship that is formed

among casual acquaintances, people with whom one

communicates on a daily, weekly or monthly basis, for

example, neighbours and service providers, without

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 10.1111/jar.12321

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2018, 31, e79–e91

Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities

forming an intimate bond. Bridging social capital

provides novel information and new perspectives,

which can be exchanged with others in one’s network

(Granovetter 1983).

Previous studies that explored SNS use in the general

population found that participation in SNSs contributed

primarily to bonding social capital, meaning that users

were more likely to communicate with close friends

(Cheung et al. 2011; Nadkarni & Hofmann 2012; Duggan

et al. 2015). Bridging relationships or ‘weak ties’ that can

evolve from or be maintained through SNSs may also

be beneficial for persons with intellectual disabilities

who have limited social networks in the real world

(Verdonschot et al. 2009). Further research is needed not

only to validate these assumptions, but also to capture

the subjective experiences of individuals with

intellectual disabilities who use SNSs to increase their

social capital.

Previous works suggest that marginalized groups that

are isolated, stigmatized or lack real-world support, such

as people with disabilities, might be especially motivated

to participate in and gain from online social interactions

(McKenna & Bargh 1998; Braithwaite et al. 1999; National

Organization on Disability 2000; Mehra et al. 2004; Barak

et al. 2008; Leimeister et al. 2008; Shpigelman et al. 2009,

Shpigelman & Gill 2014a). Nevertheless, only few social

media studies have included individuals with

intellectual disabilities (McClimens & Gordon 2009;

Shpigelman & Gill 2014b; Davies et al. 2015).

Holmes & O’Loughlin (2014), for example, asked

three individuals with learning disabilities to describe

their experiences related to Facebook use. The

participants reported that using Facebook, they were

able to form or maintain social relationships, had

opportunities to share mutual hobbies with others and

received social support. They also reported higher

levels of self-esteem, linked to the number of their

Facebook friends. A recent online quantitative survey

on the usage patterns of persons with intellectual

disabilities who were Facebook users (Shpigelman &

Gill 2014b) found that they used the platform primarily

to connect with family members and real-world friends

and that participation on Facebook contributed to their

psychological well-being. The findings of the above

studies (McClimens & Gordon 2009; Shpigelman & Gill

2014b; Holmes & O’Loughlin 2014) emphasized that for

persons with intellectual disabilities, participation in

online social applications is beneficial mainly in terms

of social capital and well-being. Still, persons with

intellectual disabilities are underrepresented in social

media research.

The recent protest of the community of people with

disabilities against (among other issues) their lack of

representation in the Pew Research Center’s polls on the

use of online applications (NCIL 2011) underscores the

need for studies like the one presented herein. A

plausible explanation for the lack of representation of

people with disabilities in social media research is the

digital divide: persons with disabilities, and especially

with intellectual disabilities, have unequal access to and

experience limited usability of computer technology,

which might affect the prevalence of their participation

in SNSs (Haller 2010; Fox 2011; U.S. Department of

Commerce 2011). However, the tracking data published

by Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life

Project indicate that following the recent advent of

Internet access via cell phones (smartphones) and other

mobile devices, there has been a dramatic shift in these

patterns among underrepresented groups (Smith 2013,

2015).

The lack of representation of persons with intellectual

disabilities in social media research might also be due to

the assumption that these online environments are not

suitable for persons with intellectual disabilities, given

their difficulty in understanding the associated risks,

which include, for example, divulging confidential

personal information to strangers and friends, and being

exposed to online forms of fraud, bullying and

harassment (Acquisti & Gross 2006; Debatin et al. 2009;

Taraszow et al. 2010; Buijs et al. 2016).

Despite these numerous challenges, the above-

mentioned studies indicated that participation in SNSs

can be valuable for persons with intellectual disabilities.

The complexity of the issue suggests that much research

is still needed. Previous studies in social media that did

include users with intellectual disabilities were limited,

either in terms of the qualitative sample size

(McClimens & Gordon 2009; Holmes & O’Loughlin

2014) or the selected focus (examination of usage

patterns; Shpigelman & Gill 2014b). In contrast, in this

study, the qualitative sample was relatively larger in

terms of qualitative sample size (Creswell 1998), that is,

20 Facebook users with intellectual disabilities were

surveyed and the focus was on capturing the subjective

experiences of individuals with intellectual disabilities

intellectual disabilities. This study examined how

individuals with intellectual disabilities use Facebook to

access social capital benefits, if at all. It should be noted

that although there are various SNSs such as Twitter,

MySpace, Pinterest, LinkedIn and Instagram, this

study’s focus is on Facebook as the most popular SNS

(Duggan 2015).

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 31, e79–e91

e80 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

Method

Participants

Participants in the study had to meet the following

criteria: (i) have an official diagnosis of intellectual

disabilities, meaning that the disability was identified

before they reached the age of 18 years and is

characterized by significant limitations in both

intellectual functioning and adaptive behaviour,

manifested in conceptual, social and practical adaptive

skills (Schalock et al. 2010), (ii) be at least 18 years of age,

(iii) reside in the community and (iv) be active users of

Facebook (at least once a week). Recruitment flyers were

distributed face to face and online by the investigator and

the research assistant to organizations and centres that

provide services for people with intellectual disabilities,

as well as to disability advocacy groups. Then, the

organizations, centres and groups disseminated the flyers

to their clients and members. Recruitment continued until

data collection no longer produced new themes and data

saturation was achieved (Morse 1995). Based on the

concept of saturation, the first round of data collection

included 12 participants and then another eight

participants were added.

The final sample included 20 individuals (10 women

and 10 men), between the ages of 21 and 43 (average age:

30.2 years). Seven of the 20 participants had been

appointed a legal guardian (see Table 1). The diagnosis of

most of the participants (17 of 20) was mild level of

intellectual disabilities and that of three participants was

moderate level of intellectual disabilities. The majority

live in supportive community arrangements (villages) for

people with developmental disabilities. These are

inclusive, kibbutz-like communities that provide housing,

physical care, employment options and leisure activities.

Table 1 Description of the sample (N = 20)

Participant No.

Gender

(F/M) Age Diagnosis Living arrangement Having computer

1 M 23 Intellectual disabilities

+ cerebral palsy

With parents Computer shared with others

2 M 27 Intellectual disabilities Alone (his/her apartment) PC

3 F 21 Intellectual disabilities SCLA PC

4 M 26 Intellectual disabilities With parents PC

5 F 29 Intellectual disabilities SCLA Computer shared with others

+ Internet access via mobile phone

6 F 37 Intellectual disabilities Alone (his/her apartment) PC

7 M 26 Intellectual disabilities

+ Asperger’s disorder

With parents Computer shared with others

8 M 36 Intellectual disabilities Alone (his/her apartment) PC

9 F 28 Intellectual disabilities SCLA PC

10 F 24 Intellectual disabilities SCLA PC

11 F 34 Intellectual disabilities SCLA PC

12 F 32 Intellectual disabilities

+ vision impairment

SCLA Friend’s computer

13 F 34 Intellectual disabilities

+ cerebral palsy

SCLA PC

14 M 41 Intellectual disabilities SCLA PC

15 M 43 Intellectual disabilities SCLA PC

16 M 25 Intellectual disabilities SCLA PC

17 M 27 Intellectual disabilities SCLA PC

18 M 31 Intellectual disabilities

+ cerebral palsy

SCLA PC + Internet access via mobile phone

19 F 28 Intellectual disabilities SCLA Computer shared with others

20 F 39 Intellectual disabilities SCLA Computer shared with others

SCLA, Supportive community living arrangement; PC, Personal computer.

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 31, e79–e91

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities e81

The residents can live alone in their apartments or with

other roommates. They manage their social life mainly

inside the village.

Procedure

The study applied a qualitative phenomenological

paradigm to capture the subjective experiences of

Facebook users with intellectual disabilities and the

meanings they attribute to their experiences in terms of

social capital (Sokolowski 2000; Charmaz & McMullen

2011; Denzin & Lincoln 2011). The qualitative

instruments used in both rounds of data collection

included observations and personal interviews. Direct

observations (Patton 2002) were conducted, followed by

exploratory questions to understand the participants’

decisions to engage in specific activities on Facebook,

such as writing a post or uploading a photograph. To

minimize the effect of the observer’s presence, the

observations were conducted in the natural setting,

where the participants felt comfortable to login and use

Facebook. In addition, the observer was sitting next to

the participant but not too close, where she could view

the participant’s online activity. Furthermore, each

participant was observed twice while in the process of

using Facebook, to minimize the effect of the observer’s

presence (especially in the second observation) as well

as to avoid the risk of bias entailed in conducting only

one observation. A 2-week interval was maintained

between the two observations, each of which lasted

approximately thirty minutes (Marshall & Rossman

1989; Erlandson et al. 1993). Following the observations

and based on the observational field notes, an interview

guide was developed to get a deeper understanding of

the observed usage patterns. In-depth interviews of an

hour each included questions about the participants’

experiences, including their perceptions and feelings, as

the following questions exemplify: ‘In general, what do

you think about Facebook?’; ‘What do you feel when

you are on Facebook?’; ‘For what purpose do you use

Facebook?’; ‘What do you do with your Facebook

friends?’; ‘How do you decide which post to respond

to?’; ‘How do you feel when someone ignores your

friendship request?’; ‘Why did you decide to join these

Facebook groups?’

Data analysis

Data were obtained from approximately 260 pages of

interview transcripts and observational field notes,

which reflected participants’ objective experiences

(online behaviours – usage patterns) as well as their subjective experiences (feelings and thoughts). The

interview transcripts and observational field notes were

triangulated and analysed to produce a set of themes in

relation to the participants’ Facebook experiences and

their understanding of online versus offline (face to

face) social relationships. Data were organized into

themes by the investigator (the author) in collaboration

with a research assistant, using an inductive thematic

content analysis procedure (Strauss & Corbin 1990). In

the first phase of the analysis, the investigator divided

the transcripts into meaningful chunks and coded them,

by assigning a brief descriptor. In the second phase of

data analysis, the investigator eliminated redundant

codes and then arranged them into themes, to facilitate

analysis of important thematic interrelationships. In

addition, quantitative content analysis was conducted to

describe the participants’ online behaviour (e.g.

frequency of use and main activities on Facebook).

Trustworthiness – validity and reliability

Lincoln & Guba (1985) proposed to use the terms

trustworthiness or rigour to establish confidence in

qualitative findings, rather than the concepts of validity

and reliability. To minimize bias and enhance

trustworthiness, the collected data were triangulated

through the use of two qualitative instruments – interviews and observations (Lincoln & Guba 1985;

Patton 2002; Niesz et al. 2008). Both the observations

and the interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed

verbatim. The observation and interview memos,

including the participants’ comments and body

language, the settings, and the interviewer’s self-

reflections were also documented and used to enhance

the analytic process. The memos were part of the audit

trail that was examined by a peer researcher, as

described below, to minimize bias and enhance

trustworthiness of the findings (Morrow 2005).

Furthermore, a research assistant audited the

investigator’s analysis, checking the data to determine

relationships between thematic categories. This process

is also known as peer debriefing (Lincoln & Guba 1985).

Conflicting assessments were resolved through

discussions between the investigator and the research

assistant until a consensus was reached.

Ethical considerations

The protocol used for this study was approved by the

Ethical Committee at the author’s university and by the

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 31, e79–e91

e82 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

National Department of Welfare and Social Services.

Persons with intellectual disabilities who volunteered to

participate in the study reviewed and signed an

informed consent form. Participants under a guardian’s

supervision had to provide the guardian’s signature on

the informed consent form as well as their own. Finally,

personal identifiers were eliminated from the results to

ensure anonymity and maintain confidentiality.

Results

The majority of the participants (60%) reported using

Facebook every day, while the rest (40%) reported using

it at least once a week. They all used Facebook

independently, as noted also in the observations. The

participants reported that they used Facebook mainly

for uploading and observing photographs and video

clips (‘My favorite part is looking at photos’) and for

posting brief messages (‘I write posts about what I did

today or how I feel’). A few were accustomed to using

the chat option to schedule a face-to-face meeting or to

contact customer service (‘I use the chat only for short

conversations - “How are you doing?”’). Other

participants reported that they share posts, photographs

or video clips on Facebook (‘This [video clip] is really

cute, so I wanted other people to see it’) and join

groups with common interests (‘The group members

always post good recommendations for trips’). Only few

reported that they play Facebook games.

The thematic content analysis of the observation field

notes and the interview transcripts revealed five major

themes related to the participants’ subjective experiences

and the meanings they attributed to their experiences in

terms of social capital. The five major themes that

emerged from the analysis were mainly related to issues

of identity and belonging: (i) an opportunity to be like

(non-disabled) others, (ii) becoming a member of the

community, (iii) becoming visible to others, (iv)

increasing one’s popularity and (v) positive vs. negative

feelings.

Theme 1: An opportunity to be like (non-disabled)

others

The participants reported that their main reason for

joining Facebook was because everyone they know (e.g.

family members, friends and service providers) use it

and they wanted to feel ‘like everyone else’: ‘All the

time I kept hearing from everyone around: “Facebook,

Facebook, Facebook”’; ‘Everyone talked about it’; ‘It has

become a trend’. It seemed that they perceived the

participation on Facebook as a positive status they

wanted to adopt. Some of the participants reported that

they joined Facebook based on the suggestion of their

teacher, tutor or friend: ‘My friend told me that he is

going to open a Facebook account so I decided to do the

same’; ‘At the beginning I did not want to join

Facebook, but a girl that I met in a computer class uses

it frequently and she said we could continue to

communicate via Facebook after the course was over.’

Theme 2: Becoming a member of the community

The participants reported that they used Facebook to stay

connected to their real-world friends (current and past

friends) and family members. It seemed that the

availability of the online communication made them feel

part of the community. They described it as follows: ‘We

can stay in touch even if we don’t talk regularly’; ‘I had

an old school-friend who[m] I hadn’t seen for years;

suddenly she sent me a friendship request on Facebook

and we reconnected’; ‘If I have friends from the past, I

can write to them on Facebook.’ One of the participants

was observed checking enthusiastically the likes and

responses he received to his post. When he was asked for

his reaction and feeling, he said: ‘I am happy because I

don’t get to talk with everyone everyday, so on Facebook

they like talking with me.’ Another participant was

observed posting a comment to his Facebook friend’s

photograph – ‘Very cool pic!’ – and then he explained to the observer: ‘There are members of our community who

don’t live here [in the same facility], I don’t see them

often, so we respond to each other’s posts and this way

we stay in touch.’ The participants connected with their

real-world friends mainly through responding to their

posts (rather than opting for one-on-one communication

via the chat feature).

It should be noted that the messages posted by the

participant’s on their own or others’ Facebook timeline

were brief messages and did not include personal

issues, because they had been instructed by their family

members and/or professional caregivers to protect

themselves from the associated risks (being exposed to

virtual forms of fraud, bullying, and harassment). They

described their Facebook activities thus: ‘[I use

Facebook] – not for personal issues, but to schedule a meeting and [to discuss] what things to bring [to a

meeting or a party]’; ‘Secrets and personal issues I

discuss on the phone, not on Facebook.’ Nevertheless,

the immediate and succinct online communication on

Facebook seemed to contribute to the participant’s sense

of belonging to the community.

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 31, e79–e91

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities e83

Becoming a member of the community was achieved

also by joining Facebook groups. The participants

reported joining groups with common interests, such as

hobby or fan groups. They perceived their group

membership not only as an opportunity to learn new

things, but also as a way to have more friends and

share new ideas with them: ‘I look for friends in these

groups and send them a friendship request.’ One of the

participants demonstrated in the observation how he

looked for new activities on specific groups and

explained his motivation: ‘This is a group of the

residents in this facility, so we can keep communicating

after retiring to our separate rooms, and the other three

groups are about trips. I can look for routes that would

be accessible to everyone here.’ Another participant,

who is a member of several Facebook groups, reported

the following: ‘This is a group of people who live in my

city and take care of dogs. I get information [through

the group] and attend adoption events. I also share this

information, so others will come and adopt a dog.’

Theme 3: Becoming visible to others

The participants emphasized their desire to be visible

on this online platform. They became visible through by

reacting to others by taking a passive role, such as using

the Like function, or by taking an active role, such as

posting (visual materials and brief messages) or sharing

information: ‘I can’t meet everyone [face-to-face], so I

want to tell them what I do. I want them to know that I

am [an active person]’; ‘When I share something, all my

friends can see it and that’s good’; ‘Like is like [saying]

‘I saw and heard what you have said. ’’This was also

observed in their Facebook use. For example, one of the

participants logged in to Facebook and the first thing

she did was like the new posts, mainly photographs

uploaded by her friend. When she was asked to explain

her action, she said: ‘I always do like to others and I like

that others do like to me. It is like encouragement. Only

if a photo is really unique will I write something,

because it is hard for me to write.’ Their visibility on

Facebook made them feel present as well as be

perceived as present in the online environment.

Theme 4: Increasing popularity

The participants’ sense of presence, achieved by their

visibility – as indicated above, made them feel popular. For example, a participant who was observed liking

photographs and greetings posted by his friends about a

soccer group, explained why he reacted: ‘It is important

that they see I am involved, I respond. I am the deputy

chairman of the fans; it’s an important role. They should

know that I care about them.’ Participants also felt that

the more Facebook friends they had – the better, as they saw it as a sign of their increased popularity. They

described it as follows: ‘On Facebook you should have

as many friends as you can’; ‘You need many friends in

order to get many [responses]’; ‘I feel good when I have

a lot of [Facebook] friends’; ‘When I see that I have

many friends, it makes me feel happy.’ The majority

accepted friendship requests only from people whom

they had met face to face, thus following the explicit

instructions conveyed primarily by their family

members. Only a few accepted every friendship request

received. For example, one participant showed the

observer that he has more than 400 Facebook friends

and said the following: ‘I am happy [having many

friends]. I accept everyone so I have many friends, even

if I don’t know them. I don’t care that they see my

posts, I have nothing to hide.’ It should be noted that

although the participants wanted many friends, they

did distinguish between Facebook friends and real-

world friends: ‘These [real-world friends] are people

you meet. You really talk to them and you can go

together to different places. On Facebook, the friends

are not real.’

Theme 5: Positive vs. negative feelings

The online visibility and popularity of the participants,

as described above, seemed to contribute to their

general psychological well-being. They reported having

positive feelings following Facebook use, such as mood

elevation, happiness, laughter and pleasure: ‘I am

happy when I watch or upload beautiful photos’; ‘When

I have a bad day, people send me funny things or a

hug’; ‘People write positive posts and it makes me feel

better’; ‘I feel good when people like [my songs].’

During one of the observations, a participant received

over 40 happy birthday wishes in her Facebook timeline.

She smiled and replied to each person who greeted her;

she posted ‘thanks’, ‘what a lovely card’ or ‘you made

me happy.’ Others said also that using Facebook, they

feel calm: ‘It’s a good way to spend time, to relax’;

‘Sometimes I have a hard time falling asleep and then I

go on Facebook and check what other people have

posted.’

On the other hand, they also noted experiencing some

technical and conceptual difficulties pertaining to the

various communication options, which limited their full

participation on Facebook and made them feel stressed

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 31, e79–e91

e84 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

and frustrated. Initially, they had experienced difficulty

setting up the account, because of the many questions

they had to answer. They also avoided using functions

that required text typing, such as the chat function: ‘To

use [chat], you need to type fast; it’s stressful, because

the other person is waiting for a response’; ‘This [chat]

is difficult for me. You have to write fast, so the other

person doesn’t have to wait a long time, and I write

slowly. I don’t want to write a lot; I talk on the phone.’

They also encountered difficulty reading texts posted on

Facebook: ‘I don’t like it when people write long posts.

If I don’t have the energy, I just don’t read them.’ The

literacy difficulty was also demonstrated in the

observations, when the participants preferred to review

visual posts, such as photographs or video clips, rather

than to read or write posts.

Some of the participants reported having difficulty

adjusting to the frequent design changes in Facebook:

‘Now the Facebook [menu] is on the left side; suddenly

it was changed. This is not convenient for me’; ‘I don’t

get why the design was changed. Instead of Hebrew,

it’s in English! Why did they change it? Until now it was OK.’ Others reported the lack of technical usage

skills: ‘I want to delete them [Facebook friends], but I

don’t know how’; ‘I haven’t learned how to upload

video clips or music’; ‘I don’t know what to do so

people won’t send me messages, stupid stuff,

advertisements’; ‘The sound of the Facebook alerts that I

get on my cell phone is annoying.’

In addition to inaccessibility related to lack of technical

know-how, some of the participants expressed difficulty

in understanding the Facebook language. Although they

used specific functions, such as timeline, tag or share, it

seemed that they did not understand the meanings of

these common terms, or the online actions associated

with these terms. This was evident mainly through the

observations: ‘I write that this is mine [tag]’; ‘I didn’t

know it is called a group’; ‘I don’t know what personal

settings means.’ These conceptual barriers led them to

experience negative feelings following their Facebook

use. For example, they tended to be offended by others’

rejection or disregard of their friendship request: ‘I am

offended when people don’t respond to my posts’; ‘I was

offended when they didn’t want to friend me’; ‘When

people don’t respond, it’s frustrating. . . It’s like you are

talking to someone and he ignores you.’

Discussion

The present study aimed to describe the subjective

experiences of Facebook users with intellectual

disabilities and to understand the meanings they

attribute to these experiences in terms of social capital.

In general, it was found that the majority of the

participants use Facebook in the same ways as the

general population does, that is at least once a day

(Duggan et al. 2015). However, as opposed to the

general population, and especially youth (Hampton

et al. 2012), it seems that the participants in the present

study give more than they receive in their interactions

with their Facebook friends. They mainly watched and

liked photographs or video clips uploaded by their

Facebook friends. The vision-based functions, such as

reviewing photographs and video clips or playing

games, are more accessible to users with intellectual

disabilities because these functions depend less on

cognitive and literacy skills than do the verbal-based

functions, such as writing and reading posts or replying

to others (Abbott 2006; Morgan 2008; Wohn & Lee 2013;

Shpigelman & Gill 2014b).

Although the preference of the participants in the

present study was to look at photographs or watch video

clips, they also engaged in the more active function of

posting, yet they clearly emphasized that they wrote only

brief posts and kept their responses to others’ posts short

(due to the limited cognitive and literacy skills). In

contrast to previous studies (Hampton et al. 2012;

Shpigelman & Gill 2014b), the participants in the present

study used Facebook not only passively, as consumers,

but also actively, as contributors. It seems participants

were well aware of this difference, as they noted that

actively posting on Facebook was what enabled them to

gain visibility. As indicated in the literature related to

general (non-disabled) users (Egebark & Ekstr€om 2011;

Hampton et al. 2012), visibility is also very important for

persons with intellectual disabilities, who experience

greater social and emotional isolation compared to the

general population (Jahoda & Markova 2004; Pottie &

Sumarah 2004; Lippold & Burns 2009). It seems that the

online visibility helped them to enhance their social

capital, mainly among their bonding relationships

(Putnam 2000).

Furthermore, when the participants’ Facebook friends

reacted using active functions such as liking or replying

to their posts, they gained a sense of social presence,

which compensates for the lack of shared physical

space. In the framework of social presence theory (Short

et al. 1976), social presence refers to the feeling of being

together, experiencing social interactions with a virtual

or remotely located communication partner. Thus, a

sense of social presence is an essential means to

experience direct, positive and personal human contact

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 31, e79–e91

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities e85

(Lombard & Ditton 1997), which in turn can lead to

enhanced social capital. However, to make online

environments cognitively accessible for persons with

intellectual disabilities, abstract terms, such as social

presence, should be conveyed through concrete

language, that is images or emoticons (L€ofgren-

M�artenson 2008; Mervis 2009).

To recap, participants in the present study achieved

visibility through the use of the Like function and by

actively posting on Facebook. Seeing that these postings

garnered responses gave them a sense of social

presence, which made them feel that they were popular

among their Facebook friends. It seems that the

participants strived to become popular online in order

to leverage their social capital (having more friends) and

not as a narcissistic action which is the typical

motivation in the case of non-disabled users (Ong et al.

2011). The participants’ online visibility and popularity

created a sense of belonging and contributed to their

sense of community. This finding supports previous

studies in indicating that participation in SNSs can

increase the individual’s sense of belonging (Effing et al.

2011; Hampton et al. 2011; Strayhorn 2012).

The concept of sense of belonging emphasizes one’s

basic need to feel valued by or important to others and to

feel that one fits in with others in the social environment

(Hagerty et al. 1992). A sense of belonging is an

important element in developing and managing the

individual’s relationship with others. It also has an

impact on the individual’s mental and physical health

(Ross 2002; Hale et al. 2005). Cummins & Lau (2003)

found that a sense of connectedness had a more beneficial

effect on people with intellectual disabilities than did

being physically integrated into the general community.

In the present study, it seems that the participants’ sense

of belonging facilitated their sustained online

participation (Pooley et al. 2005; Zhao et al. 2012), which

in turn led to enhanced social capital. This finding

supports previous studies that demonstrated an

association between online sense of belonging and social

capital among non-disabled users (Hampton et al. 2011;

Kim 2011; Muscanell & Guadagno 2012).

The participants gained a sense of belonging also by

joining Facebook Groups. Facebook Groups is a module

that is useful for generating discussions and sharing

information (Pi et al. 2013). However, that was not the

main gain perceived by the study participants (users

with intellectual disabilities): although they ostensibly

used it to obtain information related to their hobbies,

unlike non-disabled users, they were mostly interested

in making more online friends.

On the whole, the cumulative effect of online social

participation seemed to contribute to the participants’

social capital and increased their psychological well-

being. The current findings are also in line with those of

studies that reported a positive relationship between

participation in SNSs and psychological well-being

(Valkenburg et al. 2006; Ellison et al. 2007; Mauri et al.

2011; Hampton et al. 2012; Nadkarni & Hofmann 2012;

Indian & Grieve 2014). Furthermore, interacting on

Facebook contributed to the participants’ psychological

well-being, as it provided them with an opportunity to

experience a normal identity. As opposed to non-

disabled users, who report construction of various

identities in online settings such as SNSs or dating

websites (Suler 2002; Yurchisin et al. 2005; Zhao et al.

2008), it seems that the participants in the present study

(individuals with intellectual disabilities) did not

produce new identities online. However, the

participation on Facebook provided them an equal

opportunity environment, in which their disability is

less visible (Barak & Sadovsky 2008), thus minimizing

any disability-related stigma and enabling them to feel

‘like everyone else’. It seems that they held the

traditional concept of normalization (Solvang 2000;

Davis 2013), meaning that through their online

participation, they felt they were able to fulfil their

desire to be integrated into society and to be treated as

normal (Deatrick et al. 1999; Caton & Chapman 2016).

The findings of the present study emphasize that the

‘flattening effect’ of social media applications, that is,

the blending and melding together of different social

circles in the online environment (Lewis & West 2009),

may help persons with intellectual disabilities leverage

their social capital, thus creating a beneficial effect and

promoting their sense of well-being.

The number of Facebook friends, or at the very least,

striving for a high number of friends, may have served

as another measure of social ‘normality’ for the

participants. All of the participants associated the ability

to achieve online visibility and popularity with the

accumulation of Facebook friends. In other words, they

attributed the principle of ‘the more the better’ to

Facebook friendships, which is a common perception

among Facebook users (Kim & Lee 2011; Nabi et al.

2013). Nevertheless, the majority did not blindly follow

the principle of ‘the more the better’ and refrained from

extending friend requests to or accepting them from

people whose acquaintances they had made solely

online. Much like other non-disabled users (Ellison et al.

2007; Nadkarni & Hofmann 2012; Duggan et al. 2015)

and disabled users (Shpigelman & Gill 2014b; Holmes &

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 31, e79–e91

e86 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

O’Loughlin 2014), the participants in the present study

used Facebook mainly to communicate with their offline

(real-world) friends, that is, family members, friends

and service providers, with whom they had already met

face to face (bonding relationships). Although some of

them did communicate with their ‘weak ties’

(Granovetter 1973, 1983), and others joined Facebook

groups, which provided them with an opportunity to

increase their bridging relationships (Putnam 2000), it

seems that the majority did not reap the full benefit of

Facebook’s potential promise. In other words, they did

not succeed in leveraging their social capital to the

extent that they had hoped. A plausible explanation for

this finding is the explicit message they received from

their family members and professional caregivers and

which most of them took care to follow, namely, to

avoid corresponding with people whom they had never

met face to face. The fact that the majority of

participants followed these safety instructions and

indeed learned to use Facebook relatively safely is

worth noting, as it contradicts the common perception

that participation in SNSs may be risky for persons with

intellectual disabilities (Acquisti & Gross 2006; Debatin

et al. 2009; Taraszow et al. 2010). Furthermore, despite

the fact that their expectations were not fully met and

despite the imposed limitation of adhering to the safety

guidelines provided, users with intellectual disabilities

still managed to derive pleasure and social leverage

(related to increased visibility, social presence and a

sense of belonging) from their use of Facebook.

Another plausible explanation for the above finding

(i.e. the majority of participants did not use Facebook to

expand their social circles) is the platform’s reliance on

literacy skills which was a source of difficulty for users

with intellectual disabilities. Also the interface design on

Facebook was mentioned by participants as an obstacle,

as was reported in previous studies (Haller 2010;

Shpigelman & Gill 2014b). Some participants noted the

absence of an ongoing support system. As noted in

previous studies (Townsley 1998; Tuffrey-Wijne &

McEnhill 2008; Moloney 2012; Shpigelman & Gill 2014b),

linguistic simplification could help users with intellectual

disabilities to understand a feature or the programme and

the meaning of terms used. It could also enable them to

leverage their social capital while using Facebook safely.

Recently, major technology companies (e.g. Facebook,

Dropbox, Adobe, Yahoo and Microsoft) have initiated an

accessibility task force titled ‘Teaching Accessibility’,

which aims to make their products more accessible to

people with various disabilities (Davies et al. 2015;

Diament 2015).

To recap, the present study has shown that

participation in social media is valuable for persons

with intellectual disabilities. This activity can contribute

to their visibility and social presence, making them feel

popular among their offline friends and, in this

manner, it promotes their sense of belonging to the

community, increases their sense of well-being, and

enhances their bonding social capital. Participation in

SNSs by persons with intellectual disabilities has also

the potential to leverage their bridging social capital,

but they need an even-more accessible platform and

ongoing support.

The study has implications for both practice and

research. Practitioners can use SNSs to assist persons

with intellectual disabilities to leverage their social

capital, for instance, by creating groups that connect

various organizations or centres. People with intellectual

disabilities or with other disabilities, more specifically,

residents and employees who are affiliated with a single

organization or centre but physically belong to separate

facilities can find in Facebook an opportunity to make

new online friends, with whom they can communicate

safely. In addition, practitioners should define for their

clients with intellectual disabilities an explicit policy

regarding Facebook use and devise ways to make the

online environment accessible for their needs, while still

protecting their privacy and security.

The present study had several limitations that should

be addressed in future research. First, the majority of

participants were diagnosed in the upper range of the

intellectual disabilities spectrum and they were

relatively tech-savvy consumers. Future research should

attempt to survey a more representative sample of

people with intellectual disabilities, including those who

do not use Facebook or who use it less frequently, in

order to compare their experiences with those of SNS

users with intellectual disabilities, and to learn how to

adjust the online social environment to suit the needs of

current non-users. Second, the sample included 20

participants, as is common in qualitative research.

Future research should reach out to a larger cohort and

attempt to integrate quantitative instruments to measure

the impact of the online participation in terms of social

capital and well-being. In addition, it would be helpful

to hear the perspectives of family members and

professional caregivers about the participation of

persons with intellectual disabilities in SNSs. In general,

the findings of this study indicate that participation in

SNSs is doable and can have beneficial effects for

persons with intellectual disabilities; these benefits

should be further explored.

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 31, e79–e91

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities e87

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to the individuals who volunteered

and participated in this study.

Source of funding

This study was supported by the Israeli Shalem Fund

for development of services for people with intellectual

disabilities in the local councils (108/2015).

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest has been declared.

Correspondence

Any correspondence should be directed to Carmit-Noa

Shpigelman, Department of Community Mental Health,

University of Haifa, 199 Aba-Khoushy Ave, Mount

Carmel, Haifa 3498838, Israel (e-mail: carmits@

univ.haifa.ac.il).

References

Abbott S. (2006) The barriers to social inclusion as perceived by

people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual

Disabilities 10, 275–287.

Acquisti A. & Gross R. (2006) Imagined communities:

awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the

Facebook. Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Privacy Enhancing

Technologies. Cambridge, UK.

Barak A. & Sadovsky Y. (2008) Internet use and personal

empowerment of hearing-impaired adolescents. Computers in

Human Behavior 24, 1802–1815.

Barak A., Hen L., Boniel-Nissim M. & Shapira N. (2008) A

comprehensive review and a meta-analysis of the effectiveness

of Internet-based psychotherapeutic interventions. Journal of

Technology in Human Services 26, 109–160.

Bradley N. & Poppen W. (2003) Assistive technology,

computers and internet may decrease sense of isolation for

homebound elderly and disabled persons. Technology and

Disability 15, 19–25.

Braithwaite D. O., Waldron V. R. & Finn J. (1999)

Communication of social support in computer-mediated

groups for people with disabilities. Health Communication 11,

123–151.

Buckley S., Bird G., Sacks B. & Archer T. (2005) A comparison

of mainstream and special education for teenagers with

Down syndrome: implications for parents and teachers. Down

Syndrome News and Update 2, 46–54.

Buijs P. C. M., Boot E., Shugar A., Fung W. L. A. & Bassett A.

S. (2016) Internet safety issues for adolescents and adults

with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in

Intellectual Disabilities. doi:10.1111/jar.12250

Burt R. S. (2005) Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social

Capital. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Caton S. & Chapman M. (2016) The use of social media and

people with intellectual disability: a systematic review and

thematic analysis. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental

Disability 41, 125–139.

Charmaz K. & McMullen L. M. (2011) Five ways of Doing

Qualitative Analysis: Phenomenological Psychology, Grounded

Theory, Discourse Analysis, Narrative Research, and Intuitive

Inquiry. Guilford Press, New York, USA.

Cheung C. M. K., Chiu P.-Y. & Lee M. K. O. (2011) Online

social networks: why do students use facebook? Computers in

Human Behavior 27, 1337–1343.

Clement T. & Bigby C. (2009) Breaking out of a distinct social

space: reflections on supporting community participation for

people with severe and profound intellectual disability. Journal

of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 22, 264–275.

Creswell J. (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design:

Choosing Among Five Traditions. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Cummins R. A. & Lau A. L. D. (2003) Community integration

or community exposure? A review and discussion in relation

to people with an intellectual disability. Journal of Applied

Research in Intellectual Disabilities 16, 145–157.

Davies D. K., Stock S. E., King L. R., Brown R. B., Wehmeyer

M. L. & Shogren K. A. (2015) An Interface to support

independent use of Facebook by people with intellectual

disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 53, 30–41.

Davis L. J. (2013) Introduction: disability, normality, and

power. In: The Disability Studies Reader, 4th edn (ed. L. J.

Davis) pp. 1–16. Routledge, New York and London.

Deatrick J. A., Knafi K. A. & Murphy-Moore C. (1999)

Clarifying the concept of normalization. Journal of Nursing

Scholarship 31, 209–214.

Debatin B., Lovejoy J. P., Horn A.-K. & Hughes B. N. (2009)

Facebook and online privacy: attitudes, behaviors, and

unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication 15, 83–108.

Denzin N. K. & Lincoln Y. S. (2011) The SAGE Handbook of

Qualitative Research, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

D’Haem H. (2008) Special at school but lonely at home: an

alternative friendship group for adolescents with Down

Syndrome. Down Syndrome Research and Practice 12, 107–111.

Diament M.. (2015) Tech Giants Team up to Boost Accessibility.

Available at: http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2015/07/23/

tech-team-boost-accessibility/20495/ (accessed on 17 January

2016)

Duggan M. (2015). Mobile Messaging and Social Media 2015. The

Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.

Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/mob

ile-messaging-and-social-media-2015/ (accessed on 21 December

2015)

Duggan M., Ellison N. B., Lample C., Lenhart A. & Madden M.

(2015) Social Media Update 2014. The Pew Research Center’s

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 31, e79–e91

e88 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

Internet & American Life Project. Available at: http://www.pe

winternet.org/2015/01/09/social-media-update-2014/ (accessed

on 17 January 2016)

Effing R., van Hillegersberg J. & Huibers T. (2011) Social media

and political participation: are Facebook, Twitter and

YouTube democratizing our political systems? International

Federation for Information Processing, LNCS 6847, 25–35.

Egebark J. & Ekstr€om M. (2011) Like what you like or like what

others like? Conformity and peer effects on Facebook. IFN

Working Paper, No. 886.

Ellison N. B., Steinfield C. & 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.

Ellison N. B., Steinfield C. & Lampe C. (2010) Connection

strategies: social capital implications of Facebook-enabled

communication practices. New Media & Society 13, 873–892.

Emerson E. & McVilly K. (2004) Friendship activities of adults

with intellectual disabilities in supported accommodation in

Northern England. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual

Disabilities 17, 191–197.

Erlandson D. A., Harris E. L., Skipper B. L. & Allen S. T. (1993)

Doing Naturalistic Inquiry: A Guide to Methods. Sage, Newbury

Park, CA.

Fox S. (2011) Americans Living with Disability and Their

Technology Profile. The Pew Research Center’s Internet &

American Life Project. Available at: http://www.pewinterne

t.org/2011/01/21/americans-living-with-disability-and-their-tec

hnology-profile/

Granovetter M. S. (1973) The strength of weak ties. The

American Journal of Sociology 78, 1360–1380.

Granovetter M. S. (1983) The strength of weak ties: a network

theory revisited. Sociological Theory 1, 201–233.

Hagerty B. M., Lynch-Sauer J., Patusky K. L. & Collier P. (1992)

Sense of belonging: a vital mental health concept. Archives of

Psychiatric Nursing 6, 172–177.

Hale C. J., Hannum J. W. & Espelage D. L. (2005) Social

support and physical health: the importance of belonging.

Journal of American College Health 53, 276–284.

Haller B. A. (2010) Representing Disability in An Ableist World:

Essays on Mass Media. The Advocado Press, Louisville, KY.

Hamill L. B. (2003) Going to college: the experiences of a

young woman with Down Syndrome. Mental Retardation 41,

340–353.

Hampton K. N., Goulet L. S., Rainie L. & Purcell K. (2011)

Social Networking Sites and Our Lives: How People’s Trust,

Personal Relationships, and Civic and Political Involvement are

Connected to Their Use of Social Networking Sites and Other

Technologies. The Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life

Project. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/

2011/Technology-and-social-networks.aspx (accessed on 15

March 2012)

Hampton K. N., Goulet L. S., Marlow C. & Rainie L. (2012).

Why Most Facebook Users Get More Than They Give. The Pew

Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Available at:

http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/02/03/why-most-facebook-

users-get-more-than-they-give (accessed on 15 March 2014)

Holmes K. M. & O’Loughlin N. (2014) The experiences of

people with learning disabilities on social networking sites.

British Journal of Learning Disabilities 42, 3–7.

Indian M. & Grieve R. (2014) When Facebook is easier than

face-to-face: social support derived from Facebook in socially

anxious individual. Personality and Individual Differences 59,

102–106.

Jahoda A. & Markova I. (2004) Coping with social stigma:

people with intellectual disabilities moving from institutions

and family home. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 48,

719–729.

Kampert A. L. & Goreczny A. J. (2007) Community involvement

and socialization among individuals with mental retardation.

Research in Developmental Disabilities 28, 278–286.

Kim B. (2011) Understanding antecedents of continuance

intention in social-networking services. Cyberpsychology,

Behavior, and Social Networking 14, 199–205.

Kim J. & Lee J.-E. (2011) The Facebook paths to happiness:

effects of the number of Facebook friends and self-

presentation on subjective well-being. CyberPsychology,

Behavior, and Social Networking 14, 359–364.

Knox M. & Hickson F. (2001) The meaning of close friendship:

the views of four people with intellectual disabilities. Journal

of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 14, 276–291.

Leimeister J. M., Schweizer K., Leimeister S. & Helmut K.

(2008) Do virtual communities matter for the social support

of patients? Antecedents and effects of virtual relationships

in online communities. Information Technology and People 21,

350–374.

Lewis J. & West A. (2009) “Friending”: a London-based

undergraduates’ experience of Facebook. New Media & Society

11, 1209–1229.

Lin N. (2001) Building a network theory of social capital. In:

Social Capital: Theory and Research (eds N. Lin, K. S. Cook &

R. S. Burt) pp. 3–29. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

Lincoln Y. S. & Guba E. G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage,

Beverly Hills, California.

Lippold T. & Burns J. (2009) Social support and intellectual

disabilities: a comparison between social networks of adults

with intellectual disability and those with physical disability.

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 53, 463–473.

L€ofgren-M�artenson F. (2008) Love in cyberspace: Swedish

young people with intellectual disabilities and the Internet.

Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 10, 125–138.

Lombard M. & Ditton T. (1997) At the heart of it all: the concept

of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3.

doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x

Marshall C. & Rossman G. B. (1989) Designing Qualitative

Research. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Mauri M., Cipresso P., Balgera A., Villamira M. & Riva G.

(2011) Why is Facebook so successful? Psychophysiological

measures describe a core flow state while using Facebook.

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 14, 723–731.

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 31, e79–e91

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities e89

McClimens A. & Gordon F. (2009) People with intellectual

disabilities as bloggers: what’s social capital got to do with it

anyway? Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 13, 19–30.

McKenna K. & Bargh J. A. (1998) Coming out in the age of the

Internet: identity “demarginalization” through virtual group

participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75,

681–694.

Mehra B., Merkel C. & Peterson Bishop A. (2004) The internet

for empowerment of minority and marginalized users. New

Media & Society 6, 781–802.

Mervis C. B. (2009) Language and literacy development of

children with Williams Syndrome. Topics in Language

Disorders 29, 149–169.

Moloney M. (2012) Accessible Information: Advocating the Use

of Technology for Individuals with Intellectual Disability on

Their Path to Individualized Services. Master’s thesis, Dublin

Institute of Technology, Ireland.

Morgan M. (2008) Literacy: meeting the challenge of limited

literacy resources for adolescents and adults with

intellectual disabilities. British Journal of Special Education 35,

92–101.

Morrow S. L. (2005) Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative

research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling

Psychology 52, 250–260.

Morse J. M. (1995) The significance of saturation. Qualitative

Health Research 5, 147–149.

Muscanell N. L. & Guadagno R. E. (2012) Make new friends or

keep the old: gender and personality differences in social

networking use. Computers in Human Behavior 28, 107–112.

Nabi R. L., Perstin 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, 721–727.

Nadkarni A. & Hofmann S. G. (2012) Why do people use

Facebook? Personality and Individual Differences 52, 243–249.

National Organization on Disability (2000) NOD-Harris Surveys

of Americans with Disabilities and Community Participation. New

York: Harris Interactive. Available at: http://nod.org/asse

ts/downloads/2000-executive-summary.pdf (accessed on 03

March 2014)

NCIL (National Council on Independent Living) (2011) Pew

Research Center Refuses to Include Disability Statistics in Polls.

Available at: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pe

ople-with-disabilities-protest-no-representation-by-pew-researc

h-center-121554593.html (accessed on 23 June 2013)

Niesz T., Koch L. & Rumrill P. D. (2008) The empowerment of

people with disabilities through qualitative research. Work 31,

113–125.

Ong E. Y. L., Ang R. P., Ho J. C. M., Lim J. C. Y., Goh D. H.,

Lee C. S. & Chua A. Y. K. (2011) Narcissism, extraversion

and adolescents’ self-presentation on Facebook. Personality

and Individual Differences 50, 180–185.

Patton M. Q. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods,

3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Pi S.-M., Chou C.-H. & Liao H.-L. (2013) A study of Facebook

Groups members’ knowledge sharing. Computers in Human

Behavior 29, 1971–1979.

Pooley J. A., Cohen L. & Pike L. T. (2005) Can sense of

community inform social capital? The Social Science Journal 42,

71–79.

Pottie C. & Sumarah J. (2004) Friendships between persons

with and without developmental disabilities. Mental

Retardation 42, 55–66.

Putnam R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of

American Community. Simon and Schuster, New York.

Ross N. (2002) Community belonging and health. Health Reports

13, 33–39.

Schalock R. L., Borthwick-Duffy S. A., Bradley V. J., Buntinx W.

H. E., Coulter D. L., Craig E. M. P., Gomez S. C., Lachapelle

Y., Luckasson R., Reeve A., Shogren K. A., Snell M. E., Spreat

S., Tassé M. J., Thompson J. R., Verdugo-Alonso M. A.,

Wehmeyer M. L. & Yeager M. H. (2010) Intellectual Disability:

Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports, 11th edn.

American Association on Intellectual and Developmental

Disabilities, USA.

Shogren K. A. (2012) Hispanic mothers’ perceptions of self-

determination. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe

Disabilities 37, 170–184.

Short J., Williams E. & Christie B. (1976) The Social Psychology of

Telecommunications. John Wiley & Sons, London.

Shpigelman C. N., Weiss P. L. & Reiter S. (2009) E-mentoring

for all. Computers in Human Behavior 25(4), 919–928.

Shpigelman C. N. & Gill C. J. (2014a) Facebook use by persons

with disabilities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

19, 610–624.

Shpigelman C. N. & Gill C. J. (2014b) How adults with

intellectual disabilities use Facebook? Disability & Society 29

(10), 1601–1616.

Smith A. (2013) Smartphone Ownership — 2013 Update. The Pew

Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Available at:

http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/05/smartphone-owne

rship-2013/ (accessed on 07 January 2014)

Smith A. (2015) U.S. Smartphone Use in 2015. The Pew Research

Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Available at: http://

www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-

2015/ (accessed on 07 February 2016)

Sokolowski R. (2000) Introduction to Phenomenology. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Solvang P. (2000) The emergence of an us and them discourse

in disability theory. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research

2, 3–20.

Steinfield C., Ellison N. B. & Lampe C. (2008) Social capital,

self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: a

longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology 29, 434–445.

Strauss A. & Corbin J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research:

Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage, Newbury

Park, CA.

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 31, e79–e91

e90 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

Strayhorn T. L. (2012) Exploring the impact of Facebook and

Myspace use on first-year students’ sense of belonging and

persistence decisions. Journal of College Student Development

53, 783–796.

Suler J. R. (2002) Identity management in cyberspace. Journal of

Applied Psychoanalytic Studies 4, 455–459.

Taraszow T., Aristodemou E., Shitta G. & Arsoy A. (2010)

Disclosure of personal and contact information by young

people in social networking sites: an analysis using

FacebookTM profiles as an example. International Journal of

Media and Cultural Politics 6, 81–102.

Townsley R. (1998) Information is power: the impact of accessible

information on people with learning difficulties. In: Innovations

in Advocacy and Empowerment for People with Intellectual

Disabilities (ed L. Ward) pp. 77–90. Liseieux Hall, Chorley.

Tuffrey-Wijne I. & McEnhill L. (2008) Communication

difficulties and intellectual disability in end-of-life care.

International Journal of Palliative Care 14, 189–194.

U.S. Department of Commerce (2011) Exploring the Digital

Nation: Computer and Internet Use at Home. U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, DC, USA.

Valkenburg P. M., Peter J. & Schouten A. P. (2006) Friend

networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-

being and social self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and

Social Networking 9, 584–590.

Verdonschot M. M. L., de Witte L. P., Reichrath E., Buntinx W.

H. & Curfs L. M. (2009) Community participation of people

with an intellectual disability: a review of empirical findings.

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 53, 303–318.

Wohn D. Y. & Lee Y.-H. (2013) Players of Facebook games and

how they play. Entertainment Computing 4, 171–178.

Yurchisin J., Watchravesringkan K. & McCabe D. B. (2005) An

exploration of identity re-creation in the context of Internet

dating. Social Behavior and Personality 33, 735–750.

Zhao S., Grasmuck S. & Martin J. (2008) Identity construction

on Facebook: digital empowerment in anchored relationships.

Computers in Human Behavior 24, 1816–1836.

Zhao L., Lu Y., Wang B., Chauc P. Y. K. & Zhanga L. (2012)

Cultivating the sense of belonging and motivating user

participation in virtual communities: a social capital

perspective. International Journal of Information Management 32,

574–588.

de Z�u~niga H. G., Jung N. & Valenzuela S. (2012) Social media

use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement

and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication 17, 319–336.

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 31, e79–e91

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities e91