1 / 15

Life Online (0em40) Social impact of the internet

Life Online (0em40) Social impact of the internet. recap: www.tue-tm.org/matzat/0em40. All course info, literature, slides, and messages can be found here. Check regularly!. Social impact of the internet. internet and society internet and social cohesion internet and social relations

marion
Download Presentation

Life Online (0em40) Social impact of the internet

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Life Online(0em40)Social impact of the internet

  2. recap: www.tue-tm.org/matzat/0em40 • All course info, literature, slides, and messages can be found here. Check regularly!

  3. Social impact of the internet • internet and society • internet and social cohesion • internet and social relations • internet and social capital (online and offline) Social Network Online Resources

  4. Social Impact of the Internet: Contradictory & Puzzling Findings • Earlier findings • decreasing social capital (Kraut et al., 1998; Nie, 2001) • increasing social capital (Rainie & Kohut, 2000) • supplementing social capital (Wellman,Quan-Haase et al., 2001) • Newer findings • negative effects on offline social contacts (Shklovski, Kraut et al., 2004) • hardly any effects (Hlebec, Manfreda, & Vehovar, 2006) • positive impact (Stern & Dillman, 2006) ? social impact~= social network~=social capital

  5. 1. Different (social) forms of internet use Two limitations of (some) earlier research • See findings of Zhao (2006), Best & Krueger (2006), Di Gennaro & Dutton (2007), Hampton (2007) etc. • No systematic overview of outcomes of use of different online applications

  6. Social internet use & new social capital: Some findings • Zhao (2006) • positive relationship between intensity of social forms of internet use, namely chatting and emailing, and the user's amount of social ties, but not between non-social forms of internet use and the user's ties • additional findings suggests that for chat the proportion of communication with strangers is larger than for email communication • Di Gennaro & Dutton (2007) • chat, posting on discussion fora associated with higher likelihood of finding a new friend online, but not the use of email, instant messaging, or maintaining a blog • Hampton (2007) • active use of a neighborhood emailing list increased the number of neighbors whom the user recognized; passive use or use of other e-services did not • Valkenburg & Peter (2007), Kim et al. (2007) • instant messaging hardly with new contacts

  7. Social internet use & new social capital: Existing findings • Best & Krueger (2006) • users of chat rooms, multiplayer games, and message boards report high proportion of online communication with new contacts • email or instant messaging more often for maintenance of contacts • time spent with new online contacts associated with more generalized trust and generalized integrity • Steinkuehler & Williams (2006), Williams (2006), Williams, Yee, & Caplan, 2008 • development of new contacts often claimed motivation among users of multiplayer games • only evidence for improved global worldview (~=bridging capital) • Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe (2007), Tufekci (2008) • use of facebook associated with social support, bonding & bridging capital

  8. 2. Access to what concrete social resources? until now: a) making of new contacts b) bridging vs. bonding social capital (e.g., Williams, 2007) for assessing the impact on users’ quality of life this is very rough Two limitations of (some) earlier research

  9. Impact on access to new social resources: summary ...the higher the likelihood of finding access to the following resources... The more time is spent on communication with strangers via... strong tieweak tie ...chat communciation ...blogs/fora ...own blogs ...SNS ...multiplayer games ...instant messaging ...emailing lists social support - social support & movinginformation - newspaper/radio/TV social support & movinghiring empl. & information - information no no - -

  10. Test of hypotheses: Research Design • telephone survey of a random sample of internet users of one large Dutch city (Eindhoven) • response rate <=30% • slight bias in favor of older people and people from Dutch origin • for multivariate analyses n=607 • data collection in November 2007 • multivariate logistic regressions controlling for • gender, house ownership, number of friends, education, age, digital literacy, interest in new contacts, having no child, being single, time online, time communicating online with known contacts

  11. Measurement of social use of internet (see Krueger & Best, 2006) • “How much time do you spend per week on average on communicating via/by….” • …instant messaging programs • …reading or sending messages on discussion fora/blogs • …reading or sending messages through an emailing list • …maintaining pages or exchanging messages on SNS (hyves, facebook, LinkedIn, etc) • …maintaining your own webblog • …player online games with others (multi-player games) • …chatting • … • answers: never/less than 30 min./…/more than 7 hours • per activity: “How much of this time do you spend on communicating with strangers that you met online during the last 12 months?” • answers: all of the time(100%)/most of the time (75%)/half of the time/a bit (25%)/almost none (5-10%)/none

  12. Measurement of concrete social resources (Resource Generator: Van der Gaag & Snijders, 2005) • Could you tell me whether you got acquainted with somebody whom you met online during the last 12 months and of whom you know that he/she… • …could give medical advice/could give juridical advice/knows a lot of financial matter (tax regulations)/could write a letter of recommendation for a solicitation/can write and talk in a foreign language/has a lower college degree/has a college degree [information, alpha=.90] • …hires new personnel [hiring employer] • …has good contacts to the newspapers, radio, or TV [press & media] • …could give advice in case of problems on your work/could give advice in case of problems in your family/would be willing to talk about important personal matters [social support, alpha=.85] • …could help you in case you are moving [physical help during moving] • all five scales dichotomized (1=yes)

  13. Summary of findings • different social forms of internet use have different social impacts • some ‘social’ forms of internet use do not provide access to any resources: • emailing lists • multiplayer games • instant messaging • some social forms of internet use provide access to specific resources • chat • SNS • maintenance own blog • discussion fora / blogs provide access to a variety of resources

  14. General summary & conclusions divergent study findings dependent on • time of data collection: 'early' versus 'late' internet (Kraut, Kiesler et al. 2002)? • cross-sectional versus longitudinal design (Shklovski et al. 2006; 2004) • online versus offline social capital (Wellman et al. 2001) • type of internet use (Zhao 2006, Best & Krueger 2006)

  15. General summary & conclusions divergent study findings dependent on • type of social capital dependent on type of platform (?) • type of examined effect: impact on new relationships vs. impact on existing relationships with friends, family for general conclusion about impact these different effects all have to be taken into account

More Related