the internet is a magnifying glass
Post on 03-Dec-2014
1.099 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Sorin A. Matei
Studying the Studying the social effects of social effects of
the Internet the Internet with a with a
“magnifying “magnifying glass”glass”
Is the Internet:
A Bridging tool? Once introduced it might reduce the distance
between individuals and groups Emphasis on access to technology
(Hiltz-Turoff – Network nation, Rheingold, Wired)
A chasm creator? The technology creates new inequalities – microserfs, symbolic manipulator masters and “the great digitally unwashed” (Barbrook and Cameron)
The “social effects of the Internet” seen in The “social effects of the Internet” seen in relationship with the digital dividerelationship with the digital divide
ProblemProblem
Questions are
Technology-centric (Wellman)Focused primarily on access
Re-framing the questionsRe-framing the questions• We need to broaden the work in this arena by looking at:
– What happens after access is not a problem anymore?– What happens to the social content / substance of Internet use?
• Assumption: The Internet does not singlehandedly create social gaps, or can reduce them
• The Internet is a catalyst, is the “yeast” in the social mix
• It favors specific behaviors (especially those with socially consequential effects) if these behaviors are already present
Two pronged approachTwo pronged approach
• Individual – what social behaviors are enhanced by the Internet?
• Social/group level – is social capital increased / diminished by Internet connections?
The individual approachThe individual approach
• A number of studies have noticed “magnification effects”
• Those socially active are more likely to• Adopt the Internet• Or to use it for social goals
Empirical evidence for Empirical evidence for magnification effectsmagnification effects
• Metamorphosis (Ball-Rokeach and Matei)
• GSS 2000 (Robinson and Neustadtl)
• Pew Internet Polls (Rainie, Jones and Howard)
• Syntopia (Katz, Rice and Aspden)
• Cyberville study in Toronto (Wellman and Hampton)
Belonging
Mass Communication
On-line connections
ChineseGreater Monterey Park
MexicanEast LA
CaucasianSouth Pasadena
KoreanGreater Koreatown
CaucasianWestside
African-AmericanGreater Crenshaw
Central AmericanPico Union
Bilingual Telephone Interviews1812 Households
Metamorphosis research Metamorphosis research strategystrategy
Some empirical evidence – Some empirical evidence – Metamorphosis Metamorphosis
• People who are more solidly anchored to their neighborhoods are more likely to make a friend on-line
• 7% increase in likelihood of making a friend on-line for each increase in a
“belonging index” score
• Married people are more likely to make a friend on-line than singles when they know someone in the neighborhood
• Singles are less likely to make a friend on-line when they do not know someone in the neighborhood
Community level effects in Community level effects in Metamorphosis studyMetamorphosis study
• In white neighborhoods the Internet indirectly contributes to social integration
• In Asian and Latino neighborhoods the Internet does not contribute -- directly or indirectly -- to social integration
Group effects at national levelGroup effects at national level
• Study of the 48 contiguous union states– states with the highest amount of social
capital are more likely to produce virtual groups – Yahoo! clubs – and to produce the most active groups
GSS 2000 Internet moduleGSS 2000 Internet module
• Contains questions about:– Reasons for using the Internet social reasons
included– Time spent with people off-line (distinguishes
between family and friends)
– Some findings:• Users are more likely to spend more time with neighbors and
friends• Those who use the Internet for social reasons are also more
likely to spend more time with friends – although not with family members
Further research questionsFurther research questions
• Individual level
• If high “socializers” in Real Life are high “socializers” in Virtual Space, how sustainable is this in the long run?– Will there be a tipping-off point, which will lead to a “reversal of
fortunes”? – Will, in the long run, on-line ties replace off-line ties? – Will this affect especially the virtual class, those living the digital
life, isolated in their “nerdistans” (Kotkin)?– This question, although asked many times and allegedly
answered, is still to be addressed. It requires longitudinal, national or large scale representative studies.
Further research questionsFurther research questions
• Group level
– How should we confront the failure of hardware dissemination to alleviate the problems of the poorest, less vital communities?
– Maybe we should address the issue of presence/absence of social capital first, before assuming that technology will create it
– Internet connections revitalize pre-existing community resources, cannot invent them from scratch
Social capital theorySocial capital theory• In trying to explain when and how the Internet might
contribute to / detract from social interaction I rely on Social Capital Theory (Coleman, Putnam)
• SCT main goal to explain social action
Social capital = social networks and informal / semi-formal organizations
SCT identifies the resources and motivations that explain social involvement and collective action
Generalized reciprocity: main resource for Generalized reciprocity: main resource for generating social capitalgenerating social capital
Social capital is more likely to be produced where social attitudes, expectations and obligations are directed by the principle of “generalized reciprocity”:
“I’ll do this for you without expecting anything specific back from you, in the confident expectation that someone else will do something for me down the road” (Putnam, 2000, Bowling Alone, p. 21).
Where generalized reciprocity is strong, there is are important “unintended consequence:” groups are easier to form and transactions (social, economic, political) to be negotiated more social capital
Extending social capital theory to studying the social Extending social capital theory to studying the social impact of communication technologyimpact of communication technology
• Generalized reciprocity is “trained” and developed in geographically situated communities: families, neighborhoods, schools, circles of friends and associates, political units
– shared cultures and values facilitate trust– a sense of obligation is stronger to those closer to us
(dark side)
• A sense of “generalized reciprocity” once acquired, becomes portable and extensible to other realms. We can take it with us wherever we go.
SCT implications for studying the InternetSCT implications for studying the Internet
• Generalized reciprocity and the habits of the heart associated with it will inflect our use of communication technology
– When colonizing the Internet we take our capacity to generate social capital with us
– We will generate social ties in a proportion commensurate with our general ability to produce social capital
The broad research questionThe broad research question
• Does off-line propensity for sociability influence on-line social interactions?
The need for a dual level of The need for a dual level of analysis strategyanalysis strategy
• Generalized reciprocity is a form of “positive externality:” neighborhood watch groups benefit even those who do not participate
• IS NOT an entirely individual phenomenon
• It is BOTH an individual and group process
• Not only individuals that present high propensity for generating social capital will be more likely to generate on-line social ties
• Social groups with potential for high social capital will manifest the same tendencies
More specific research questionsMore specific research questions
• Do individuals who have a higher propensity for generating social capital (GR), also have a higher propensity for involvement on-line?
• Do social environments with higher potential for generating social capital (GR) produce more on-line activity?
Individual-level side of the questionIndividual-level side of the question
• Explored in Los Angeles using a geographically focused sample
• Results reported in American Behavioral Scientist (2001) and in the Journal of Communication (in press)
Belonging IndexBelonging Indexcaptures level of social capital at individual level – assumes trust and captures level of social capital at individual level – assumes trust and
generalized reciprocitygeneralized reciprocity• Objective
– Number of neighbors known to:
• Talk about a personal problem
• Ask for a ride
• Watch over your home
• Assist with a repair
• Subjective
– Agree/disagree:
• It is easy to make friends with your neighbors
• You enjoy talking with your neighbors
• Your neighbors borrow things from you
• You are interested in knowing what your neighbors are like
Cronbach alpha .8
The question, again, is…The question, again, is…
• Are people with higher level of belonging (social capital) more likely to establish bonds on-line?
Analysis: logistic regressionAnalysis: logistic regression
• Depedent variable is binary– “Yes” / “No” answers to the question: “Have
you ever met someone you consider a personal friend?”
• How much does a predictor variable increase the odds of choosing one of two categories of the binary variable, controlling for other variables
Logistic regression resultsLogistic regression results
Those who “belong” more are 7% more likely to make a friend on-line for each “belonging index unit increase”
Controlling for gender, ethnicity, income, education, age, immigration history
Midway conclusionsMidway conclusions
• Belonging is positively associated with making friends on-line
• Social capital might be involved in generating sociability on-line
Switching levels of analysisSwitching levels of analysis
• Do individuals who have a higher propensity for generating social capital (GR) also have a higher propensity for involvement on-line?
• Do social environments with higher potential for generating social capital (GR) produce more on-line sociability?
Study started as part of an undergraduate research methods class
Paper presented in Maastricht, at the 3rd Conference of Internet researchers, under review at the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media
MethodologyUsing states as units of analysis:
Do states with higher capacity for producing social capital generate more on-line sociability?
MethodologyUsing states as units of analysis:
Do states with higher capacity for producing social capital generate more on-line sociability?
Operationalizing “on-line sociability”Operationalizing “on-line sociability”
• Number of Yahoo! groups associated with a specific state of the union
• Yahoo! groups: Web-based electronic spaces where people interested in a specific location (state or smaller locations) can meet and communicate
• Bulletin board, chat, file sharing, photo uploads, community databases
• 4,597 Groups (M=95 / state)
• 170,050 Members
• 340,789 Messages
• Group size range: 1 - 2,239 members
AnalysisAnalysis
• Multiple (OLS) regression:
– Predict number of groups per 100,000 using capacity for generating social capital trust level (proxy for generalized reciprocity)
– Controlling for population homogeneity and density.
Clubs per 100,000 inhabitantsClubs per 100,000 inhabitantsdependent variabledependent variable
Main predictor variableMain predictor variable
• State-level of trust (capacity to generate social capital)
– % of those who answered “Yes” to the GSS question – “Most people can be trusted”
– Rough indicator of “generalized reciprocity”
• Used by Putnam in his “social capital” index.
% Yes “Most people can be % Yes “Most people can be trusted”trusted”
Co-variates (controls)Co-variates (controls)
• Population density• Population homogeneity (% foreign born)
Variables dropped after exploratory analysis• Internet penetration• Gross state product
– Highly correlated between them (r=0.6).– Highly correlated with level of trust (r=0.6).
ResultsResults Unstandardized
CoefficientsStandardized Coefficients
t p
B Std. Error β
% Yes: Most people
can be trusted 0.03 .014 .327 2.285 .02
Percent population
foreign born -.08 .032 -.420 -2.546 .01
Adjusted R2=.18
The higher the social capital, the more numerous the groups
The more homogeneous the population, the more numerous the groups
Follow-up analysisFollow-up analysis
• Is the consequence of high potential for social capital – higher social involvement – connected to on-line sociability?
• Can on-line sociability directly be predicted by off-line sociability?
• Predict number of Yahoo! groups using number of NGOs (501c3) / 1000 people
Follow up analysis resultsFollow up analysis results
Dependent variable: Yahoo! groups per 100,000 Adjusted R-square = .12
The more numerous the non-profit organizations, the more numerous the on-line groups
The more homogeneous the population, the more numerous the groups -- ns
ConclusionsConclusions
• Individual level:– On-line sociability probably has a “magnifying
glass effect” – helps those who have high level of belonging to extend their relationships on-line
• State level:– High social capital states generate more on-
line groups – sociability on-line reflects sociability off-line
Practical implicationsPractical implications
For designing on-line venues:• Sociability builds on sociability
• Sticky sites and groups are made of:a) sticky individuals who share at least some proximity
b) sticky technologies
• Seed the group with high social capital opinion leaders and motivators
Practical implicationsPractical implications
For the community activist / policy practitioner
• Hardware alone does not revitalize community or democracy
• Is the level of social capital sufficient to expect a specific pay-off from implementing the technology?
• IF NOT, energize first the social networks in the community
• Make them the anchors of the new computer network
The road from here…The road from here…
• Study of Lexington modeled after the Los Angeles study
– how does the specific spatial location of each respondent in a specific geographic location influence their social ties on and off-line?
• Yahoo! study follow-up:
– longitudinal analysis
How does the Internet/media How does the Internet/media interact with our social contexts?interact with our social contexts?
• The Internet as other media plays an important role in the process of social integration
• It facilitates emergence of “ties the bind”
• It serves as a “magnifying glass” – strengthens pre-existing propensities for social action
• Do you talk with other people about your neighborhood? (1-10 scale, median split)
• Are you a member of any community organization? • Do you primarily use community media or• Mainstream media for
– community information, entertainment or shopping – TV, newspapers, radio
• Do you have Internet access from home, work or anywhere else?
• Have you ever met someone on-line you consider a personal friend?
– Coleman: multiplexity and strength of ties between social actors (manifested as obligations and expectations), social norms related to trust and access/density of information channels
– Putnam: those features of social life—social
networks, norms and trust—that enable collective action
Belonging and new/old media Belonging and new/old media connectedness: a communication connectedness: a communication
infrastructure modelinfrastructure model
Connections toCommunity
Organizations
Local/Community Media
Connections
Participation in Interpersonal Storytelling BELONGING Internet
connection
Mainstream Mass Media
Connections1.8
1.7
5.6
1.4
1.4
1.6
Metamorphosis study: English-speaking samples
On-line sociability predicted by belongingOn-line sociability predicted by belonging((dv: “Have you ever met someone on-line you consider a personal friend?”)dv: “Have you ever met someone on-line you consider a personal friend?”)
Variable B S.E. Wald Sig Exp(B)
BELONGING .0639 .0296 4.6612 .0309 1.0660
GENDER .5391 .3013 3.2019 .0736 1.7144
AGE -.0095 .0143 .4344 .5098 .9906
EDUC .1811 .1156 2.4549 .1172 1.1985
INCOME -.1030 .0863 1.4238 .2328 .9021
IMMIG.GEN. -.1362 .1296 1.1045 .2933 .8727
KOREATOWN 3.2065 1.3314 5.7996 .0160 24.6915
KOREAN/BELONG.-.1231 .0702 3.0737 .0796 .8842
CRENSHAW .2197 .5752 .1459 .7025 1.2457
ELA -1.2143 .8942 1.8441 .1745 .2969
MONTEREY PARK .5827 .5824 1.0010 .3171 1.7908
WESTSIDE .1334 .5405 .0609 .8051 1.1427
PICO UNION -.5566 .8220 .4586 .4983 .5731
Operationalizing “Intensity of on-line activity”Operationalizing “Intensity of on-line activity”
Starting Point: How much activity is generated by a typical club in any given state?
– First instinct: average number of messages/member for each club, then average the averages
– Problem: ignores the fact that some clubs are larger or older, had more chances to facilitate activity
– Solution: “Adjusted” measure of “average number of messages” per club
• MEASURE CONCEPTUALLY: What would the number of messages sent to a typical club in any given state be if the influence of number of members and club age would be constant (the same)?
• OLS-procedure: DV: Number of Messages; IVs: # of members; club age in months; R-square = .65 Predict number of messages for each club using group size (# of members) and club age (longevity in months)
• MEASURE OPERATIONALLY: Average predicted number of messages for each state: SUM of predicted number of messages / Number of clubs in each specific state
ResultsResults
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
Population density -0.0003 .000 -.315 -1.905 .065
% Answered Yes “Most people can be
trusted”0.05 .023 2.277 2.292 .028
% Answered Yes “Most people can be
trusted” squared-.0007 .000 -2.634 -2.637 .012
Adjusted R2=.21
Curvilinear relationship between trust and weighted average group activity
Sparser populated states generate more active clubs
Curvilinear relationship between Curvilinear relationship between trust and on-line activitytrust and on-line activity
GSS: "Most people can be trusted" % agree
70605040302010
Me
an
we
igh
ted
clu
b a
ctiv
ity
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
Geographic Region
West Coast
Southwest
Mountain
Plain States
Midwest
South
Mid Atlantic
North East
Total Population
WYWI
WV
WA
VA
VT
UT
TX
TN
SC
RI
PA
OR
OK
OH
ND
NC
NY
NJ
NHMT
MS
MO
MN
MI
MA
MD
LA
KY
KS
IA
IN
IL
GA
FL
CT
COCA
AR
AZ
AL
Curvilinearity of relationship between trust and activity Curvilinearity of relationship between trust and activity mirrored by that between off-line involvement and on-line mirrored by that between off-line involvement and on-line
involvementinvolvement
DDB Needham dataset: Club meetings attended last year
1110987654
Mea
n w
eigh
ted
club
act
ivity
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
Geographic Region
West Coast
Southwest
Mountain
Plain States
Midwest
South
Mid Atlantic
North East
Total Population
WV
WA
VA
VT
UT
TX
TN
SDSC
PA
OR
OK
OH
ND
NC
NY
NJ
NHNV
NE
MT
MS
MO
MN
MI
MA
LA
KY
KS
IA
IN
IL
IDGA
COCA
AR
AZ
AL
top related