Online Social Networks in Everyday Life. INLS , Week 3

Transcription

1 Online Social Networks in Everyday Life INLS , Week 3

2 Overview Measuring Social Connectedness Social capital, social isolation and technological intervention Applied Analysis Ellison et al. s Benefits of Facebook Friends Hampton et al. s Social Isolation and New Technology New Forms. Thompson s Ambient Intimacy Resnick s Impersonal SocioTechnical Capital

3 The Big Question The effect of X on Y The effect of internet use on interpersonal communication, size of social circle, and depression and loneliness (Kraut et al., 1998) The effect of internet use on time spent with friends and family, and time spent on social and leisure activities (Nie & Hillygus, 2002) The effect of internet use on social participation (Katz & Aspden, 1997) Meta-analysis: (Shklovski et al., 2006)

4 Measuring Social Connectedness Social Capital James Coleman: Resources used in provisioning tangible forms of Human Capital Obligations, Expectations, Information, Norms, Sanctions provisioned through networks. (Coleman, 1998) Nan Lin: The resources one can mobilize and access for accomplishing goals and tasks, accessing resources, etc. (Lin, 1999)

5 Measuring Social Connectedness Leonardo DiCaprio as Frank Abangale, Jr. Social Capital Bourdieu s Theory of Practice, habitus and fields (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) Putnam s concepts of Bridging and Bonding Capital (Putnam, 2001) Bridging Capital Weak-tie focused, fosters organization and collaboration Bonding Capital Strong-tie focused, fosters in-group identities and cohesion

6 Measuring Social Connectedness A brief history of the core discussion inventory GSS Q: From time to time, most people discuss important matters with other people. Looking back over the last six months who are the people with whom you discussed matters important to you? (Marsden, 1987; McPherson et al., 2006)

7 Critiques of the CDI? What is an important matter? Social structures govern what we talk about and who we talk with. We reserve certain topics for certain individuals and situations (Bearman & Parigi, 2004) A poor question? Question is taxing or socially undesirable? Random error on data collection? (Fischer, 2009)

8 Other Use Outcomes Loneliness and depression (Kraut et al., 1998; LaRose et al., 2001) Spatial/local participation (Hampton & Wellman, 2002; Mesch & Levanon, 2003) Family (Mesch, 2003) and school participation (Cummings et al., 2006) Range of psychometric measures (See the journal CyberPsychology & Behavior)

9 Connecting With Technology Refer to (Shklovski et al., 2004) for meta-analysis of technology/participation studies Recent focus: Online-offline connection (cf. Ellison, Hampton) Low-involvement/low social-cost interaction (cf. Grinter & Eldridge, 2001; Grinter & Eldridge, 2003) Reconnection (Lenhart, 2009) Perpetual involvement (Christensen, 2009) Hypercoordination (Ito et al., 2005) Implications for development/identity play (Turkle, 2008) Implications for privacy (cf. Solove, 2007)

10 An Exercise: Your Derivatives Think about the communication technologies you commonly use social network sites, status and link sharing networks, mobile phones: What are some of the derivative data you produce? E.g. Facebook actions that go into the news stream, your tag cloud What types of relationships are you sustaining through these data? What relationships would you lose if you migrated?

11 Analyzing Facebook: Benefits of Relationship between Facebook use and Social Capital Three forms of social capital Bridging Weak-tie social capital Bonding Strong-tie social capital Maintained Perpetuated social capital Analysis overview Methodology: Sample survey, web administration Behavioral and attitudinal scales Regression analysis

12 Analyzing Facebook: Benefits of Facebook Intensity Scale

13 Analyzing Facebook: Benefits of Self Esteem/Life Satisfaction Scales

14 Analyzing Facebook: Benefits of Social Capital Scales

15 Analyzing Facebook: Benefits of Bridging Social Capital Scale: FB Intensity:.34/.34 R-Squared:.44/.46 Bonding Social Capital Scale FB Intensity:.37/.34 R-Squared:.23/.22 Maintained Social Capital FB Intensity:.37/.36 R-Squared:.16/.17

16 Social Isolation and New Technology Relationship between technology use and discussion network size

17 Social Isolation and New Technology Positive associations (from Regression Appendix) Cell phone use and discussion network size Cell phone use and kin discussion network SNS use and kin discussion network Internet use and having a nonkin discussion tie Blogging/frequent internet use and having cross-race/ethnicity core discussion network (EB ~ 2) IM use and discussion network size SNS use and knowing neighbors (EB ~.6) Why?

18 Impersonal Sociotechnical Capital Resnick's Social Capital - how it works: Facilitates information routing Exchange of other resources besides info Provides emotional support to one another Enables coordination Overcome dilemmas of collective action The resources of social capital Communication paths Shared knowledge Shared values Shared sense of collective identity Resources, obligations and debts Norms and roles, trust

19 Impersonal Sociotechnical Capital STC Opportunities Remove barries to interaction Distant comm, asynchronous comm Expand interaction networks Large distribution - one sender, many receivers Restricting information flows Anonymity, restricted modality Managing dependencies Notifications, Concurrency controls Maintaining history Document versioning, interaction logs

20 Impersonal Sociotechnical Capital New STC Opportunities Enhanced groups self-awareness Brief interactions Maintaining ties while spending less time Peripheral participation (Resnick, 2001)

21 References Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Christensen, T. H. (2009). 'Connected presence' in distributed family life. New Media & Society, 11(3), Cummings, J. N., Lee, J. B., and Kraut, R. (2006). Communication technology and friendship during the transition from high school to college. In Kraut, R., Brynin, M., and Kiesler, S. (Eds.), Computers, Phones, and the Internet: Domesticating Information Technology (pp ). USA: Oxford University Press. Fischer, C. S. (2009). The 2004 GSS Finding of Shrunken Social Networks: An Artifact?. American Sociological Review, 74(4), Grinter, R. E. and Eldridge, M. A. (2001). y do tngrs luv 2 txt msg?. In ECSCW'01: Proceedings of the seventh conference on European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Norwell, MA, USA, 2001 (pp ). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Grinter, R. and Eldridge, M. (2003). Wan2tlk?: everyday text messaging. In Proceedings of the, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA, 2003 (pp ). ACM. Hampton, K. and Wellman, B. (2001). Long Distance Community in the Network Society: Contact and Support Beyond Netville. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), Ito, M., Okabe, D., and Matsuda, M. (2005). Personal, portable, pedestrian: Mobile phones in Japanese life. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Katz, J. E. and Aspden, P. (1997). A nation of strangers?. Communications of the ACM, 40(12), Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., and Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox. A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?. American Psychologist, 53(9),

22 References LaRose, R., Eastin, M. S., and Gregg, J. (2001). Reformulating the Internet paradox: Social cognitive explanations of Internet use and depression. Journal of Online Behavior, 1(2). Lenhart, A. (January 14, 2009). Adults and Social Network Websites. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved January 14, 2009 from Marsden, P. V. (1987). Core Discussion Networks of Americans. American Sociological Review, 52(1), McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., and Brashears, M. (2006). Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades. American Sociological Review, 71(3), Mesch, G. S. (2003). The Family and the Internet: The Israeli Case. Social Science Quarterly, 84(4), Mesch, G. (2005). A study of adolescents' online and offline social relationships. Oxford Internet Institute. Nie, N. H. and Hillygus, D. S. (2002). The impact of Internet use on sociability: Time-diary findings. IT & Society, 1(1), Putnam, R. (2001). Bowling Alone : The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Resnick, P. (2001). Beyond Bowling Together: SocioTechnical Capital. In Carroll, J. (Ed.), HCI in the New Millenium. Addison-Wesley. Shklovski, I., Kiesler, S., and Kraut, R. (2006). The Internet and social interaction. In Kraut, R., Brynin, M., and Kiesler, S. (Eds.), Computers, phones, and the Internet (pp ). Oxford University Press. Solove, D. J. (2007). The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Turkle, S. (2008). Always-on/Always-on-you: The Tethered Self. In Katz, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Mobile Communications and Social Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.