close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

Strength of ties

код для вставкиСкачать
The Strength of Online and Offline Ties: The Role
of Multiplexity and Duration
Gustavo S. Mesch
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
University of Haifa
The Strength of Online and Offline Ties: The Role of Multiplexity
and Duration
Naama(18, J, G) “Ahh…not really… you know using the Internet today is not
like “WOW! I chatted today!!!!’ …. It's a regular, normal daily experience, like
brushing your teeth every morning.
пЃ®
Communication technologies are integrated in individuals’ everyday
life.
пЃ®
Internet provides a new space for relationship formation, expansion
and diversification of adolescents’ social ties.
пЃ®
Maintenance of intimate and non-intimate ties
пЃ®
Formation of intimate and non-intimate social relationships.
The Strength of Online and Offline Ties: The Role of
Multiplexity and Duration
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
Internet as culture
Social space in its own right
Forms of communication, sociability, and identity that are
produced within social space.
Online ties replace face to face ties (Kraut et al, 1998, Slater,
Bargh, McKenna & Fitzsimons, 2002, Turkle,1999).
Weak ties (social presence, richness and lack of social clues).
Strong ties (Hyper-sociability (Walther) emphasizes duration)
virtual relationships are more intimate, richer, and liberating
than offline relationships because they are based on genuine
mutual interest rather than the coincidence of physical
proximity. It is a zone of freedom, fluidity, and experimentation
insulated from the mundane realities of the material world
(Bargh, McKenna & Fitzsimons. 2002).
The Strength of Online and Offline Ties: The Role of
Multiplexity and Duration
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
Internet as a cultural artifact.
Use and access reflect social inequalities.
Technology is incorporated in the everyday life of
individuals
It is used as a means of communication within an offline
social world (Howard, Rainie and Jones, 2002; Katz and
Rice, 2002)
Individuals use the Internet to do the old things in new ways
The Internet is recognized as a new channel of
communication, but its function is limited to supplementing
the existing ones (face to face, cell phone, and phone) and
in some cases displacing them (Hampton and Wellman, 2001;
Baym, et al., 2004).
Online are weak ties
The Strength of Online and Offline Ties: The Role of Multiplexity and Duration
The effect of the Internet on relationship formation
has been studied (Internet as culture)
The effect of the Internet on existing relationships
has been widely studied (Internet as cultural
artifact)
There is a need for comparative studies of the
quality of personal relationships created online
and those created in face to face settings.
The goal of the current study was
1.
To investigate the differential quality of personal
relationships created online and face to face.
The Strength of Online and Offline Ties: The Role of Multiplexity and Duration
Social Diversification
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
What is the motivation for online
relationship formation?
What are the content of offline/online
ties?
What is the result of these connection?
(weak ties /strong ties).
Two central concepts:
Foci of Activity
Social similarity
1. Relationship formation is a two step process:
foci of activity provides opportunities and
social similarity attraction.
2. Individuals sharing social statuses such as
age, gender, proximity are more likely to
associate as they are more likely to share
interests and concerns.
3. Closeness requires trust and trust requires
time.
4. Closeness requires shared identity.
Social Diversification
5 Shared identity, boundaries are reached
through doing things together.
6. Closeness requires intimacy, achieved
through self disclosure( topics of
conversation).
7. Similarity in social position are exogenous
factors that shape features of social
interaction and shape quality of social ties.
8. Ultimately, social similarity shapes duration
and content and these shape the strength of
the social tie
The Strength of Online and Offline Ties: The Role of Multiplexity and Duration
Focus: personal relationships during adolescence
because:
1.
Adolescents are early adopters.
2.
During adolescence social ties outside the
family expand (Giordano, 2003).
3.
In interactions with peers, adolescents learn
how to cooperate, to take different
perspectives, and to satisfy growing needs for
intimacy (Rubin, Bukowski & Parker, 1998;
Crosnoe, 2000).
The Strength of Online and Offline Ties: The Role of Multiplexity and Duration
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
The perspective of the current paper is that
quality of social ties is dependent
Place in which the relationship was
established (Online-face to face).
Social similarity
Length of the relationship
Content of the relationship
Data and Methods
Data: Survey of a representative sample of
the adolescent population in Israel (age
12-18) (n=987) in 2004.
Face to face interviews on time using the
internet, frequency of internet use,
purposes of internet use and ego-centric
data on dyads of friends.
Dependent variables:
Length of friendship: How long they know each friend
Content Multiplexity: nine items indicating frequent topics of
conversation (school, parents, family, friends, personal
problems, music, tv programs, sports, romantic
relationships). Scale from 0 to 4(high frequency).
(alpha=.607)
Activity multiplexity: 6 items on frequency of doing things
together (meeting at homes, playing games, meeting at
homes, meeting at school, meeting at extracurricular
activities, meeting at parties). Scale 0-4 (alpha=.607)
Strength of ties: items asking extent of closeness, trust, help
seeking and importance. (alpha=.811).
Independent variables:
Foci of activity : dummy variable (Place of first meeting the friend:
face to face (school, neighborhood, extracurricualr activities)
and online (email, messenger, chat room).
Internet use: how long has access and daily frequency of use.
Friends similarity: age, gender and place of residence similarity.
Demographic characteristics: Age, gender, number of siblings,
nationality and mother’s education.
Findings Sample Description
A ge
G e n d e r (P e r c e n ta g e b o y s)
N a tio n a lity (P e r c e n ta g e J e w s)
M o th e r ’s e d u c a tio n
P a r e n ta l F a m ily S ta tu s
(p e r c e n ta g e m a r r ie d )
A c c e ss to In te r n e t (P e r c e n ta g e )
P la c e in w h ic h fir st fr ie n d w a s m e t
S ch ool
N e ig h b o r h o o d
O n lin e
A g e S im ila r ity
G e n d e r S im ila r ity
R e sid e n tia l sim ila r ity
D u r a tio n
C o n te n t M u ltip le x ity
A c tiv ity M u ltip le x ity
S tr e n g th o f tie s
F a c e to F a c e
89%
88%
9 3 .3
3 .8 1 (.5 5 )
4 .5 7 (2 .1 7 )
3 .6 1 (1 .7 7 )
1 3 .9 2 (1 .7 9 )
1 5 .5 2 (1 .6 6 )
52%
79%
1 2 .5 3 (3 .3 7 )
8 6 .8 %
6 6 .7 %
60%
28%
12%
O n lin e
77%
69%
7 3 .5
3 .0 7 (1 .2 1 )*
3 .7 8 (2 .3 6 )*
2 .7 7 (1 .4 9 )*
1 1 .1 0 (2 .5 2 )*
The Strength of Online and Offline Ties: The Role of Multiplexity and Duration
P rop ortion of A d olescen t an d F rien d E n gagin g in S h ared A ctivities
accord in g to O rigin of th e R elation sh ip
T h in gs w e d o togeth er F rien d w as m et face
F rien d w as m et on lin e
to face
P h on e con versation s
.741
.583 **
G oin g to p arties
.364
.305
M eetin g at sch ool
.650
.331*
M eetin g at frien d s’
.684
.194*
H an gin g ou t
.669
.361*
E xtracu rricu lar
.090
.110*
h ou ses
activities
The Strength of Online and Offline Ties: The Role of Multiplexity and Duration
P r o p o r tio n o f A d o le s c e n t a n d F r ie n d D is c u s s in g D iv e r s e
T o p ic s a c c o r d in g to O r ig in o f th e R e la tio n s h ip
T o p ic s w e d is c u s s F r ie n d w a s m e t
F r ie n d w a s m e t
to g e th e r
fa c e to fa c e
o n lin e
School
.6 3 1
.6 0 2
P a r e n ts
.5 0 3
.3 9 2 *
F r ie n d s
.7 5 3
.7 1 1
H o b b ie s
.4 2 1
.4 2 1
P erson al
.5 9 3
.3 6 8 *
.6 1 8
.5 2 6
L o v e /r o m a n tic
.4 9 9
.3 4 2 * *
F a s h io n / d ie ts
.5 4 6
.4 2 1
p r o b le m s
T V sh ow s an d
m o v ie s
Tie Strength
1.0
Content
Multiplexity
Activity
Multiplexity
Duration
.322**
1.0
.189**
1.0
.148**
.380*
*
.093*
.089*
1.0
Online Friend
-.120**
-.08*
-.10**
-.29**
1.0
Age
.063
.067
-.031
.023
.035
1.0
Gender
-.11**
-.070
-.011
.061
.032
1.0
Nationality
(1=Israeli
Jew)
Parental
Status
Parental
Education
Number of
Siblings
Gender
Similarity
Age Similarity
.051
.21**
.039
.092
.039
-.027
.021
.08
1.0
-.038
-.052
.045
.008
-.018
-.005
.025
.046
1.0
-.007
-.003
.038
.064
-.054
-.036
.075
.233**
.047
1.0
-.020
-.031
-.073
-.034
-.004
.027
.027
-.29**
-.01
-.35**
1.0
.042
.030
.063
.203**
-.07*
.029
-.062
.011
.014
.030
1.0
.062
.093*
.106**
.046
.13**
-.050
-.047
-.01
.042
-.12*
.015
-.004
.257**
1.0
Residential
Similarity
Duration of
Internet use
Daily
Frequency of
use
Means (S.D.)
.17**
.022
-.011
.127**
-.16*
-.069
.015
-.033
.052
-.050
-.015
.145**
.059
1.0
.10**
.093*
.135**
.014
-.012
.037
.008
.294**
.020
.314**
-/274
-.003
.070
-.08
1.0
-.010
.085*
.062
-.019
.049
.021
.055
.058
.022
-.035
-.101
-.071
-.05
-.00
.013
1.0
13.9
(1.85)
4.49
(2.21)
3.55
(1.78)
3.76
(.64)
.12
(.22)
15.53
(1.67)
.51
(.50)
.80
(.39)
.78
(.25)
13.219
(3.28)
2.60
(1.48)
.85
(.34)
.87
(.33)
.53
(.49)
3.4
(1.5)
3.9
(4.42)
The Strength of Online and Offline Ties: The Role of
Multiplexity and Duration
Variable
Name
Age
Gender
(1=Male)
Nationality
(1=Israeli
Jew)
Parents'
Marital
Status
(1=Married)
Mother’s
Education
Number of
Siblings
Gender
similarity
Age
Similarity
Propinquity
Duration of Friendship
Parameter Standard
Estimate
Parameter
(S.E.)
Estimate
.031
.081**
(.015)
.001
.001
(.051)
.084
.054
(.071)
Content Multiplexity
Parameter Standard
Estimate
Parameter
(S.E.)
Estimate
.126
.101*
(.052)
-.815
-.196*
(.173)
-.037
-.007
(.242)
Activity Multiplexity
Parameter Standard
Estimate
Parameter
Estimate
-.009
-.008
(.045)
-.128
-.037
(.149)
.144
.033
(.208)
-.004
(.013)
-.012
-.060
(.044)
-.057
.055
(.038)
.062
.027
-.054
(.030)
-.146
(.068)
-.138
(.262)
.377
(.280)
.013
(.178)
.209
(.061)
-.040
(.021)
-.707
(.307)
3.672*
(1.049)
.090
-.083
-.017
(.026)
-.049
(.059)
.112
(.224)
.574
(.242)
-.023
(.153)
.185
(.052)
.027
(.018)
-.879
(.343)
2.743
(.901)
.052
-.030
.005
(.009)
.004
(.020)
.402
(.077)
-.031
(.082)
.114
(.052)
Duration of
.003
Use
(.018)
Frequency of .002
Daily Use
(.006)
Online Friend -.806
(.118)
Constant
2.794*
(.309)
Adj. Rsquare .150
*p<.01 , **p<.05
.009
.221*
-.016
.090**
.008
.011
-.281*
-.101*
-.023
.059
.003
.154*
-.081**
-.076*
-.040
.022
.106*
-.007
.164*
.063
-.111*
OLS Regression Predicting Strength of ties
Variable
Name
Age
Gender
(1=Male)
Nationality
(1=Israeli
Jew)
Parents'
Marital
Status
(1=Married)
Mother’s
Education
Number of
Siblings
Gender
Similarity
Age
Similarity
Propinquity
Duration of
Use
Frequency of
Daily Use
Online
Friend
Content
Multiplexity
Activity
Multiplexity
Duration
Constant
Parameter
Estimate
(S.E.)
.095
(.046)
-.347
(.152)
.005
(.213)
Standard
Parameter
Estimate
.089**
-.051
(.039)
-.028
(.027)
-.013
(.059)
-.294
(.230)
.182
(.250)
.579
(.157)
.160
(.054)
.006
(.018)
-.959
(.346)
12.431*
(.933)
Adj. Rsquare .062
*p<.01 , **p<.05 +p<.10
Parameter
Estimate
(S.E.)
.069
(.045)
-.170
(.150)
.015
(.206)
Standard
Parameter
Estimate
.065
-.057
-.036
(.038)
-.040
-.063
(.038)
-.072
-.053
(.038)
-.060
-.049
-.015
(.026)
.021
(.058)
-.268
(.222)
.106
(.241)
.576
(.151)
.111
(.053)
.015
(.018)
-.792
(.635)
.227
(.037)
-.027
-.023
(.026)
-.004
(.059)
-.343
(.224)
-.012
(.247)
.574
(.153)
.105
(.053)
.016
(.018)
-.584
(.344)
-.042
-.029
(.026)
-.023
(.058)
-.503
(.231)
.120
(.245)
.533
(.154)
.137
(.053)
.020
(.018)
-.378
(.360)
-.052
.164
(.044)
.162*
.413
(.135)
11.468*
(.996)
.072
.143*
-.097**
.001
-.010
-.057
.032
.162*
.137*
.014
-.120*
11.548*
(.913)
.124
-.048
.003
.017
-.052
.019
.161*
.096**
.035
-.100
Parameter
Estimate
.097
(.045)
-.362
(.149)
.021
(.209)
Standard
Parameter
Estimate
.092**
-.103*
.005
-.004
-.068
-.002
.163*
.092**
.038
-.074
Parameter
Estimate
.079
(.045)
-.378
(.149)
-.014
(.209)
Standard
Parameter
Estimate
.074
-.108*
-.003
-.019
-.100**
.022
.151*
.120*
.046
-.048
.264*
12.095
(.924)*
132
Discussion The Strength of Online and Offline Ties: The Role of
Multiplexity and Duration
1.
2.
3.
Association among individuals is not only
shaped by computer mediated
communication
Similarity in social characteristics are
exogenous factors that cause individuals to
associate
Once they have done so, duration, content,
and activities shaped at least by social
status shape the quality of association.
Discussion The Strength of Online and Offline Ties: The Role of
Multiplexity and Duration
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
Online friends are not less or more close than face to
face friends
History and content of the relationship, more than the
channel of communication shapes the extent of
closeness.
Online relationships are limited because they are new
and lack shared experiences that create the
boundaries and shared identity of close relationships.
Thank you
Gustavo Mesch, email: gustavo@soc.haifa.ac.il
пЃ®
Mesch Gustavo S. and Ilan Talmud. Similarity and The Quality of Online
and Offline Social Relationships among Adolescents in Israel. Journal
of Research in Adolescence
пЃ®
Mesch Gustavo and Ilan Talmud. Online Friendship Formation,
Communication Channels, and Social Closeness. International
Journal of Internet Sciences.
пЃ®
Mesch, Gustavo and Ilan Talmud. 2006. The Quality of Online and
Offline Relationships, the role of multiplexity and duration. The
Information Society, 22(3).
пЃ®
Mesch, Gustavo and Ilan Talmud. (Forthcoming). Privacy and
Networking: Ethnic Differences in the Use of Cell Phones and IM in
Israel. In James Katz (ed). "Mobile Communication and Social Change
in a Global Context" MIT Press.
Документ
Категория
Презентации
Просмотров
4
Размер файла
214 Кб
Теги
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа