Reconfiguring Socialities

tripleC 6(2): 146-166, 2008 ISSN 1726-670X http://www.triple-c.at

Reconfiguring socialities: The personal networks of ICT users and social cohesion Andraž Petrovčič University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Centre for Methodology and Informatics, Kardeljeva pl. 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, [email protected]

Abstract: The debate on the social role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has centered on whether their use will tend to isolate or connect individuals, thereby undermining or reinforcing social ties. This paper moves away from this focus on more or less connectivity to explore the structural characteristics of emerging forms of technologically mediated social connectivity and to examine how these new forms alter the integrative foundations of contemporary communities. The paper contends that in the circumstances of late modernity, characterized by the reflexive uses of communication technologies, network and mobile sociality have emerged that differently support the commitment of strong and the evanescence of weak ties, having ramifications for the types and cohesiveness of community forms that are increasingly structured as personal networks. In order to evaluate the cohesiveness of network and mobile sociality the analysis indentifies users of mobile phones, short text messages, landline telephone, PC email, online community and active participants in an online community and investigates the differences between users and non-users of these technologies in terms of the structural characteristics of personal networks as well as social participation and offline socializing as two central dimensions of social cohesion. The analysis is based on data from the 2005 IKT-GOS Survey, a national probability sample survey of individuals aged 10 and over in Slovenia. The findings indicate that the use of different ICTs alters the structural composition of personal networks and the communication processes within them in different ways. However, the use of ICTs generally augments the level of offline socializing and social participation. When taken together, the results suggest that network and mobile sociality are characterized by the growing importance of “fine-tuning” personal relationships in a way that combines various communication technologies, which does not detract people from offline environments and, thereby, has a beneficial impact on social cohesion. Keywords: information and communication technology, network sociality, mobile sociality, social networks, community, social cohesion Acknowledgement: This is a revision of a paper presented at the ICT & Society doctoral student meeting organized by the ICT&S Center at the University of Salzburg in June 2008. The author would like to acknowledge with thanks the editors as well as Alice Robbin, Gunilla Bradley, Alice Mattoni and the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions. The author would also like to express his appreciation to his supervisor Vasja Vehovar and Gregor Petrič for their time and constructive discussions during which several important ideas and conclusions on contemporary socialities emerged and were elaborated.

1. Introduction st

n the 21 century, new information and communication technologies (“ICTs”) have the potential to influence the lives of ordinary people as much as they have influenced business, education, and government. A number of studies provide evidence that, alongside “old” communication devices such as the landline telephone, mobile phones and Internet-based

communication services (e.g., email, instant messengers, online communities, social network sites) have become an integral part of people‟s everyday lives (Boase, 2008; Wellman & Haythornwaite, 2002). The ability to communicate selectively in a way that is mediated, relayed and over distance plays a role in how social relationships are constructed and maintained. Moreover, new ways of understanding and experiencing meaningful togetherness have been sought.

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

tripleC 6(2): 146-166, 2008

As Calhoun (1991) noted, communication technologies have played an important role in the constitution of extended communities in terms of both the spatial extension of relationships and providing an integrative and cohesive means of transmitting shared customs and social traditions across space. However, while technological mediation extends and expands the capacity of interconnectivity it simultaneously enhances the individuation and compartmentalization of the individual (Willson, 2006). Therefore, while the individual connects/interacts with more people more frequently than in the past they are also more (physically) isolated through the very form of the interaction itself. Increased individuation also results with the use of technology for enacting or mediating social practices since there is less need for activities to be managed through group or communal efforts. For example, de Gournay (2002) suggests that the mobile phone encourages the scaling down of diffused relationships into a group of relatively close friends. Therefore, as the need to engage with others who are outside of the individual‟s personal network becomes increasingly restricted to social interaction alone, the other activities and practices that form part of contemporary life are becoming ever more compartmentalized and individuated. The technological extension of relationships, social practices and information processes across time and space has also resulted in changes to the dominant ways – or modes of practice – through which people organize their everyday activities. In contemporary society, in-person contact is less central to the experience of everyday life than it was at the beginning of the previous century. Telephones, computers and mobile phones all mediate or extend practices and routines that would previously have been conducted predominately face-to-face. As Calhoun (1986, p. 332) noted, “new computer and communication technologies affect social integration primarily by shifting the balance between relationships that are directly interpersonal and those that are mediated.” A growing number of studies have been undertaken that investigate the changing dominance of the changing of mediated social forms, and the ramifications for both mediated

147

and directly interpersonal interchange. Scholars such as Castells and Wellman and others have pointed to the notion of networks, and personal networks in particular, to explain the new forms of social formations observed in the contemporary societies. In their research they have found patterns of interaction between people that suggest networks are an adequate conceptual model to characterize current social relationships mediated or facilitated by ICTs. For Wellman there has been a “transformation of community from solidarity groups to individualized networks” (Wellman, 2001, p. 228), indicating changes in intersubjective relations and practices that have produced certain forms of sociality. Wittel (2001) argues that this sociality is clearly a network sociality in that it is centered on the individual and finds “material support” in the Internet. But it is also, and increasingly, as Mascheroni (2007) suggests, a mobile sociality in the sense that it is inherently connected with mobile communication, which forms a complex intersection between presence and absence, proximity and distance through physical travel and moments of co-present interaction engendered through the “perpetual contact” (Katz & Aakhus, 2002). In other words, individuals equipped with their “old” and “new” communication devices belong to a variety of personal communities. In such portable communities (Chayko, 2007) social relations are not only lifted out of space, or stretched in space, but are also re-embedded in mobile and portable networks which constitute what Matsuda (2005, p. 133) calls a “full time intimate sphere” or what Habuchi (2005, p. 167) refers to as the “tele-cocoon”. The complex interplay between the “embeddedness” and “disembeddedness” of social interaction and interpersonal relationships, which relates to the different uses of various communication technologies, plays a central role in the integrative nature of the social ties that form the basis of people‟s technologically mediated personal networks. The processes that are involved have ramifications for the types, depth and mutuality of community forms. While technology is employed in these forms to extend and enhance relationships and

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

148

integrative social practices across time and space, it also provides the opportunity for the increased individuation and compartmentalization of the individual, which may have negative reverberations on the social structures that invigorate social cohesion. In other words, the use of communication technology heightens the individual‟s ability to connect with others in a manner that is increasingly unconstrained by temporal and spatial constraints. Yet it also accentuates the individual who is lifted out of the social environment within which he/she is immersed. Since a growing body of evidence has accumulated (Boase, 2008; Mascheroni, 2007; Matsuda, 2005; Miyata & Kobayashi, 2008), which shows that use of different communication technologies has diverse implications for the understanding and experiences of community and social (cohesive) processes that bind individuals together, the form and depth of such technologically mediated relationships certainly requires examination. Although social relationships mediated through ICTs have received a lot of attention from scholars in terms of the communal possibilities and constraints they afford, little attention has been paid to how these means for mediated communication simultaneously shape and sustain users‟ personal communities. The recent studies by Boase (2008), Kim et al. (2007) and Sooryamoorthy et al. (2008) are rare exceptions. This study attempts to fill this void on two levels. On the conceptual level, it will discuss how communication technologies create possibilities for network and mobile sociality and contend that these social forms should be analyzed concurrently in order to obtain a more comprehensive picture of how Internet and mobile communications shape contemporary social relationships. On the empirical level, this study will contribute by exploring how individuals use “old” (i.e., landline telephone) and “new” modes of communication (i.e., mobile phone, short text messages, PC email, online communities) together for sustaining their personal networks of emotional support and by untangling the differences between users and non-users of these modes of communication in terms of structural features of their personal networks.

Andraz Petrovčič

Moreover, the intensity of social participation and offline socializing as two central components of social cohesion will be analyzed according to the use of selected communication technologies by applying multivariate statistical techniques. This article discusses certain trends in the use of ICTs, focusing on how the structure of and the integrative practices in personal networks have been affected by network and mobile sociality. It does not argue, however, that ICTs themselves predetermine the social direction or predominance of particular social forms. Rather, it locates the use of these ICTs within existing structures and trends in late modernity. The rapid adoption of ICTs has grown out of, and has been driven forward by, these existing contexts and, in turn, ICTs are accentuating and accelerating the social trends within which they were born. The next section thus discusses the structural conditions within which network and mobile forms of sociality are embedded, with an emphasis on the reverberations they have had on the structural features of personal networks and on the dynamics of active involvement in various aspects of communal life. This discussion is followed by a description of this study‟s survey methodology, data and indicators, before the findings are presented. The paper ends by drawing out the implications of our results for understanding the structural features of network and mobile sociality, giving some issues for future conceptual and methodological consideration.

2. Reflexivity as the late-modern condition of individuated ICTs social uses With the advent of modernity new transportation and communication technologies have led to the disembedding of time and space within social practices, according to Giddens (1991). This set of changes coincides with the rearrangement of interpersonal relationships as well as the rise of new structural principles that call attention to the relation between choice and commitment in social ties. In this context, Taylor (1991) refers to an “ethic of authenticity”, Sharp (1993) writes of the

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

tripleC 6(2): 146-166, 2008

“ideology of autonomy”, Giddens (1991) analyses the development of “reflexive selfidentity”, while Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (2002) talk of the need to construct one‟s own biography. While each theoretical position differs in some ways, they all emphasize that choices are imposed on the individual. Individuals are thus described by some commentators as being required to consciously and actively construct themselves as well as reflexively select their personal relationships with others from a multiplicity of choices, without the guidance of unquestioned social values, traditions or truths. Although 1 this description is disputed by others , it is necessary to note that part of this lessening of constraints can be attributed to the possibilities enabled by communication technology (cf. Lash as cited in Beck & BeckGernsheim, 2002, p. xii-xiii). As social relations are increasingly mediated through “individually activated” technological means, greater emphasis is placed on the individual and their individual choices and desires. The contemporary individual can choose quite purposively – and indeed is required to choose in such a way – who he/she wants to keep in contact with, and who he/she wishes to exclude and to ignore to a degree not previously possible. For instance, answering machines, mobile phones and Internet-based communication services are all frequently orientated to the individual‟s maintenance and management of his/her social ties. Phone calls and numbers can be screened and answered selectively. Contact can be initiated and maintained with others on the other side of the world, whilst the neighbors next door can be ignored. In this regard, Matsuda (2005, p. 134) ascertains “through keitai [mobile phone] … one fixes appointments and reduces chance encounters and spontaneous gatherings. Now people must always make conscious choices of whom to call and meet. Keitai, or more accurately, the keitai use 1

There are many debates concerning the notion that there has been an erosion or demise of traditions. Some argue that traditions still exist, while others believe that routines have replaced traditions and nowadays provide the structure and certainty for the individual and society. For example, see Hellas, Lash & Morris (1996) for an overview of some of these discussions.

149

increases opportunities for individuals to choose their relationships.” Giddens (1992) argues that the reflexive nature and active agency of individuals, which has been at least partly enabled by new communication technologies, has been upholding a change in the prevalent pattern of social ties and personal relationships. The emphasis on the idea of autonomy focuses on the self or individual choices – of course this can and does mean choices to participate in a particular community – but the origin of that choice is centered on what appears to best for that individual. Much of the discourse surrounding late-modern society evinces the notion that with these rearrangements relationships can often become self-centered, contingent or – to put it in Bauman‟s (2000) terms – liquid and therefore present a threat for social integration. As space and time become more readily and easily traversed, the disembodied modes of interaction and integration reflect or serve to accentuate more instrumental and individualistic understandings toward other individuals and toward the community, leading increasingly to the perception that social ties can be easily chosen or discarded when no longer needed. However, certain scholars (Castells, 2001; Wellman, 2001) argue that in such conditions new organizing principles of sociality are emerging from relations between individuals and being regenerated by new communication technologies. These changes are replicated in the prevalent modes of social organization – the ways in which people collectively order and manage their lives – that within the environment reconfigured by ICTs are related to the organizational principles of networks. According to Urry (2003, p. 170), “social life is for many in the „west‟ and „north‟ increasingly networked.” Networks seem to characterize work, leisure, family and friendship relationships, although their topology varies. When such networks come together on a daily basis, a new form of sociality can established enabled by the diverse forms of technologically mediated connectivity.

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

150

2.1.

Andraz Petrovčič

Social connectivity in the age of network and mobile sociality

Indeed Andreas Wittel (2001) suggests that “network sociality” is developing within increasingly networked social realms that rest strongly on the technological meditation of interpersonal relationships. He identifies four characteristics of this sociality through networks in everyday life. First, “individualization” since people actively construct social bonds, having experienced high levels of geographical mobility, translocal communications, many social contacts, the significance of relations with others, and the proliferation of non-linear “do-it-yourself” biographies (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2002), rather than “living-towards-project” or “pilgrim” life strategies (Bauman, 1995, p. 87; Wittel, 2001, p. 65-66). Second, there are ephemeral, transient, contingent but intense, focused, fast and overloaded social ties. As these connections spread the networks of weak ties thereby become extended. In this network sociality there are no real “strangers”, only potential members of people‟s everexpanding networks. Moreover, because of mobility network sociality is based less upon a shared common history and narrative, as Sennett (1998) laments about the resulting “corrosion of character”. Instead, information is key, the immediacy of the particular of what each person can offer in the quick exchange and the active production of trust (Wittel, 2001, p. 67-68). Finally, this sociality is also a “sociality with objects” since it is deeply embedded in new communication technologies, including Internet-based communication services such as email, chat rooms, discussion forums, mailing lists and web sites and especially mobile communication technologies like notebooks and mobile phones (Wittel, 2001, p. 69). With the use of mobile phones social ties are not only becoming extended through time and space and organized as networks, but are also becoming a mobile practice relocalized in a plurality of private and public spaces. Keeping in touch and bringing along one‟s social networks while on the move is what reconstitutes „the community of interactions‟ as „a mobile phenomenon‟ (Meyrowitz, 2005, p. 26). Further, Mascheroni (2007) contends

that network relationships are reshaped and mobilized through reconfigurations of copresence, proximity and distance in relation to the use of new mobile media. Thus, individuals equipped with mobile gadgets, besides establishing networked forms of sociality, are also producing and maintaining mobile spaces of sociality founded on a complex intersection of in-person interaction and mediated communication, colocation and copresence (Zhao & Elesh, 2008). The reverberations of this mobile form of sociality cannot merely be observed in relation to the changing patterns of communication practices, but also in the reconfigured spatial and temporal organization of coordination and social activities, new “rhythms” of social ties, and newly formed subjective understandings of what Giddens (2001) calls “presenceavailability”. Mobile sociality fosters “always on” connectivity that is experienced as a 2 reassuring routine against the absence of routines emanating from traditions and social institutions. That is why this form of sociality is gaining ground. In other words, ICTs have opened up possibilities to sustain personalized networking oriented to establishing new or keeping up existing ties, by lifting individuals out of the local space. Yet at the same time they have afforded individuals the ability to go about on their separate ways while staying more connected. In such ways, rather than the dislocation individuals out of (local/physical) space, ICTs often facilitate the perpetual co-presence of “spatially distant” social ties. Thus, in order to grasp the complex nature of contemporary sociality a better insight should be provided into how the different modes of communication support the social ties which are structured in personal networks. 2.2.

Technologically mediated personal community

In the social environments structured by networked and mobile sociality, different modes of technologically-mediated communication support diverse types of social 2 However, it should in addition be noted that “always on” connectivity has also become a powerful resource of social control and surveillance in social interactions and personal relationships (cf. Baron, 2008).

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

tripleC 6(2): 146-166, 2008

ties. Recent evidence (e.g., Boase, 2008; Hlebec et al., 2006; Matsuda, 2005; Miyata et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2007) highlights a significant variation by medium in the amount and kinds of social ties sustained in social networks. Similarly to landline phones in the past (Fischer, 1992), mobile phones are used to strengthen or at least maintain strong ties, whereas Internet-based communication services are apt to be involved in fostering strong as well as weak social ties. On one hand, discussion lists, chat rooms, web forums and social network sites (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, Friendster) have expanded the arenas thorough which individuals can look for new interpersonal relationships and potential weak ties (Ellison et al., 2007; Haythornthwaite, 2002; Kavanaugh et al., 2005; Miyata & Kobayashi, 2008; Petrič & Petrovčič, 2008). Users forward communications and information to third parties and, in doing so, they provide indirect contact between previously disconnected people who can then make direct contact. On the other hand, Internetbased communication services such as email, instant messaging or Skype function as narrowing-down media which promote strong ties by connecting individuals who already know each other (Ellison et al., 2007). By contrast, mobile phones are only more closely associated with strong supportive ties. They are most often used to exchange short, quick messages with close friends and family, to remain emotionally connected and to organize meetings or facilitate the arranging of everyday activities. They are interfaces for intimate “perpetual contact” (Katz & Aakhus, 2002) and “connected presence” (Licoppe & Smoreda, 2005) which enable intimates to be accessible anywhere and at anytime (Matsuda, 2005). Likewise, Fortunati describes the mobile phone as “a strong booster of intimacy among those within the social network of the user” (Fortunati, 2002, p. 51). She explains that the mobile is used by people to strengthen “communicative immediacy” with their social networks when faced with a lack of “informative immediacy” of the place. A consequence of mobile phones is the privatizing of communication, isolating the mobile user socially from the public world where they are physically located while also

151

imposing that private communication onto the public realm (Fortunati, 2002; Katz & Aakhus, 2002). The capacity to extend communications across space that is characteristic of Internetbased communication services and mobile media institutes the coexistence of different modes of sociality, which has ramifications for social relations and for the dominant forms of organization of the community. This technological mediation of interpersonal interchanges and of integrative social forms is neither a prima facie loss nor gain in community, but rather a complex, fundamental transformation in the recognition of commonalities between people and in ontological categories which frame the form and content of “being-together” in the community (Willson, 2006). In effect, Wellman (2001) points out that today‟s increasingly ubiquitous Internet – along with personal mobile communication – is fostering a societal turn away from groups and towards people connected with each other as individuals rather than as members of households, communities, kinship groups, workgroups and organizations. This shift facilitates “personal communities” (Wellman, 1979) that supply the essentials of a community separately to each individual. In this context, it is argued that in personal communities (Wellman, 2001): (1) social ties are narrow, ephemeral, intense and specialized relationships that are not broadly supportive. Instead of being composed of broadly-based social ties through which each community member felt securely able to access a variety of social resources, personal communities have become narrower in their application and interest, with community members usually supplying only a few kinds of resources; (2) people are not wrapped up in traditionally densely-knit, tightly-bound communities but are maneuvering in sparselyknit, loosely-bound personal networks with a larger set of active contacts and fewer overlapping multiple affiliations; (3) social ties have moved out of local environments to become dispersed networks that continue to be supportive and sociable. Although personal communities have not totally lost their domestic roots (Boase, 2008), they are rarely local groupings of neighbors and kin; (4) as a consequence, people are members of multiple

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

152

Andraz Petrovčič

communities where boundaries are more permeable, interactions are with more diverse others and linkages switch among multiple networks (Castells, 2001; Putnam, 2000); and (5) private intimacy has replaced public sociality. Rather than being accessible to others and operating out of public places, contemporary communities usually operate out of private homes. This “privatism” of relationships (Fischer, 2005, p. 159) makes it more difficult for people to form new weak ties and it focuses the concerns of relationships on dealing with household members (Kennedy & Wellman, 2007). 2.3.

Reconfigured socialities and social cohesion

Willson (2006) states that the technologically mediated personal community has implications not only for the formal structure of social ties but also for the normative context, which entails those forms of commonality that establish a sense of trust, responsibility and reciprocal obligations between members of the community. Put differently, for Wellman (2001) the technological development of mobile computer networks and the societal flourishing of personal communities should have profound consequences for the depth of associations that are enacted and social cohesion. According to Durkheim, social cohesion in modernity develops “when individuals discover they have interest in common and come together … not only to defend those interests, but also so as to associate with one another and not feel isolated in the midst of their adversaries, so as to enjoy the pleasure to communicating with one other, to feel at one with several others” (Durkheim, 1984, p. xlii-xliv). As relations stretch across time and space they become thin and increasingly specialized and focused. This withering away of multiplexity suggests a fragmentation of community, with people increasingly operating in a number of specialized communities that rarely grab their entire impassioned or sustained attention. Moreover, the multiplicity of communities should reduce the informal social control and increase autonomy. It is easier for people to leave unpleasantly controlling communities

and increase their involvement in other, more accepting ones. In the conditions of ever more individuated relations, social ties become “thinner” or more specialized, leading to increasingly one-dimensional or weak relationships. Some early studies which investigated online social relationships and their effects on offline sociality (Kraut et al., 1998; Nie et al., 2002) suggested that the types of connections that emerge in technological use are necessarily weak, fragmented or less “real” and consequential than in-person relationships. Yet, this does not mean per se that computer-mediated communication inhibits social cohesion. As Granovetter (1973) clearly demonstrates, even weak ties can facilitate numerous opportunities for social cohesion since they are vital to individuals‟ opportunities and to their integration into large-scale social systems. Moreover, ICTs seldom lift out social ties from local environments. They usually complement in-person encounters by filling in the gaps throughout the day and helping to make arrangements. For example, Kennedy and Wellman (2007) ascertained that the Internet and mobile phones often bring household members together by virtue of spending time online together and sharing information. As a consequence, social ties made on the Internet and with mobile phone use can become 3 surprisingly strong. Notably, the assertion that mobile communication fosters social participation and the sense of belonging to a personal network of close ties appears in several recent studies (e.g., Ishii, 2006; Kim et al., 2007; Ling, 2008; Matsuda, 2005). Their strength and significance is revealed in the ways people use these technologies to microcoordinate, share personal feelings or to exchange messages that support reciprocity and invigorate stable personal networks, which may advantageously be the 3

Ling (2008) notes that usage patterns of mobile phones, which are over-emphasizing the »perpetual contact« with strong ties at the expense of weak ties, may not only extend the ability of the intimate sphere to generate social cohesion, but to also generate a phenomenon he terms “bounded solidarity”, which by refocusing the individual attention within his/her existing, tightly-bonded personal community inhibits the formation of large-scale social cohesion.

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

tripleC 6(2): 146-166, 2008

counterweight to the risks embedded in the late-modern social fabric (Beck, 1992). The use of various communication technologies can therefore link people together in social networks and help to tie these networks together. However, the question arises of whether there are differences in the social support networks of individuals who use different communication technologies. Are the networks of Internet users who actively participate in online communities larger and more spatially dispersed (but at the same time less closely knit) because these environments lower communication barriers and give an opportunity for new ties to emerge? Alternatively, are the personal networks of mobile phones users and sms “texters” smaller but more densely knit since they contain more strong and local ties with family and close friends? Does the “old” landline phone still play its socializing role? Moreover, which reverberations for social participation emerge from the consolidation of these complexly structured modes of communication in everyday life? Are network and mobile forms of sociality related to the involvement in community organizations and offline socializing? The objective of the current empirical analysis is to find answers to the following specific research questions: Where can the difference be seen between users and non-users of different technologies for interpersonal communication: in the size of their social support networks? in the satisfaction with the support received from the social network? in the structure of their social support networks – role composition, frequency of contact, geographical distance, duration and importance of ties? in social network characteristics related to the different modes of communication employed to keep in contact with the ties in their network? in the intensity of social participation and offline socializing?

153

3. Research Framework 3.1.

Method

The above research questions are addressed using methods of network analysis (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, pp. 20, p. 42-43). Specifically, this study deals with egocentered networks which consist of a focal actor (ego), a set of people who have ties to this actor (alters), and measurements of the ties between the actor and these other 4 people. A specially designed survey questionnaire is used for this purpose. First, respondents list the names of social support 5 providers via a “name generator”. Second, the respondents (i.e. egos) answer questions about each of the named alters, such as the characteristics of these alters and the characteristics of the ties linking the egos to these alters (these questions are called “name interpreters”). 3.2.

Measures and Variables

Use of ICTs: We asked respondents whether they used mobile phones, short text messages, landline telephones, PC email as well as whether they are users of online communities such as blogs, web forums, discussion lists and chat groups. If respondents reported the use of one of the cited online communities, they were further asked to indicate whether they actively participate in these online environments or are only passive lurkers, who check out others‟ profiles and/or read threads without posting. All variables measuring the use of different communication technologies and participation in online communities were binary variables, dichotomously coded as 0 = „no‟ and 1 = „yes‟. Size and structural characteristics of networks: To estimate the network size, we asked respondents a standard namegenerator question developed and later widely tested by Burt (1984) on the provision of 4 Ego-centered networks differ from complete networks where a complete collection of data on the actors in a selected group and the sets of ties between them is performed (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, pp. 20, p. 42-43). 5 A name-generator is an open-ended survey question where the names (also nicknames, shortened names etc.) of the actual people providing social support to the respondents are obtained.

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

154

emotional social support for each respondent. The exact translated wording was as follows: “Sometimes people discuss important personal matters with other people, for instance, when they argue with someone, have problems at work, and similar. Who do you discuss important personal matters with?” Respondents could name at most 12 intimate alters. The size of their network was calculated after name interpreters were administered and the list of alters was collected for each respondent. The respondents were asked a set of questions for each of the first four alters, assessing the characteristics of their ego-alter ties 6 (geographical distance; role relation – close family, other kin, friend, co-worker, neighbor; 7 frequency of contact; satisfaction with the 8 support; duration of the tie – time of having 9 known each other). Communication within networks: The module on social networks also included a question on how often respondents communicated with each of the four named alters via each of the five media: the mobile phone, sms, the landline phone, face-to-face, and the Internet. The survey question here was as follows: “How often do you communicate with (this) person generally, and not only about important personal matters?” The response scale was: 1 = „never‟; 2 = 6

The scale used: 1 = living in the same household; 2 = living in the same building; 3 = living 15 minutes or less away (by car); 4 = living 15 to 30 minutes away (by car); 5 = living 30 to 60 minutes away (by car); and 6 = living 1 hour or more away (by car). 7 The scale used: 1 = once a year or less; 2 = a few times per year; 3 = approximately once a month; 4 = a few times per month; 5 = approximately once a week; 6 = a few times per week; and 7 = every day. 8 Satisfaction with the support was measured with the question: “Please tell us how do you agree with the following statement on the scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means „totally disagree‟ and 5 means „completely agree‟: On the whole I‟m very satisfied with the support of the above listed persons?” 9 The duration of the tie was calculated as the proportion of years of having known the alter in relation to the age of the ego. The higher the value, the longer the respondent had known his/her alter. For example, a value of 1 indicates that the respondent had known the alter for his/her entire life. A value of 0.5 indicates that the alter had been known for half of the respondent‟s life. A value of 0 means that the alter was not known at all. In this way, we eliminated the impact of the age of respondents on the duration of ties.

Andraz Petrovčič

„once a year or less‟; 3 = „a few times per year‟; 4 = „approximately once a month‟; 5 = „a few times per month‟; 6 = ‟a few times per week‟; 7 = „every day‟; 8 = „several times a day‟. Offline socializing and social participation: The survey also included two indicators of social participation and two indicators related to offline socializing, which served as dependent variables. An important element in the development of social cohesion is participation in organizations and associations whose members share certain common interests (Friedkin, 2004). Putnam (2000) argues that such social participation generates generalized reciprocity, strengthens ties of solidarity, makes the notion of a general interest more comprehensible and allows individuals to involve themselves in the management of community affairs. The first 10 survey question on social participation was thus designed to tap the frequency of active participation in voluntary and community 11 organizations, whereas the second one focused on active involvement in a religious community. Finally, the interviewers asked the respondents about their offline socializing. More precisely, they were asked: “How often do you pay a visit to relatives or how often do they visit you?” and “How often do you pay a visit to your acquaintances or friends or how often do they visit you?” The response scale for all four questions was: 1 = „never‟; 2 = „occasionally; 3 = „monthly‟; 4 = „weekly‟; 5 = „daily‟. In the final part of the questionnaire the sociodemographic characteristics were also grasped for the respondents themselves. The following sociodemographic factors were included: gender, age (coded as a categorical 12 variable with four categories : 10-24, 25-36, 37-52, and 53-75 years old), family status (married; with a partner, “including a nonmarital partnership, and not living with a partner together”; single, including “never 10 The respondents were asked: “How often do you take a active part in voluntary, charity organizations, expert clubs or interest groupings?” 11 The exact wording of the question was: “Could you please tell us how often you actively participate in religious groups or spiritual movements?” 12 The numerical variable age was transformed into four categories based on life cycles (Burt, 1984).

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

tripleC 6(2): 146-166, 2008

married, divorced, separated, widowed”). Further, the survey asked the respondents to indicate their labor status from a list of nine occupations: employed, self-employed, farmer, school-age youth, retired, house worker, housewife, unemployed, and other. Because of the very low frequencies for some of the categories, they were grouped into three groups: school-age youth, employed (employed, self-employed, farmer), and the third group consisting of the remaining five categories. The respondents also reported their education which for a similar reason as labor status was coded in three categories (lower, including “primary school education or less”; middle, including “lower or middle vocational education, high school”; higher, including “high-level professional degree, university degree, MA, and Ph. D.”). Type of locality was dichotomized into rural area (i.e., settlements with less than 10,000 inhabitants) versus urban area (i.e., towns with more than 10,000 inhabitants). 3.3.

Data collection and Sample

The findings presented here are based on data collected from the 2005 IKT-GOS survey, a multistage probability sample survey of 13 2000 individuals of at least 10 years of age living in Slovenia. The 2005 IKT-GOS Survey was the Slovenian application of the Eurostat survey of the access to and use of information-communication technology and was thus realized in accordance with the Eurostat guidelines for the 2005 European Union survey. The face-to-face interviews were conducted from April to May 2005 using a questionnaire that was divided into two parts. Four non-obligatory modules were added to the initial compulsory Eurostat part of questionnaire, which was conducted in all 25 European Union member states. The first three modules focused on the social aspects of the landline telephone, the mobile phone, and the Internet, whereas the last module contained questions on social support networks. The survey had a relatively high response rate of 77.8%, yielding 1,422 13

A full description of the sampling strategy is available at the Eurostat home page: http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int, Themes Science and Technology, Data Information society statistics.

155

respondents and providing a strong basis for generalizing these findings to individuals aged 10 and above across Slovenia. The final sample used in analysis presented in this paper is comprised of 651 cases. Restriction of the sample derives from the fact that only half of the main sample was supposed to answer all four modules in the second part of the questionnaire and from the skip patterns in the questionnaire. Nevertheless, the final sample is treated as a representative sample of the general population of Slovenian adults. The sample consisted of 51% males and 49% females, distributed across the following age ranges: 10-24 (21%), 25-36 (18%), 37-52 (28%), and 53-75 (33%), and with a mean age of 42.1 years (SD = 17.9). Of all respondents in the sample, 16% had some university education, 45% of them were employed, 20% attended school (primary, secondary, university), almost half (49%) were married, 35% lived in urban areas (towns with at least 10,000 inhabitants), whereas one in three (33%) lived in four-person households. The IKT-GOS 2005 indicated that 330 (51%) of the respondents were Internet users, who went online at home, work, school, university, an Internet café or a public library. Notably, 254 (39%) were PC email users, 225 (35%) had already visited an online community, whereas only 74 (11%) had joined and actively participated in it by creating their own profile and/or post a message in a thread. The diffusion of mobile phones, on the other hand, was almost saturated as only 95 (15%) of the respondents had not used the mobile phone, while 417 (64%) had already sent or received short text personal messages. The data also showed that the landline phone was still a widely used medium as 569 (87%) of the respondents had used telephones for work, socializing, microcoordination or for the exchange of intimate messages.

4. Results 4.1.

Network size

The general research on social networks reveals significant differences in network size

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

156

based on the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents, especially their age, education, gender and marital status (Fischer 1982). Recently, it has also been ascertained that some of these sociodemographic characteristics have an impact on the usage patterns of communication technologies. For example, Boneva and Kraut (2002) found that women tend to use the Internet to reinforce existing personal relationships with their family and friends, while Ling‟s (2004) studies confirmed that men have been using mobile phones in “rationalized” ways as they had used the landline telephone (Fischer, 1992). Further, the research on networks of social ties sustained through technologically mediated modes of communication (e.g., Sooryamoorthy et al., 2008) also showed that mobile phone use is associated with other computer-mediated technologies such as email suggesting that, in order to gain an insight into how mobile phone use is correlated with a personal network structure, one should not only control for sociodemographic characteristics but also email use. This suggests that the observed difference between users and non-users of diverse communication technologies might be attributed to differences in the sociodemographic characteristics of these individuals as well as to the associations between the uses of different communication technologies. Thus, when analyzing the differences in the structural composition of personal networks between users and nonusers it is important to consider the sociodemographic characteristics of ICT users and to control for the associations between different modes of electronically mediated communication. Multivariate controls for demographic differences and communication technology use associations were introduced by using Multiple Classificatory Analysis (MCA) (Andrews et al., 1969). In short, unlike simpler forms of other multivariate methods, MCA examines the interrelationships between several predictor variables (of any scale) and a dependent (at least interval) variable as well as provides differences in average values for each category of a predictor variable that make the statistical effects of other predictors

Andraz Petrovčič

equal (i.e., predicted mean adjusted for factors). In the two panels in Table 1 we can see the relative strength of the correlation between use of six communication technologies and the social supportive network size and satisfaction with support network size as well as differences in network size and satisfaction with support network size. The first panel in Table 1 appears to show that only active online community use has a significant – 14 although moderate – beta coefficient (beta = 0.10 p = .040), suggesting that only active users of online communities have on average larger social networks than non-users. In other words, using mobile phones, texting, landline phones, email or online communities without actively participating in them, does not reap benefits in terms of network size. Moreover, considering that these differences are already adjusted for the effect of the examined socio-demographic variables and association between the uses of the six communication technologies, we may also conclude that an active engagement in an online community has a relevant role in enlarging the emotional supportive network, independent of the use of other modes of communication and independent of gender, 15 age, education. In this light, the fact that any 16 of the considered socio-demographic factors does not significantly correlate with the size of the support networks of active online community members is even more striking, 14 Betas obtained with MCA are comparable to the standardized regression coefficient in the linear regression. However, there are two vital differences from the regression-procedure. First, the standardized coefficients in MCA are calculated for each categorical variable instead of for each category. Second, contrary to the regression-procedure the betas do not express the direction of the influence but only estimate the size of the effect. 15 Labor status, marital status and type of locality were not used in the MCA as the SPSS statistical package only allows MCA models with nine predictor variables at the most. 16 In all of our analysis using MCA the effects of the use of six communication technologies as predictor variables is presented in more detail. The effect of the three sociodemographic predictors which are also included in model is not presented. They are included in the analysis in order to identify the pure effect of use of the six communication technologies on the dependent variable (the effect that would occur if all socio-demographic characteristics were held constant).

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

tripleC 6(2): 146-166, 2008

157

leading us to the conclusion that being an active member of online environments such as social network sites, web forums or chat

groups can effectively facilitate emotional support networks.

Main Effect

I. Size of network

Indicator: average size of network

II. Satisfaction with the Indicator: Average satisfaction on a scale from 1 support: (least satisfied) to 5 (most satisfied)

larger

Predicted Mean (Adj. for factors)

Beta

Sig.

Technology

Non-users

Users

0.00

0.895

Mobile phone

3.52

3.56

0.04

0.461

SMS

3.45

3.61

0.06

0.101

Landline telephone

3.19

3.60

0.07

0.226

PC Email

3.43

3.74

0.10

0.125

Online community

3.70

3.28

0.10

0.040

Active online community

3.48

4.11

0.04

0.423

Mobile phone

4.76

4.69

0.07

0.170

SMS

4.64

4.74

0.01

0.856

Landline telephone

4.71

4.70

0.06

0.384

PC Email

4.73

4.66

0.06

0.374

Online community

4.73

4.65

0.05

0.338

Active online community

4.71

4.62

Note. n = 651. a Information on satisfaction with emotional support was collected for the first four alters cited.

Table 1: Differences in network size and satisfaction with support between users and non-users of a the six communication technologies The second panel in Table 1 pertains to the satisfaction with the size of one‟s emotional support network. The use of different communication technologies showed almost no difference between users and non-users in their satisfaction with the size of their networks (the size of all betas is low and nonsignificant). This is also confirmed by prior social network research which showed that the success of social support does not only depend on the network size but also on the network structure, such as gender, age and role composition (percentage of family, friends, neighbors etc.), geographical distance, duration of ties (Sarason et al., 1990; Vaux, 1988) as well as the frequency of using the technology to communicate within social networks (Hlebec et al., 2006). We thus explored the difference in the social network structures of users and non-users of the six communication technologies. 4.2.

Network structure and communication processes within personal networks

In this context, 13 MCAs were run with network structure and communication processes features being dependent on variables referring to the use of selected

communication technologies and sociodemographic characteristics. As shown in the first and second panels in Table 2, it turned out that after controlling for three sociodemographic characteristics any of the six variables related to the use of communication technologies was not significantly correlated with gender and age (the size of all betas is low and nonsignificant). This finding implies that, even though people use communication technologies, they are not likely to have more men and older persons in their networks. By contrast, the results presented in the third panel in Table 2 indicate that there are significant differences in role composition between users and non-users of the six communication technologies. Considering only those associations where p < .05 or slightly above this limit, the results suggest that: (1) respondents who use landline phones have more close ties (beta = 0.12; p = .011) and fewer friends (beta = 0.13; p = .001) in their personal network than landline telephone non-users; (2) while the exactly opposite is true of active participants in online communities whose emotional support network on average includes more friends (beta = 0.09; p = .046) and fewer close family

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

158

ties (beta = 0.12; p = .027); (3) as regards coworkers and schoolmates the results show that only mobile phone use has a significant coefficient (beta = 0.12; p = .020): mobile phone users have more coworkers/schoolmates in their personal networks than non-users; (4) mobile phone users have also fewer friends (beta = 0.09; p = .051) in their networks than non-users, while PC email users have more other non-kin ties (beta = 0.15; p = .035) from whom they receive emotional support than those respondents who do not use PC email. Further, the two bottommost panels in Table 2 present differences in the duration of ties and geographical distance between users and non-users of the six communication technologies. Turning first to the duration of the tie, we can observe that active participants in online communities are likely to know their supportive ties for a shorter period of time than non-active users (beta = 0.13; p = .006), while the reverse holds true for users of landline phones as they have known their ties significantly longer than non-users (beta = 0.08; p = .040). On other hand, in terms of geographic proximity the key finding is that users of landline phones have more local ties than landline phone non-users (beta = 0.10; p = .011), whereas users of online communities (beta = 0.12; p = .062) and the ones who actively participate in them (beta = 0.10; p = .027) report significantly more distant and geographically dispersed networks. We have seen that the use of diverse communication technologies is associated with important social network features such as size, role composition, geographical distance and duration of tie. However, how is the use of different technologies related to the communication processes within personal networks? Using the same distinction between users and non-users of the six communication technologies, the results presented in Table 3 indicate that the use of

Andraz Petrovčič

ICTs and landline telephone are correlated with the frequency of using specific technology to communicate within social networks. Namely, after controlling for selected socio-demographic features, users of mobile phones (beta = 0.08; p = .059), short messages (beta = 0.26; p = .000) and online communities (beta = 0.14; p = .026) in comparison to non-users of these technologies make more frequent use of mobile phones to keep in contact with ties in their network. Besides landline telephone users (beta = 0.08; p = .029), sms (beta = 0.22; p = .000) and online community users (beta = 0.17; p = .002) also more frequently exchange short text messages for keeping in touch with those persons who provide them with emotional support, whereas mobile phone users text to their close ties less often than mobile phone non-users do (beta = 0.07; p = .053). Significant differences between users and non-users of texting (beta = 0.10; p = .059) and landline phones (beta = 0.29; p = .000) were also reported for the frequency of landline phone calls to their emotional support network members, that is, short text messages and landline telephone users ring up strong ties more often than non-users. Finally, as regards use of the Internet to communicate within the social network significant differences were ascertained in relation to the use of texting (beta = 0.12; p = .012) and PC email (beta = 0.24; p = .000) as well as active participation in online community (beta = 0.29; p = .000): short text message users, PC email users and active participants in online communities go online more frequently to exchange messages with members of their social support network than non-users of the listed communication technologies. In sum, Table 3 reveals that the use of landline phones and analyzed ICTs in people‟s everyday lives is clearly reflected in their communication practices within emotional support networks.

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

tripleC 6(2): 146-166, 2008

159

Main Effect

Gender

Indicator: % men

Indicator: age of the respondent

Age

Role structure – % of alters who are…

Close family

Other kin

Co-workers/Schoolmates

Friends

Duration of tie

Distance of tie

Indicator: Average on scale 0 (known for 0 time) to 1 (known from whole life)

Indicator: Average value on scale from 1 (least distant) to 6 (most distant)

Predicted Mean (Adj. for factors)

Beta

Sig.

Technology

Non-users

Users

0.01

0.881

Mobile phone

44%

43%

0.05

0.352

SMS

45%

42%

0.04

0.314

Landline telephone

47%

43%

0.09

0.171

PC Email

41%

47%

0.06

0.351

Online community

45%

41%

0.01

0.864

Active online community

43%

43%

0.06

0.157

Mobile phone

41.51

39.45

0.04

0.322

SMS

40.46

39.35

0.04

0.233

Landline telephone

38.41

39.93

0.04

0.381

PC Email

40.19

39.06

0.04

0.451

Online community

39.37

40.42

0.06

0.098

Active online community

40.03

37.52

0.02

0.766

Mobile phone

62%

59%

0.03

0.593

SMS

61%

59%

0.12

0.011

Landline telephone

48%

61%

0.06

0.351

PC Email

57%

61%

0.09

0.221

Online community

62%

56%

0.12

0.027

Active online community

61%

49%

0.05

0.400

Mobile phone

2%

5%

0.06

0.345

SMS

3%

5%

0.04

0.400

Landline telephone

3%

5%

0.15

0.035

PC Email

7%

3%

0.05

0.548

Online community

4%

5%

0.01

0.855

Active online community

5%

4%

0.12

0.020

Mobile phone

1%

6%

0.01

0.861

SMS

5%

6%

0.01

0.825

Landline telephone

6%

5%

0.02

0.726

PC Email

5%

6%

0.09

0.158

Online community

7%

3%

0.05

0.252

Active online community

5%

8%

0.09

0.051

Mobile phone

32%

23%

0.07

0.177

SMS

21%

26%

0.13

0.001

Landline telephone

35%

23%

0.03

0.580

PC Email

23%

26%

0.11

0.085

Online community

22%

29%

0.09

0.046

Active online community

23%

32%

0.02

0.629

Mobile phone

0.57

0.56

0.08

0.116

SMS

0.54

0.58

0.08

0.040

Landline telephone

0.52

0.57

0.00

0.977

PC Email

0.56

0.56

0.04

0.541

Online community

0.57

0.55

0.13

0.006

Active online community

0.57

0.49

0.01

0.819

Mobile phone

2.46

2.50

0.04

0.462

SMS

2.44

2.52

0.10

0.011

Landline telephone

2.77

2.45

0.05

0.401

PC Email

2.53

2.42

0.12

0.062

Online community

2.40

2.66

0.10

0.027

Active online community

2.45

2.79

Note. n = 651. a Information on structural characteristics of the network was collected for the first four alters cited.

Table 2: Structural differences in personal networks of users and non-users of the six a communication technologies

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

160

Andraz Petrovčič

Main Effect Beta Frequency of contacts. Mobile telephone All indicators: average value on scale from 1 (least frequent) to 7 (most frequent)

SMS/MMS messages

Landline telephone

Face-to-face

Internet

a

Sig.

Predicted Mean (Adj. for factors) Technology

Non-users

Users

0.08

0.059 Mobile phone

4.22

5.72

0.26

0.000 SMS

4.94

5.97

0.05

0.196 Landline telephone

5.95

5.68

0.00

0.981 PC Email

5.71

5.71

0.14

0.026 Online community

5.51

5.99

0.06

0.173 Active online community

5.67

5.99

0.07

0.053 Mobile phone

4.28

2.86

0.22

0.000 SMS

2.11

3.14

0.08

0.029 Landline telephone

2.46

2.93

0.05

0.374 PC Email

2.79

2.98

0.17

0.002 Online community

2.59

3.28

0.05

0.251 Active online community

2.84

3.12

0.06

0.247 Mobile phone

3.59

3.29

0.10

0.059 SMS

3.09

3.47

0.29

0.000 Landline telephone

1.87

3.54

0.04

0.508 PC Email

3.39

3.24

0.10

0.129 Online community

3.20

3.57

0.06

0.193 Active online community

3.38

3.03

0.03

0.582 Mobile phone

6.90

6.98

0.01

0.876 SMS

6.95

6.97

0.05

0.267 Landline telephone

6.85

6.98

0.07

0.271 PC Email

6.91

7.05

0.01

0.851 Online community

6.97

6.95

0.04

0.446 Active online community

6.98

6.87

0.06

0.201 Mobile phone

2.94

2.09

0.12

0.012 SMS

1.59

2.18

0.04

0.446 Landline telephone

2.27

2.08

0.24

0.000 PC Email

1.51

2.36

0.06

0.335 Online community

1.98

2.17

0.29

0.000 Active online community

1.86

3.06

a

Note. n = 651. n = 330. Information on the use of communication channels to communicate within the network was collected for the first four alters cited. The frequency of communication within the network is measured by indicators that were calculated as an average on the scale from 1 (never) to 8 (several times a day). The new variables should not be interpreted in relation to the categories of the original variables, but as ordinal variables indicating the range of frequency of contacts on a scale from 1 (least frequent) to 8 (most frequent).

Table 3: Differences in the frequency of media use for communication within the social support network between users and non-users of the six communication technologies 4.3.

Social participation and offline socializing

Table 4 enables a comparison between the users and non-users of the selected communication technologies by their levels of social participation and offline socializing as two important dimensions of social cohesion. As regards social participation, users of landline telephones reported significantly more frequent active involvement in both voluntary organizations (beta = 0.08; p = .054)

and religious community (beta = 0.08; p = .063) than non-users of landline telephones. Congruently, after controlling for all selected socio-demographic variables also active participation in online communities was significantly positively associated with participation in voluntary organizations (beta = 0.16; p = .001), yet not with an involvement in religious and spiritual movements (beta = 0.01; p = .836). Turning to offline socializing, Table 4 shows that only mobile phone use (beta = 0.09; p = .062) and active participation in online communities (beta = 0.11; p = .016)

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

tripleC 6(2): 146-166, 2008

161

are associated with the frequency of visits to relatives: those who use mobile phones or are actively involved in online communities make

or receive more frequent visits to close family and relatives.

Main Effect Offline socializing with Average on scale from 1 acquaintances, friends, (least frequent) to 5 (most school-mates or frequent) colleagues

Offline socializing with Average on scale from 1 (least frequent) to 5 (most relatives frequent)

Participation in a religious community

Participation in voluntary and charity organizations

Average on scale from 1 (least frequent) to 5 (most frequent)

Average value on scale from 1 (least frequent) to 5 (most frequent)

Predicted Mean (Adj. for factors)

Beta

Sig.

Technology

Non-users

Users

0.03

0.586

Mobile phone

3.25

3.32

0.02

0.711

SMS

3.29

3.33

0.02

0.620

Landline telephone

3.26

3.32

0.03

0.613

PC Email

3.29

3.35

0.03

0.701

Online community

3.33

3.28

0.02

0.741

Active online community

3.32

3.27

0.09

0.062

Mobile phone

3.20

3.45

0.02

0.660

SMS

3.39

3.43

0.01

0.900

Landline telephone

3.40

3.42

0.06

0.278

PC Email

3.37

3.50

0.00

0.999

Online community

3.42

3.42

0.11

0.016

Active online community

3.38

3.73

0.04

0.475

Mobile phone

1.54

1.45

0.03

0.620

SMS

1.43

1.48

0.08

0.063

Landline telephone

1.26

1.49

0.06

0.347

PC Email

1.51

1.40

0.08

0.235

Online community

1.52

1.36

0.01

0.839

Active online community

1.46

1.49

0.08

0.116

Mobile phone

1.39

1.61

0.01

0.836

SMS

1.59

1.57

0.08

0.054

Landline telephone

1.36

1.61

0.01

0.926

PC Email

1.58

1.57

0.06

0.329

Online community

1.53

1.66

0.16

0.001

Active online community

1.52

2.03

Note. n = 651. The frequency of both forms of social participation and offline socializing is measured by indicators that were calculated as an average on the scale from 1 (never) to 5 (daily). The new variables should not be interpreted in relation to the categories of the original variables, but as ordinal variables indicating the range of frequency of social participation and offline socializing on a scale from 1 (least frequent) to 5 (most frequent).

Table 4: Differences in offline socializing and social participation between users and non-users of the six communication technologies

5. Discussion and conclusions This article has examined how ICTs have been involved in the emerging forms of sociality and how these changing forms of social connectivity have been facilitating the transformation of the organizational foundations of contemporary communities as well as of the social fabric that enables social cohesion. Its interest in these issues derived from earlier studies which argue that ICTs facilitate the generation of social ties in a more active sense, forming an interlacing of network and mobile sociality that fosters a new organization of personal community and

presumes new ways of experiencing relationships and belonging. Particularly, this study focused on the structural characteristics of personal networks that emanate from mobile and network sociality. It sought to understand whether there are differences between users and non-users of six communication technologies in terms of size, composition and communication processes within one‟s emotional support networks as well as which implications the use of various communication technologies has for two dimensions of social cohesion, that is, offline socializing and social participation.

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

162

The empirical findings of this study may be summarized as follows: Active involvement in online communities means having larger personal networks of emotional support with a smaller percentage of close family ties and a larger proportion of friends. Active participants in online communities also report more geographically distant networks and having known the members of their personal networks for a shorter period of time. Email use is the sole predictor of a larger percent of other non-kin ties in the emotional support networks, whereas passive use of online communities significantly positively correlates with the geographic distance of social ties. Notwithstanding the technologically mediated spatial extension of strong ties, geographic proximity and local ties are still important resources of emotional support. The importance of local ties is suggested by the structural composition of personal networks of landline and mobile phone users. The former have fewer friends in their network, but more older and locallyknit ties than non-users of telephones, whereas mobile phone users have more work- or schoolmates in their networks than mobile phone non-users. Mobile phone use is positively associated with visits to relatives. The same holds for active participation in online communities that also highly significantly correlates with the frequency of involvement in voluntary organizations, whereas landline telephone use is positively correlated with both active participation in religious community and voluntary organizations. Respondents combine a variety of communication technologies to stay connected to their personal networks. On one hand, active participants in online communities use more frequently mobile phones, texting and the Internet to communicate with members of their emotional support networks than non-active participants, whilst passive participation in online communities is significantly correlated only with the use of texting. On the other hand, the use of texting is

Andraz Petrovčič

significantly associated with the frequency of mobile phone, sms, landline telephone and Internet use. Landline use is associated with sms and landline use. As for PC email use, a highly significant association was found with Internet use. Finally, mobile phone users draw on mobile phones more frequently and on texting less frequently to stay in touch with their personal networks than non-users of mobile phones. The findings of the present study hold some implications for a more comprehensive understanding of network and mobile sociality. First, it seems that we should take into account that various subtypes of the uses and levels of adoption of ICTs for interpersonal communication may differ in their implications for mobile and networked forms of social connectivity in terms of social cohesion and structural characteristics of personal networks. For example, this study showed that PC email use and passive browsing through online communities may facilitate the maintenance of people‟s supportive relationships, while only active participation in online communities may increase the size and reconfigure the structural characteristics of personal networks as well as increase the levels of offline socialization and social participation in voluntary organizations. These results are in line with prior research on online communities (Miyata & Kobayashi, 2008; Norris, 2003; Zhao, 2006) and suggest that future research dealing with communication processes that underlie the new forms of sociality could pay more attention to the diversity of ICTs usage patterns – with reference to both the subtypes and levels of adoption – instead of distinguishing only between the users and non-users of various ICTs. Second, the present study implies that network and mobile sociality are inherently related to media multiplexity or, what Boase (2008) terms, “the personal communication system”. On one hand, the variety of different communication technologies currently available – as evident in the wide adoption of landline and mobile phones as well as short text messages and email – means that

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

tripleC 6(2): 146-166, 2008

individuals can combine different media differently to suit their needs and personal preferences. On other hand, in the conditions of technologically mediated sociality individuals combine various modes of communication to connect with their personal networks, rather than using them separately to connect with separate social worlds. Even though it is true that people may sometimes form new social ties through one medium such as the Internet, as these ties become close they are often contacted through other means, either in person or by phone (Boase, 2008; di Gennaro & Dutton, 2007). Thus, a methodological implication for future studies would be that when analyzing the network aspect of new forms of sociality one should bear in mind that there is no single medium that will capture a complete snapshot of an individual‟s personal network as people interact through media but not through any particular medium exclusively. Third, the results regarding the distance of ties in the personal networks of ICTs users and offline socialization indicate that the new forms of sociality, although promoting spatially extended personal communities, are firmly embedded in physical settings. This especially holds true for mobile sociality as the use of mobile and landline phones provides access to more local ties, whilst active participation in online community provides access to more spatially distant social ties. Moreover, rather than viewing online and offline interactions as social processes that take place on separate social planes, these results also suggest that new forms of sociality are driven by a human need to fine-tune social contact, manage time and (micro)coordinate activities in a increasingly interlaced manner, which combines electronically mediated and inperson communication. In this respect, the intense social use of ICTs does not preclude ready adopters such as active participants in online communities from offline social activities and socializing; on the contrary, it appeared that it may have an important role in augmenting their social circles and in intensifying the offline socialization with their relatives. Finally, it seems that the above discussed tendency to “fine-tune” personal relationships, which could be considered a structural

163

characteristic of network and mobile sociality, facilitates social cohesion in technologically mediated communities. In this regard, this study ascertained that the use of landline telephones and active involvement in online communities positively correlates with social participation. On one hand, moderate evidence was found that communication through landline phones increases participation in religious community and voluntary organizations while, on the other hand, strong evidence was found that active participation in online communities encourages more frequent involvement in the activities of voluntary organizations. These findings contradict the idea that communication technology detracts from personal relationships and leads to social isolation, as suggested by McPherson et al. (2006). Instead, in Haythornthwaite‟s terms (2007), our results indicate a synergy between online and offline participation that relates to the ways people experience the cohesiveness of their social environments, which may be used to advantage to leverage the community – increasing the relevance and significance of community in individuals‟ lives. To that extent, Etzioni & Etzioni (1999) emphasized how support via multiple modes of communication is likely to have the best outcomes for social cohesion in technologically mediated communities. To put it in their own words: “communities that combine both f2f and CMC systems would be able to bond better and shared values more effectively than communities that rely upon only one or the other mode of communication” (Etzioni & Etzioni, 1999, p. 247). Although this paper focuses solely on two dimensions of social cohesion, in our opinion it provides a sound basis for arguing that the individual focus of communication technology use embodied in the changing experience of network and mobile sociality in late modernity does not necessarily carry with it the dissolution of integrative forms overlying communal life but, instead, can foster greater involvement in the coordination of activities that lay at the foundation of contemporary communal life. Recognizing that mediated forms of social relationships, whether strong or weak, coexist with those that are constituted in more concrete or embodied

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

164

forms can perhaps serve as an appropriate starting-point for future research on how new communication technologies redistribute opportunities for interactions and construct a common social space for intersubjective

Andraz Petrovčič

experiences which can contribute towards a transformation of personal relationships, sociality and social cohesion.

References Andrews, F. & Morgan, J. & Sonquist, J. (1969). Multiple Classification Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Baron, N. S. (2008). Always on: Language in an Online and Mobile World. New York: Oxford University Press. Bauman, Z. (1995). Life in Fragments: Essays in Postmodern Morality. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage. Beck, Ulrich, Beck-Gernsheim, Elisabeth (2002) Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and Its Social and Political Consequences. London, Sage. Boase, J. (2008). Personal Networks and the Personal Communication System. Information, Communication & Society, 11(4), 490-508. Boneva, B., Kraut, R. (2002). Email, Gender, and Personal Relationships. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life (pp 372-403). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Burt, R. S. (1984). Network Items and the General Social Survey. Social Networks, 6(4), 293-340. Calhoun, C. (1986). Computer Technology, Large-scale Social Integration, and the Local Community. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 22(2), 329-349. Calhoun, C. (1991). Indirect Relationships and Imagined Communities: Large-scale Social Integration and the Transformation of Everyday Life. In P. P. Bourdieu & J. S. Coleman (Eds.), Social Theory for a Changing Society (pp 95-130). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Castells, M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chayko, M. (2007). The Portable Community: Envisioning and Examining Mobile Social Connectedness. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 3(4), 373-385. de Gournay, C. (2002). Pretense of Intimacy in France. In J. E. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance (pp 192-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. di Gennaro, C. & Dutton, W. (2007). Reconfiguring Friendships: Social Relationships and the Internet. Information, Communication & Society, 10(5), 591-618. Durkheim, E. (1984, 1893). The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Free Press. Ellison, N. & Steinfield, C. & Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook „Friends‟: Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168. Etzioni, A. & Etzioni, O. (1999). Face-to-face and Computer-mediated Communities, a Comparative Analysis. The Information Society, 15(4), 241-248. Fischer, C. S. (1982). To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fischer, C. S. (1992). America Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Fischer, C. S. (2005). Bowling Alone: What‟s the Score? Social Networks, 27(1), 155-167. Fortunati, L. (2002). Italy: Stereotypes, True and False. In J. E. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance (pp. 42–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social Cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), 409-425. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-identity. Cambridge: Polity. Giddens, A. (1992). The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Polity. Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. Habuchi, I. (2005). Accelerating Reflexivity. In: M. Ito & D. Okabe & M. Matsuda (Eds.), Personal, Portable, Pedestrian: Mobile Phones in Japanese Life (pp. 165-182). London: MIT Press. Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, Weak and Latent ties and the Impact of New Media. The Information Society, 18(5), 385-401. Haythornthwaite, C. (2007). Social Networks and Online Community. In A. J. Joinson & K. Y.A. McKenna & T. Postmes & U.-D. Reips (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology (pp. 121-138). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

tripleC 6(2): 146-166, 2008

165

Heelas, P. & Lash, S. & Morris, P. (Eds.) (1996). Detraditionalization: Critical Reflections on Authority and Identity. Oxford: Blackwell. Hlebec, V. & Lozar-Manfreda, K. & Vehovar, V. (2006). The Social Support Networks of Internet Users. New Media & Society, 8(1), 9-32. Ishii, K. (2006). Implication of Mobility: The Uses of Personal Communication Media in Everyday Life. Journal of Communication, 56(2), 346-365. Katz, J. E. & Aakhus, M. (Eds.) (2002). Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kavanaugh, A. & Reese, D. D. & Carroll, J. M. & Rosson, M. B. (2005). Weak Ties in Networked Communities. The Information Society, 21(1), 119-131. Kennedy, T. L. M. & Wellman, B. (2007). The Networked Household. Information, Communication & Society, 10(5), 645670. Kim, H. & Kim, G. J. & Park, H. W. & Rice, R. E. (2007). Configurations of Relationships in Different Media: FtF, Email, Instant Messenger, Mobile Phone, and SMS. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1183-1207. Kraut, R. & Patterson, M. & Lundmark, V. & Kiesler, S. & Mukopadhyay, T. & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet Paradox: A Social Technology that Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 10171031. Licoppe, C. & Smoreda, Z. (2005). Are Social Networks Technologically Embedded? How Networks are Changing Today with Changes in Communication Technology. Social Networks, 27(4), 317-335. Ling, R. S. (2004). Mobile Connection: The Cell Phone’s Impact on Society. San Francisco: Morgan and Kaufmann Publishers. Ling, R. S. (2008). New Tech, New Ties: How Mobile Communication Is Reshaping Social Cohesion. London: The MIT Press. Mascheroni, G. (2007). Global Nomads‟ Network and Mobile Sociality: Exploring Media Uses on the Move. Information, Communication & Society, 10(5), 527-546. Matsuda, M. (2005). Mobile Communication and Selective Sociality. In M. Ito & D. Okabe & M. Matsuda (Eds.), Personal, Portable, Pedestrian: Mobile Phones in Japanese Life (pp. 123-142). London: MIT Press. pp 123-142. McPherson, M. & Smith-Lovin, L. & Brashears, M. E. (2006). Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussions Networks over Two Decades. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 353-375. Meyrowitz, J. (2005). The Rise of Glocality: New Senses of Place and Identity in the Global Village. In K. Nyiri (Ed.), The Global and the Local in Mobile Communication (pp. 21-30). Vienna: Passagen Verlag. Miyata, K. & Wellman, B. & Boase, J. (2005). The Wired - and Wireless - Japanese: Webphones, PCs and Social Networks. In R. S. Ling & P. E. Pedersen (Eds.), Mobile Communications: Re-negotiation of the Social Sphere (pp. 427-449). Amsterdam: Springer. Miyata, K. & Kobayashi, T. (2008). Causal Relationship between Internet Use and Social Capital in Japan. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11(1), 42-52. Nie, N. H. & Hillygus, S. D. & Erbring, L. (2002). Internet Use, Interpersonal Relations, and Sociability: A Time Diary Study. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life (pp. 215-243). Oxford: Blackwell. Norris, P. (2003). The Bridging and Bonding Role of Online Communities. In P. N. Howard & S. Jones (Eds), Society Online: The Internet in Context (pp. 31-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Petrič, G. & Petrovčič, A. (2008). Strukturni in upravljavski dejavniki družbene kohezije, zaupanja in participacije v spletnih skupnostih [Structural and Administrative Factors of Social Cohesion, Trust and Participation in Online Communities]. Družboslovne razprave, XXIV(58), 45-67. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone - The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Sarason, B. R. & Sarason, I. G. & Pierce, G. R. (1990). Traditional Views of Social Support and Their Impact on Assessment. In B. R. Sarason & I. G. Sarason & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social Support: An Interactional View (pp. 9-25). New York: Wiley. Sennett, R. (1998). The Corrosion of Character. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Sharp, G. (1993). Extended Forms of Social: Technological Mediation and Self-formation. Arena Journal, New Series, 1(1), 221-237. Sooryamoorthy, R. & Miller, P. B. & Shrum, W. (2008). Untangling the Technology Cluster: Mobile Telephony, Internet Use and the Location of Social Ties. New Media & Society, 10(5), 729-749. Taylor, C. (1991). The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Urry, J. (2003). Social Networks, Travel and Talk. British Journal of Sociology, 54(2), 155-175. Vaux, A. (1988). Social Support: Theory, Research and Intervention. New York: Praeger Publishers. Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis – Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.

166

Andraz Petrovčič

Wellman, B. (1979). The Community Question: The Intimate Networks of East Yorkers. American Journal of Sociology, 84(5), 1201-1231. Wellman, B. (2001). Physical Place and Cyber-place: The Rise of Networked Individualism. International Journal for Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), 227-52. Wellman, B. & Haythornthwaite, C. (Eds.) (2002). The Internet in Everyday Life. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Willson, M. A. (2006). Technically Together: Rethinking Community within Techno-society. Berlin: Peter Lang Publishing. Wittel, A. (2001). Toward a Network Sociality. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(1), 51-76. Zhao, S. (2006). Do Internet Users Have More Social Ties? A Call for Differentiated Analyses of Internet Use. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(3), 844-862. Zhao, S. & Elesh, D. (2008). Copresence as 'Being with': Social Contact in Online Public Domains. Information, Communication & Society, 11(4), 565-583.

About the Author Andraž Petrovčič Andraz Petrovčič is a doctoral student in social informatics at the University of Ljubljana and currently holds the position of a young researcher in the Centre for Methodology and Informatics at the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Ljubljana. His research focuses on how individuals use the Internet and mobile phones to maintain and build their personal networks, and how these media for interpersonal communication contribute to the changing forms of social connectivity in late modernity. To investigate these issues Andraž Petrovčič has been involved in the project Social and Cultural Aspects of Virtual Life-styles funded by the Slovenian Research Agency (J5-7029-0582). Since 2006 he has been a member of COST action 298 on Participation in the Broadband Society. He is a coeditor of a forthcoming book entitled Humans as E-actors to be published by Peter Lang (Berlin).

CC: Creative Commons License, 2008.