NATS 1505 Unit 2: Internet Sociability PDF

NATS 1505 UNIT 2: INTERNET SOCIABILITY DR. VERA PAVRI @ 2023 1  1. Internet Usage Worldwide (macro perspective): Are we truly a global village?  Popular belief is that online communications have created a “global village” by uniting people irrespective of time, dis...

NATS 1505 UNIT 2: INTERNET SOCIABILITY DR. VERA PAVRI @ 2023 1  1. Internet Usage Worldwide (macro perspective): Are we truly a global village?  Popular belief is that online communications have created a “global village” by uniting people irrespective of time, distance, place and culture (Marshall McLuhan, “medium is the message”)  This idea has been challenged for different reasons  Susan Douglas (2006): as opposed to a global village, today we live in a more isolated, narcissistic and ethnocentric society because the “technologies that enable us to look beyond our borders can also encourage us to gaze at our navels…” 2  1. Internet Usage Worldwide (macro perspective): Are we truly a global village?  Jones (2002): Narrowcasting – information obtained through ICTs as opposed to traditional broadcast sources is more likely to be extreme and geared towards a homogenous audience which shares the same point of view  Homophily: tendency of people to associate with those similar to themselves means internet usage may not always lead to a diversification of perspectives (think racial, religious, political associations) 3  1. Internet Usage Worldwide (macro perspective): Are we truly a global village?  Filter bubbles often reinforce existing belief systems  Persuasive technologies and the rise of extremism (e.g. hate groups) - Zeynep Tufekci Ted Talk: “we’re building a dystopia just to make people click on ads”  Qvortup (2006): “our modern global society is not one huge network, but consists of an enormous number of loosely coupled networks. All these networks influence and disturb one another, but they are not directly connected” 4  2. Individual Internet Usage (micro perspective): Who benefits from being online?  One of the central questions in ICT sociability research is whether ICT usage strengthens social bonds (e.g., increases connections between people and eliminates social barriers), or whether constant usage makes people lonelier and more socially isolated  Many early internet studies (pre Web 2.0) favoured the social isolation thesis, and focused on connections between internet usage and increased disconnectivity from family, friends, reduced social networks, and higher levels of depression and anxiety 5  2. Individual Internet Usage (micro perspective): Who benefits from being online?  Kraut et. al: “Internet Paradox” thesis  However, current research suggests the answer to this question is far more complex, and may be rooted in issues like motivation, personality type, and the degree and type of connections people make  Motivation: information, friendship, social versus solitary activities 6 3. Social Network Sites, Personality Type and Connectivity  Popularity of social network sites (SNS) has further challenged this question of sociability  SNS like Facebook, Twitter or Instagram are internet based services that allow individuals to create semi-public or fully public profiles where they can identify, communicate and track other users they share a connection with  2018: 2.2B Facebook users, 1B Instagram users, 300M Twitter users* 7 3. Social Network Sites, Personality Type and Connectivity  Yzer and Southwell (2008): “new media do not alter the essence of social interaction that stems from basic human tendencies…but they might condition the expression of such interaction”  For example, while older broadcast systems did not allow for much interaction between audience members, ICTs often eliminate the separation between interpersonal and mass communications  Lee and Lee (2010): social networks once based offline are now online 8  3. Social Network Sites, Personality Type and Connectivity  Q: Is TikTok a SNS?  A: Herrman (2022): “TikTok is a platform of targeted content and loose ties – a post-social social network that doesn’t rely on you friends to keep you engaged and entertained but rather on “recommendations” which is the flip side of surveillance…”  Current research has focused on SNS (especially Facebook) usage among extraverts and introverts 9  3. Social Network Sites, Personality Type and Connectivity  Extraverts: 70+ of the population who desire and require a high degree of social connectivity  Introverts: prefer to work independently, keen observers and listeners, often prefer the company of one or a few to many  Common misconception is that introverts are aloof, anti- social or shy – this isn’t true, they just have a different neurological chemistry 10  3. Social Network Sites, Personality Type and Connectivity  Nadkarni and Hofmann (2012): Facebook usage associated with high levels of extraversion, neuroticism, narcissism, and low levels of self-esteem and self-worth  Sheldon et al. (2011): while using SNS allows some social needs to be met and can (in the short-term) increase feelings of connectivity, these sites do not meet all user needs which can actually increase feelings of disconnection in the long-term 11  4. Links between Offline and Online Social Connectivity  Q: Is there a fundamental difference in connecting with others in online versus offline spheres?  Social compensation thesis: individuals who find in difficult to socialize or connect with others in person use online activities as a way to enhance their personal lives  For example – would individuals with incapacitating social anxiety in face-to-face situations benefit from using SNS as a tool for connection and support? Not necessarily…. 12  4. Links between Offline and Online Social Connectivity  While anonymity was an attractive feature of early online activity and benefitted those who were shy or anxious about making real-time connections, this has changed with SNS usage where there are greater restrictions on anonymity and the focus is on maintaining existing social relationships  “Rich getting richer” thesis: people who are socially adept and who have greater social currency are more likely to use and benefit from activities like social networking 13  4. Links between Offline and Online Social Connectivity  Mental health and general well-being may be the most important predictors of having positive online social experiences (e.g., a strengthening of relationships)  Forest and Wood (2012): People who have many off-line social connections and who have high self-esteem tend to reap the most rewards from using SNS sites  Those with low self-esteem recognize the value of using these sites but do not benefit as much (their research looks at negative self-disclosure and likeability in relation to developing intimacy in relationships) 14  5. Types and Degrees of Online Social Connections  What types of connections do people make online and with whom?  How does this factor into analyzing online social connectivity?  Quality of relationships: weak ties (provisional ties which lack depth and provide access to info and opportunitie) versus strong ties (bonding relationships which provide emotional support) 15  5. Types and Degrees of Online Social Connections  Quality of communications: verbal, visual, body language cures and online activities  Sherry Turkle Ted Talk: “Connected but alone”  Effort and engagement of online versus offline correspondence (think conversations vs. text messaging)  Positive versus negative connections (like-minded hobbyists versus hate groups)  Digital Divide: unequal access and use of technology = less social support 16