More and more consumers today use Social Networking Services (SNS) such as Facebook and Twitter and the unprecedented growth of SNS has captivated many practitioners’ minds. It is no wonder that many global enterprises are now exploring the possibility of using SNS as a means to reach multi-national segments. Yet, still, many unresolved questions need to be answered. In particular, we addressed the questions regarding (1) whether a different type of social capital – a bridging and bonding social capital— is emphasized during the creation and management of an individual’s SNS according to different cultures and (2) how such social capital formed on SNS can be related to consumer preference for a certain type of producti. e., symbolic versus utilitarian products. In order to examine these hypotheses, we collected survey questionnaires from 245 college students. For the purpose of cross-cultural comparison, the sample consisted of two cultural backgrounds: a collectivistic culture, represented by the countries in North East Asia (Korea,China, and Japan) versus a individualistic culture, represented by the countries in North America (USA and Canada). The number of SNS that the respondents used was not different between the two cultural groups (t = 1.79, ns). Yet the North Americans reported significantly more number of friends on SNS, compared to the East Asians (t = 5.09, p < .01); and they spent more time on SNS, compared to the East Asians(t = 4.08, p < .01). Regarding the first question, we hypothesized that the bridging type of social networking onSNS would be more prominent in individualistic cultures than in collectivistic cultures, while the bonding type of social networking on SNS would be more prominent in collectivistic cultures than individualistic cultures. Consistent to our hypothesis, we found that North Americans, representing Western individual cultures, reported greater bridging social capital than bonding social capital (t=-8.03,p<.01). However, unlike our prediction, East Asians did not report greater bonding social capital than bridging social capital. Instead, they also reported greater bridging social capital, t = -4.69, p < .01. These result suggest that creating and managing bridging(vs. bonding) social capital is more emphasized in the SNS setting,irrespective of the cultural orientations. Regarding the second question, we hypothesized that bonding social capital on SNS would be linked to preference for a symbolic product while bridging social capital would be linked to preference for a utilitarian product. As a symbolic product, we selected jeans and, as a utilitarian product, we selected a laptop computer. Regression analyses showed that, consistent to our hypotheses, bonding social capital was related to preference for jeans (β = .22, p < .01),while bridging social capital was not(β=.12, ns). Also, bridging social capital was related to preference for a laptop computer (β = .33, p < .01), while bonding social capital was not (β =.09, ns). Together, we showed that a certain group of people forming a type of social capital through SNS activities, tends to have a favorite product type.