The Internet and Misperceptions

I loved how this post countered some of the more common misperceptions about internet behavior. Where do you feel most of these misconceptions come from? Do you feel they are due to the media or perhaps lack of knowledge on the publics end?

Well, as in most cases, change is accompanied by fear: people are afraid of things that are new and as a result they try to justify their fear by constructing misconceptions that label the change as a threat to their way of life. The internet and recent increase in online communication and communities threaten people and they feel that the “superior” physical communities may be adversely affected by online communities.

This fear is reflected by several recent studies that claim the internet has adverse affects on physical communities. According to Nancy K. Baym

Yan Bing Zhang of the University of Kansas,

…the Carnegie-Mellon Homenet Project and Nie and colleagues associate internet use with negative social outcomes including less time spent with family and friends, less total social involvement, and more loneliness and depression”(2004).

However, these studies have met opposition, “… [the Homenet Project’s] follow-up analysis of the[ir] sample a year later found that these negative associations were gone, suggesting the importance of user experience” (2004). Baym and Zahng also reference the UCLA Center for Communication Policy, the Pew Project on the Internet and American Life, and many others that show no difference in people who have “gone online” or actually show an increase in interpersonal communication in their physical communities (2004).

The discrepancy in the different studies is most likely due to “the conflation of all internet activities into one” (2004). This merging of all internet activities removes the effect of online communication and draws unreliable correlations to the effect of the online communication on physical communities and face-to-face communication. While fear remains the main catalyst, I believe that future studies will continue to show that online communication is beneficial and actually enhances communication throughout all communities.

References

Baym N. K. & Zahng Y. B. Social interactions across media: Interpersonal communication on the internet, telephone and face-to-face. New Media & Society 6, 3, 299-318 Retrieved Nov. 30, 2006 from SAGE Publications Communication Studies: A SAGE Full-Text Collection database.

Online Communication and “Fitting In”

I've never considered the freedom to join whatever group you want online. This is true and probably allows people to be more involved than they socially could in person. If FTF communication is supposedly superior to online communication, why does it take the Internet for people it "fit in?"

Online communication is a valuable tool and supplement to face-to-face communication. It provides access to millions of people and enables people to communicate with members of other groups and societies which would otherwise be unreachable.

This freedom does indeed allow people to be more socially involved and provides them with the ability to “fit in” better for several reasons. The greatest benefit which the internet and online communication provides is that it enables people to “reexamine traditional interpersonal… self disclosure and relationship formation” (Gibbs, Ellison, & Heino, 2006) members of online communities choose what they want to disclose. Their communication can’t be negatively affected by their height, weight, appearance, how they speak, or any other characteristics which conventional face-to-face communication discloses automatically. This control enables people to get to know each other before opinions can be formed based solely on appearance (2006).

Online communication is also very beneficial to adolescents who are lonely and suffer from social anxiety. This group of individuals “…strongly value the controllability of internet communication and perceive it as broader, deeper and more reciprocal” than face-to-face communication (Jochen & Valkenburg, 2006). The asynchronous characteristic of online communication enables people to control their communication more effectively and enables them to think out their communication which is critical for the socially anxious (2006). Online communication can also be seen as more reciprocal. This reciprocity provides a deeper connection in communication and helps develop belongingness (2006).

These important functions of online communication enhance the breadth and depth of communication. Breath refers to the number of topics discussed and depth refers to the intimate and personal disclosure through online communication. While online communication cannot mimic the personal and intimate connection that face-to-face communication and physical contact engender it is an amazing enhancement that enables people who would otherwise be marginalized to build intimate and meaningful relationships.

References.

Gibbs, J., Ellison, N. & Heino R. (2002). Self-Presentation in Online Personals: The Role of Anticipated Future Interaction, Self-Disclosure, and Perceived Success in Internet Dating. Communication Research 33, 2, 152-177 Retrieved Nov. 30, 2006 from SAGE Publications Communication Studies: A SAGE Full-Text Collection database.

Jochen P. & Valkenburg P. Research Note: Individual Differences in Perceptions of Internet Communication. European Journal Of Communication 21, 2, 213-226 Retrieved Nov. 28, 2006 from SAGE Publications Communication Studies: A SAGE Full-Text Collection database.

Myspace A Fad?

You say that a new group files in right behind the previous group when using these social networking sites. Do you believe it has to do with what appeals to the certain age demographic? Or does it have more to do with users growing weary and looking for something new?

I believe that the burnout which Myspace and other social networking site users experience is a result of the fickle nature of teens, who are the predominant users of these sites (Rexrode, 2006). According to Yuki Noguchi of the Washington Post, as teenage Myspace users mature and graduate, they tend to look for something that is new (Noguchi, 2006). While the social life of teens on the internet is powerful it is “hard for corporate America to make lasting investments in whatever's hot now.” (2006) The use of Myspace shows trends of rising and falling according to Noguchi, this illustrates the exit of one group and the entrance of another (2006). Noguchi also cites reasons for people’s burn out on sites such as Myspace which include “…creepy people proposition[ing] them, teachers and parents monitor[ing] them, and new, more alluring free services com[ing] along.

I believe that Myspace will continue to reinvent itself and provide what each generation is looking for. It is difficult to please up and coming generations but so far Myspace has hit the nail on the head and created a generation of social networkers who yearn to remain close as they mature and their lives change.

References

Noguchi, Y. (2006 October 29) In Teens' Web World, MySpace Is So Last Year; Social Sites Find Fickle Audience. The Washington Post, p. 1A. [Online]. Available: http://www.lexisnexis.com/universe.

Rexrode, C. (2006 August 6) A Place For Business, Too. St. Petersburg Times, p. 1D. [Online]. Available: http://www.lexisnexis.com/universe.

Similar Characteristics sought in Physical and Online Communities?

You say people look for similarities while communicating with people on the web...although, do you think they are looking for the same characteristics as in someone they meet during face to face communication?

This is a thought-provoking question and one that sociologists have also began to ask. The simple answer to your question is that, no, people do not look for the same characteristics in online communication that they look for in face-to-face communication; however, the whole answer is so much deeper.

As my original post stated, online communities serve functions of bridging and bonding. Bridging serves to overcome obstacles which would otherwise impede face-to-face communications (Norris, 2002). Some of these obstacles include race, gender, sexual preference, and religion. Online communities provide a non-threatening forum for people to communicate in an asynchronous fashion that face-to-face communication doesn’t foster (Burnett & Marshall, 2003.) This removes the nonverbal aspect which can often serve negatively in face-to-face communication. Bonding, on the other hand, is when people seek other communities who are similar to themselves. This function doesn’t generally reflect the same desired characteristics as face-to-face communication but bonding can link people of similar ethnicities which could be characteristics that people seek in face-to-face communication.

Stine Gotved, in his article titled “Spatial Dimensions in Online Communities,” states that the reasons people join an online community are threefold: destiny, proximity, or shared interests (2002). The reason of destiny refers primarily to the formation of online communities due to a family bond. Proximity refers to the formation of online communities centering on the village or neighborhood. Finally, Shared interests focuses on interests as the driving factor for online community formation.

Face-to-face communication often isolates marginalized people such as single mothers working at home, gay men, or rural poor populations (Norris, 2002). In physical communities people who are outside of the marginalized group tend to avoid these marginalized groups, online communities provide a means to overcome the marginalization and enable people to bond despite the societal restrictions that face-to-face communication entails (2002).

References

Burnett, R. & Marshall, D. P. The Web as Communication. Web Theory: An Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Norris, P. (2002). The Bridging and Bonding Role of Online Communities. The Harvard International Journal Of Press/politics 7, 3, 3-13. Retrieved Nov. 30, 2006 from SAGE Publications Communication Studies: A SAGE Full-Text Collection database.

Gotved, S. (2002). Spatial Dimensions in Online Communities. Space And Culture 5, 4, 405-414. Retrieved Nov. 28, 2006 from SAGE Publications Sociology: A SAGE Full-Text Collection database.

Social Networking Sites and their affect on communication

Do you feel websites such as Myspace and Facebook will affect the way people communicate in the future? Do you think these websites will hinder productivity in the workplace?

While it may seem ludicrous to think that sites such as Myspace and Facebook have an affect on the way people communicate, there are already indicators of the affects which they are having on our society. Social networking sites receive millions of hits each day. Myspace alone has over 99-million profiles and adds nearly 230,000 each day (Rexrode, 2006). This huge community provides many opportunities for people to communicate information which otherwise would be difficult to disseminate.

One example of this involves the Brooklyn College Library, as of mid-May the library has over 1700 “friends” which are made up of students at Brooklyn College (Evans, 2006). The entrance of the library has enabled the college to send “…invitations, announcements, unsolicited library instruction, and answers to their [students] questions” (2006). The library is able to connect with students in a way which they have never been able to before. Students can ask questions easily and find information quickly and conveniently. They can link to the library’s website, databases, and the “Ask-a-Librarian service” (2006). All of this information has previously been neglected by students and Myspace has enabled the library to connect with students on a different level. This example shows that many different organizations can use social networking sites to communicate with today’s youth.

There have been concerns raised in regards to negative affects of online communities on the workplace. Due to the fact that members of these social networking sites are mostly teens, workplace productivity will probably not be affected drastically (Rexrode, 2006).

Though there are potential negative effects which may be associated with social networking sites, these new tools enable immediate connection with members of the community through the simplicity and convenience of the site. Teens are constantly on the go and time is a precious commodity to them. Myspace and other social networking sites will continue to cater to these teens and will remain a staple for our nation’s youth for years to come.

References

Evans, B. (2006 October 15) Your Space or MySpace?; The best way for the Brooklyn College Library to reach students, says Beth Evans, was to enter MySpace. Library Journal, p. 8. [Online]. Available: http://www.lexisnexis.com/universe.

Rexrode, C.. (2006 August 6) A Place For Business, Too. St. Petersburg Times, p. 1D. [Online]. Available: http://www.lexisnexis.com/universe.

Online communities, a fad?

While sites such as Facebook.com and Myspace.com have revolutionized online communities and the way in which we interact through new media, the novelty of these trendy online communities is wearing off.

Recently, media outlets such as the San Francisco chronicle have begun to focus on this phenomenon. In the Thursday, November 2, 2006 article titled “Social sites becoming too much of a good thing. Many young folks burning out on online sharing,” Ellen Lee discuses this phenomenon. She states that people just do not have the time to invest in these online communities anymore. While it was new, people spent hours connecting and customizing their pages but now they are realizing that there are other ways to spend their time.

Though one group of people may reduce their use of certain online communities, a new generation of users file in right behind them. These online communities enable students to bond and create a virtual network of friends that would be difficult otherwise. While these communities have their first signs of age, they are constantly adapting to the newest trends and will survive as culture evolves.

Boundary bridging/bonding

While some critics may claim that online communities are detrimental to physical communities, there is data that tells quite a different tale. Studies have found that online communities serve as a bridging and bonding agent in society. Bridging is defined as bringing together diverse people while bonding is the gathering of like people (Norris, 2002). While boundary bridging generally promotes diversity, bonding has the potential to create “social cleavages” (2002) which may bridge boundaries of ethnicity or gender but still separate them from other people with different beliefs or outlooks.

People in online communities generally look for people who reflect a similar disposition in life. This enables them to transcend other differences which in physical communities may cause a withdrawal. The internet removes the standard visual cues of social identity that often act as road blocks to communication. These social identities include age, socioeconomic status, gender, and ethnicity, to name a few. “Anonymity” (2002) is an important function of online communities in that it places everyone on an even playing field; you get to know the person, not the mask which they hide behind. While this heterogeneous group of individuals may bridge some of these barriers, there will always remain other barriers that will divide people. The great thing about online communities is that people get to choose which group they belong to, not based on where they fit into “society”, but who they actually are.

Refrences:

Norris, P. (2002). The Bridging and Bonding Role of Online Communities. The Harvard International Journal Of Press/politics 7, 3, 3-13. Retrieved Oct. 30, 2002 from SAGE Publications Communication Studies: A SAGE Full-Text Collection database.

Online and Physical communities: The issues.

Now that we have established that online communities are a powerful force in the formation of social reality, we will examine how online and physical communities work together. Many people currently insist that the Internet, new media, and online communities are negatively impacting society and creating a social rift in physical communities . While this view may, at first glance, seem valid and logical, there is little or no evidence that provides credence to this claim (Nip, 2004).

People that take this negative and oppositional attitude towards online communities have several loosely-based beliefs which they credit to online communities. People who cling to this oppositional view believe that new communities are called away from their physical communities to the internet (Lockard, 1997). This supposed abandoning of physical communities is referred to some as “virtualization of everyday life” (Doheny-Farina, 1996). Again, while on the surface this seems to make sense, there has been little substantial evidence of such claims. Critics of online communities also claim that the “solitary nature” of the Internet and online communities create a state of selfishness which further causes the abandonment of the physical community (Nip, 2004). With these claims, people who are resistant to online communities try to convey that participation in online communities cause a dilution of face-to-face communication in physical communities.

Though there have been cases of online gaming addicts who remove themselves from an online community due to an unhealthy addiction, national studies have revealed “…no statistical differences in participation rates in [physical] communit[ies]…” (2004). other reports show that some people have chosen online relationships over offline relationships (Nip, 2004), but surveys in the U.S. have shown no evidence of any reduced involvement in family or social realms (Nie and Erbring, 2000). Other surveys which study specific types of communication in relation to online communities show a correlation to a decrease in letter writing and telephone calls among online community members (Nip, 2004). While this may seem to evince a negative effect of online communities, more intimate means of communication such as “face-to-face communication, public addresses, [and] small group meetings” remained unaffected (2004) showing that online communities act as a substitute for some forms of communication but not a replacement or displacement of other forms.

Other studies, such as the follow up of the HomeNet project which was performed by Kraut et al., show that “greater use of the internet was associated with positive psychological outcomes” (Bargh and McKenna, 2004). Even more surveys have shown that members of online communities are “no less likely to call or visit friends”, and this gives further credence to Kraut and his colleagues’ findings (2004). Other studies have shown that members of online communities and frequent Internet users actually have larger social networks (DiMaggio et al. 2001).
While it is hard to find the true effects of the use of online communities due to the diverse findings of the different studies, there has been little or no concrete evidence to show that online communities are the evil which critics make them out to be. As the internet and online communities develop further, studies will continue to be conducted and we all can hope to better understand the true effect online communities have on physical communities.

Refrences:
Bargh, J and K. McKenna (2004). The Internet and Social Life. Annual Review of Psychology,55, 573-590.

DiMaggio P, Hargittai E, Neuman WR, Robinson Jp. 2001. Social implications of the internet.Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:307-36 Economist. 2003a. Mar 29:58 Economist. 2003b. Apr. 5:58 Economist 2003c. Apr 26:58

Doheny-Farina, S. (1996) The Wired Neighborhood. New Haven, CT:Yale
University Press.

Lockard, J. (1997) ‘Progressive Politics, Electronic Individualism and the Myth of

Virtual Community’, pp. 219–32 in D. Porter (ed.) Internet Culture. New York:Routledge.

Nie, N. and L. Erbring (2000) Internet and Society: A Preliminary Report. Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society.

Nip J. (2004). The relationship between online and offlinecommunities: the case of the Queer
Sisters. Media, Culture & Society, 26, 3, 409-428. Retrieved Oct. 25, 2006 from
Cambridge Scientific Abstracts Communication Studies: A SAGE Full-Text Collection
database.

Online communities and their effects on social reality

Our culture centers its every thought on time and space; we have only so many hours in a day and we live by the ideology, “time is money”. Society’s perception of time and space changes as we grow from an agricultural society to an industrial society, and the shift into an information society has elicited a similar change (Gotved, 2006). Online communities have become a changing force in society and have caused some social waves. Time is no longer perceived as “…biological and chronological...[but] the sense of time is annihilated by the ever-faster communication technology used to compress and de-sequence it” (2006). Space is now “…one [that] flows, where the traffic between different kinds of networks constitutes a new relation between social practices and geography” (2006).

Boudreau and Newman introduced the triangle of social reality to identify the components of social reality (2006). This triangle consists of a base, social interaction, and two sides, culture and social structure.

With this model, we can see the interconnectivity between these three aspects of social reality and that the change in one affects the others as well. Culture is made up of “the ever shifting patterns of interaction, the common knowledge and the sense of a shared past.” (2006). The social interactions which we take part in through our communication in society provide a foundation for culture. If a specific type of social interaction occurs for long enough it has the potential to become part of the social structure (2006). The process is cyclical and interdependent, technology and online communities blur the lines because of the change in time and space and have a huge effect on the construction of social reality.

References:

Gotved, Stine. (2006). ‘Time and space in cyber social reality’. New Media & Society, 3, 467-486. Retrieved Oct. 25, 2006, from Cambridge Scientific Abstracts Communication Studies: A SAGE Full-Text Collection database.

Coming soon...

Soon to come... The rousing debate on the effects of online communities on physical communities.