Docstoc

Social Networking

Document Sample
Social Networking Powered By Docstoc
					Social Networking
boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network
    sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
• Definition of SNS: “web-based services that allow individuals to (1)
  construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2)
  articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection,
  and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made
  by others within the system.”
• They avoid using the term networking because it implies that people
  are primarily using the sites to make new contacts as opposed to
  keeping up with existing relationships
• Authors present a timeline of SNS history dating back to 1997
• Note that SNS sites differentiate themselves primarily by their
  default and customizable structures related to visibility and access
• Reasons that people connect to one another are varied, and on
  some sites the links are not bi-directional, so one can be a “fan” but
  not necessarily a confirmed friend
A theoretical model of intentional social
    action in online social networks
• Most approaches to technology adoption
  are based on individual decision making
• Authors present a research model on
  intentional social action in online social
  networks
• Use the notion of collective intention
• Another objective to validate existing
  measures of collective intention and to
  validate three modes of social influence in
  the context of social networks
 A theoretical model of intentional social
     action in online social networks
• explores the role of compliance (subjective norm),
  internalization (group norm), and identification (social
  identity) in explaining collective intention (we-Intention) to
  participate in social networks
• We-intentions, reflecting group influences and group
  influence on individual decision making is most appropriate
  to understanding participation in social networks
• Definition we-intention (Tuomela) “commitment of an
  individual to participate in joint action, and involves in an
  implicit and explicit agreement between the participants to
  engage in that joint action”
A theoretical model of intentional social
    action in online social networks
A theoretical model of intentional social
    action in online social networks
• Some findings indicate that compliance (subjective norm) is
  important in the early stages of technology acceptance and that as
  the user gains experience, internalization (group norm) plays more
  of a role (note: internalization used a little differently here than
  Kelman’s original intent)
• Hypotheses
• “H1. A stronger subjective norm leads to a higher level of We-
  Intention to participate in an online social networking site.”
• “H2. Stronger group norm leads to a higher level of We-Intention to
  participate in an online social networking site.
• “
A theoretical model of intentional social
    action in online social networks
• Components of the social identity form of
  influence:
  – “▪ Cognitive social identity: The self-categorization
    process renders the self stereotypically
    interchangeable with other group members, and
    stereotypically distinct from outsiders.
  – ▪ Evaluative social identity: The evaluation of self-
    worth on the basis of belonging to a particular group.
  – ▪ Affective social identity: A sense of emotional
    involvement with the group, which is characterized by
    identification with, involvement in, and emotional
    attachment to the group.”
    A theoretical model of intentional social
        action in online social networks
• “H3. A stronger social identity leads to a higher level of
     We-Intention to participate in an online social networking
     site.”
      – Expected significant main effects for each of the components of
        social identity
• Methods
      – Facebook users who responded to a solicitation on one of
        several student groups on the site were instructed to think about
        up to five friends they interacted with on Facebook
              • Collected 389 usable online questionnaires

•    Measure of We-Intention                  “   WE1: I intend that our group (i.e., the group that I identified above) interacts on
     Facebook together sometime during the next 2 weeks. Dholakia et al.
•    WE 2: We (i.e., the group that I identified above) intend to interact on Facebook together sometime during the next 2 weeks.
     (2004)
•    [Seven-point “Strongly disagree to Strongly agree” scale]
      All about me: Disclosure in online social
    networking profiles: The case of FACEBOOK
• Among the privacy concerns that some facebook users have is
  concern about identity theft and threats to personal security
• “The overarching goal of the present research was to gain a better
  understanding of what can be found in online social networking
  profiles, specifically, FACEBOOK™.”
• “Apart from collecting data on the kinds of information users were
  choosing to include (and exclude) in their personal profiles, the
  study examines the impact of individual characteristics on the type
  of information that is likely to be present in an online profile (i.e.,
  information that is self-disclosed as a function of
  characteristicsincluding age, gender and relationship status)”
     All about me: Disclosure in online social
   networking profiles: The case of FACEBOOK

• Study 1
• Primary purpose to develop a scoring instrument for
  what could be revealed on Facebook
• Sample: data from 400 randomly selected, accessible,
  personal profiles from 8 Canadian FACEBOOK™
  networks (four university, four community) was collected
• “a final checklist comprised of 97 dichotomously scored
  items (i.e., whether the piece of information was present
  or absent) and 3 identification items (i.e., username link,
  the network searched, and the size of the overall
  network) was constructed”
• The 400 participant profiles were rated against the
  checklist
     All about me: Disclosure in online social
   networking profiles: The case of FACEBOOK

• Most disclosed: “(available on 63% or more of the profiles)
  described personally identifying information (i.e., birth date, gender, profile
  pictures, photo albums, tagged photos and general photos of the user) as
  well social connections (i.e., groups joined, and friends viewable). In addition,
  education information (college/university attended) and regular update
  information(status, wall and mini-feed) were included. Finally, playful
  communications such as acceptance of pokes, messages, and gifts and
  applications were frequently provided”


• Least disclosed:”                key personal information (zip/postal code),
  phone numbers (both land line and mobile), home address, city or town,
  website and former name. Inaddition, there was also limited amount of
  information provided regarding some aspects of educational experience (i.e.,
  school mailbox, courses, degree, awards, and room). Finally, optional
  ‘‘wallfeatures” (i.e., Super Wall and Advanced Wall) market place listings”
     All about me: Disclosure in online social
   networking profiles: The case of FACEBOOK

• People on average disclosed only 25% of what it was
  possible to disclose
• Study 2 explored two types of threats, identity theft and
  theft to self or groups because of being associated with
  certain activities or persons
• Three disclosure categories developed “The first
  category reflected personal identity information, the
  second involved sensitive personal information, and the
  third involved potentially stigmatizing information.
  Thematic analysis was conducted to construct each of
  the three categories”
     All about me: Disclosure in online social
   networking profiles: The case of FACEBOOK

• Used research assistants and even the police to
  develop personal identity index ranging from 0-
  8: street address, city/town, postal code, gender,
  birth day, birth year, profile picture and email
• Sensitive personal information “email, employer,
  job position, status, mini-feed, regular wall,
  profile picture, photo albums, self-selected
  photos, tagged photos, message, poke, send a
  gift, and friends viewable (possible scores
  ranged from 0 to 14).”
      All about me: Disclosure in online social
    networking profiles: The case of FACEBOOK
• Potentially stigmatizing information: “religious views, political views,
  birth year, sexual orientation, photos, friends viewable, interests,
  activities, favorite music, favorite movies, favorite TV shows, favorite
  books, favorite quotes, and about me (possible scores ranged from
  0 to 14).”
• Findings:
• 1. “Specifically, users who provided information about their gender
  (present or absent), relationship status, and age disclosed more
  default/standard information, more sensitive personal information,
  and more potentially stigmatizing information in their online profiles
  than their peers who did not disclose their gender, relationship
  status or age”
• 2. “users who indicated their relationship status as either single or in
  a relationship disclosed significantly more default/standard
  information … and sensitive personal Information …than users who
  did not indicate their relationship status”
      All about me: Disclosure in online social
    networking profiles: The case of FACEBOOK
• Single users shared the most stigmatizing information, then users in
  a relationship, and last those who didn’t indicate status
• No effects for age or type of network
• As age increased, disclosure decreased
• Study 3
• “Through discussion and then factor analysis , the following 11
  scales were created:
• “personal information, photo and update information, work
  information, education information, message and poke acceptance
  (whether users allow for receipt of private messages and nudges
  from other users), photo album and profile picture information, age
  information, contact information, view information, other wall
  presence, and relationship information”
     All about me: Disclosure in online social
   networking profiles: The case of FACEBOOK

• Findings
• “users who belonged to a community network
  were more likely to include their political and
  religious views in their personal profiles than
  were their university network counterparts”
• “users who indicated their gender, also had
  higher levels of disclosure for: personal
  information, photo and update information,
  education information, photo album and profile
  picture information, and age information”
     All about me: Disclosure in online social
   networking profiles: The case of FACEBOOK

• More findings
• “males expressed more information about their political
  and religious views than did females”
• “disclosing one’s relationship status was related to
  higher levels of disclosure of various topics, including:
  personal information, photo and update information,
  photo album and profile picture information, age
  information; and view information”
• “Users who disclosed their age also disclosed more
  education information”
• Age predicted disclosure on 5 of the ten topics
• Single users disclosed more on most of the topics
A theoretical model of intentional social
    action in online social networks
• Results
    – Did structural equation modeling
        • Although there was a significant chi-square, all of
          the other indicators were good, indicating that the
          model was a good fit to the data Model accounted
          for 32% of the variance in We-Intention
• Hypotheses: all factors (except group norm) had a significant effect
  on We-Intention, with subjective norm the strongest,
• “social identity is a second-order factor with cognitive social identity,
  affective social identity, and evaluative social identity as second-
  order factors exhibiting significant impact on We-Intention to use an
  online social networking site”
• Interesting that subjective norm is still influential even after they are
  actively using Facebook-counter to prediction
boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network
    sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.

• Some sites which now support SN did not originally start
  out that way, and their original forms varied
• Attribute decline of Friendster (although they do boast 73
  million profiles on the site currently) to technology
  problems, cultural clashes as the general public became
  aware of the site, Fakester issues, announcement that
  they would become fee-based
• Notes migration of photo and videosharing sites to SNS
• MySpace offered new features with page customization,
  connection to bands, acceptance of minors
• Proliferation of non-US SNS which have received little
  attention from US scholars
boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network
    sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.

• Some SNS sites have thrived by restricting
  public access, creating boundaries and
  exclusivity of one kind or another
• Some government agencies and corporations
  have restricted usage of SNS for their
  employees
• Difference between SNS and earlier online
  communities forums may be the organization not
  around common interests but around the social
  networks of individual members
• “The world is composed of networks, not groups”
boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network
    sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.

• SNS research topics
  – Impression management and friendship performance
     • Profiles and friendship networks as tools of identity
       management; friends provide context or a backdrop for
       impression formation
     • Articles on this topic we’ve read include
        – Tong, S. T., Van Der Heide, B., Langwell, L, & Walther, J.
          (2008). Too much of a good thing? The relationship between
          number of friends and interpersonal impressions on Facebook.
        – Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity
          construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored
          relationships.
boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network
    sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.

• SNS research topics, cont’d
  – Networks and network structure-using
    massive datasets collected by programs like
    Fetch (from Fetch Technologies, a company
    started by USC researchers) or donated by
    the SNS itself
     • Article on SNS networks we’ve read
        – Liu, H. (2007). Social network profiles as taste
          performances.
• This category could also include
  typologies of users or profiles
boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network
    sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
• Researchers in this area want to understand large scale
  structural features
   – Ex. Backstrom et al., “Group Formation in Large Social
     Networks: Membership, Growth, and Evolution,” a study of
     LiveJourna,l asked:
   – “What are the structural features that affect if someone will join a
     particular subgroup, and
   – “How does the probability of joining a subgroup p depend on the
     number of friends k who are already members of the group?”
       • In the groups examined p was a negatively accelerating function of
         k- a law of diminishing returns in that k keeps affecting p but at an
         increasingly smaller rate
       • Other influential factors are not just the number of friends but, for
         moderate values of k, whether or not those friends are mutually
         connected to each other
       • Groups with very large number of triangles of mutual friends seem
         to grow more slowly
boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network
    sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.

• Bridging online and offline social networks
  – Primary motivation for using SNS seems to be to
    connect to friends rather than to meet strangers
     • How will this be affected by LBS? One of the basic findings
       in social psychology of friendship is that physical proximity is
       often a sufficient basis for friendship formation, while
       similarity is necessary for people to maintain friendship
       relationship with geographically distant others
     • Reading from our syllabus
         – Chan, D. K., & Cheng, G. (2004). A comparison of offline and
           online friendship qualities at different stages of relationship
           development.
boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network
    sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
• Privacy
   – Several researchers have been interested in the extent to which
     information supplied to SNS for public consumption can compromise the
     privacy or the personal identity of members, particularly young people
     who seem to be somewhat less concerned about privacy issues
       • For example, Stutzman, “An Evaluation of Identity-Sharing Behavior
         in Social Network Communities,” surveyed students using Facebook
         Friendster and MySpace to found out what they were revealing about
         themselves on the sites. He found that most of them thought that
         maintaining privacy was very important, and were not confident that their
         personal information was safe on these sites, but they were not particularly
         concerned about it
       • See also Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., * Mitchell, K. (2008). Is talking online to
         unknown people always risky? Distinguishing online interaction styles in a
         national sample of youth internet users from our readings on “The Dark Side
         of CMC”
   – Are Facebook profiles public or private? Do police have the right to
     “search” them?
boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network
    sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.

• Other study areas
• Boundaries on SNS;
  – Study conducted at Georgia Tech found that
    1/3 of students surveyed did not believe
    professors should be allowed on Facebook
    (2006 pub date)
  – Contact with professor on Facebook had no
    impact, positive or negative, on ratings of
    professor
boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network
    sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.

• Future research
  – Need for experimental, longitudinal studies
  – More studies outside US
  Skageby (2008), Semi-public end-user content
   contributions—A case-study of concerns and
         intentions in online photo-sharing
• Networks where user-owned or created content
  is shared are becoming more commonplace
• Not much is known about the norms and values
  surrounding the online “giving” of content for
  semi-public consumption
• This would lie somewhere along a continuum
  from posting a file on a web page which
  anybody can access to attaching a file to email
  (the private end of the continuum)
  – The authors refer to this as the “Space where directed
    content and social relationships co-evolve”
  Skageby (2008), Semi-public end-user content
   contributions—A case-study of concerns and
          intentions in online photo-sharing
• Studies of contributions of end-user content
  online have focused either on motivations for
  sharing or on issues related to social loafing
  where selfish users download but do not
  contribute
• Little explicit attention to the recipient end in
  terms of users’ feelings about to whom they
  want to contribute
   – Aspects of the sharing experience seem to have
     much in common with an anthropological take on gift-
     giving
  Skageby (2008), Semi-public end-user content
   contributions—A case-study of concerns and
         intentions in online photo-sharing
• Gifting: three central concepts: social bonds, other-
  orientedness and reciprocity
   – Interesting why they chose a gift-giving perspective, as opposed
     to, say, authorship, or other perspectives such as self-promotion
     or desire for social influence
• Two modes of gift transfers (coercion and exchange are
  not considered)
   – Reciprocity
   – Pure gift-giving
   – Coercion and Exchange vs. Reciprocity and Pure Gift-Giving
     continuum- categories arrayed along a continuum anchored by
       • Self-centered motivations vs Other-oriented motivations
       • Economic man vs Social bonds
       • Cost–benefit vs .Reciprocal ambiguity
  Skageby (2008), Semi-public end-user content
   contributions—A case-study of concerns and
         intentions in online photo-sharing
• Researchers are interested in the end of the continuum
  where it is uncertain whether or if you will get something
  in return, and if so, what you will get
• Digital goods have the characteristic that you can give
  them without losing them, and that once you give them
  you lose control over how they are distributed to others
• Affordances of Internet allow digital goods to be
  transferred at little or no cost
• Sharing networks are increasingly taking on a social
  component which factors into how and with whom goods
  are shared (e.g. influenced by the existence of affinity
  groups and subnetworks) as well as on the willingness to
  engage in pure gifting as opposed to exchange or
  reciprocity
  Skageby (2008), Semi-public end-user content
   contributions—A case-study of concerns and
         intentions in online photo-sharing
• Research questions: what end-user concerns
  characterize semipublic content contributions on the
  Internet?
   – what is given, to whom, how, and why
   – Authors looked at Flickr, a photo-sharing network
       • Principal activities consist of uploading photos, tagging (applying
         metadata to photos)
       • Tags can be searched, result in user-generated “folksonomies” or
         taxonomy of pictures
       • Users can look at photos bookmarked as favorites by others as well
         as others’ contacts
       • Users can get comments on their photos, and there are feedback
         mechanisms including popularity ratings
       • Users can create groups
       • On Flickr, social networks emerge from sharing of material
 Skageby (2008), Semi-public end-user content
  contributions—A case-study of concerns and
        intentions in online photo-sharing
• Data:
  – Analyzed 760 forum posts (no details on how
    these were selected were provided)
  – Did follow-up interviews with 17 users
  – Used a sort of grounded theory process using
    the whom, what, how and why categories for
    coding, while looking for emergent features
Skageby (2008), Semi-public end-user content
 contributions—A case-study of concerns and
       intentions in online photo-sharing
  Skageby (2008), Semi-public end-user content
   contributions—A case-study of concerns and
         intentions in online photo-sharing
• Results
• What: Social content and metadata
• “Novice users quickly became aware that when providing
  material for others in a networked environment, you are
  also exposing links to other files, metadata,
  conversations, persons or even networks and vividly
  described difficulties and concerns they had when facing
  this fact”
   – Ex. Being OK with making their photos public but not the tags,
     especially if tagged with the names of friends or other users
   – Ex. That their pictures could be used in somebody else’s offsite
     blog with a track back to them on Flickr-allowed unathorized
     people to have a path into your life
   – Ex. Concerns about visibility of contacts-friends might have
     photos they don’t want their parents to see
 Skageby (2008), Semi-public end-user content
  contributions—A case-study of concerns and
        intentions in online photo-sharing
• Other concerns
  – Not being able to upload photos anonymously
  – Being named as a contact whether you liked it or not
  – Wanting to make friends’ comments on photos
    separately not viewable by family (and perhaps vice
    versa)
  – So any discussion of end—user digital content needs
    to include the associated metadata like tags, including
    the social metadata (network of contacts, friends’
    comments on photos, etc)
  Skageby (2008), Semi-public end-user content
   contributions—A case-study of concerns and
         intentions in online photo-sharing
• Whom: recipients and their relationships
• A flaw in Flickr was that the level of settings for privacy
  was not graduated enough-ex. Friends and family
  lumped together, only a few categories (public, contacts,
  friends and family, private)
• Ex. Child of divorce has photos with Mom’s side of
  family, Dad’s side and don’t want to subject one to the
  other but still want to share photos with family
• Groups were used to address certain pictures to
  particular groups of recipients on a long-term basis but
  was not a good solution for short-term or one-time
  occasions
  Skageby (2008), Semi-public end-user content
   contributions—A case-study of concerns and
         intentions in online photo-sharing
• Groups often subdivided into splinter groups
  who did not subscribe to the rules of the larger
  group about what sorts of pictures could be
  posted
• How: sociotechnical means
  – Dealing with the issues of not being able to precisely
    and on-the-fly control the recipients for pictures led
    people to either develop technical workarounds,
    which may have led them offsite, or to simply refrain
    from posting
  – Wanted a mechanism for “banning”-making public
    material semi-public if the content was offensive
  Skageby (2008), Semi-public end-user content
   contributions—A case-study of concerns and
         intentions in online photo-sharing
• Why: semi-public motivations
  – did not want to trouble others with nonrelevant goods;
  – receivers requested it
  – an offline (intimate) social bond
  – perceived similarities with receivers
  – intended a (personalized) experience with the goods;
  – experienced a conflict of interest between different
    receiving relations and groups
  – the gift, if provided publicly, might produce requests
    for additional gifts
  Skageby (2008), Semi-public end-user content
   contributions—A case-study of concerns and
         intentions in online photo-sharing
• People need to be able to put relations into silos
  (sometimes temporary) and to “gift material in excludable
  ways”
• Need to be able to “control the digital rights”
• The presence of tags, links, commenting mechanisms,
  publishing photos straight to blogs, etc. all raise the
  costs of gifting
• The association of the photos with all of this metadata
  increases the likelihood of a desire for semi-public gifting
  and technical mechanisms to support it
• Some users wanted to be able to make it clear that their
  photos were in the public domain and free for anyone to
  use for any purpose
• Interesting to think about their data from a perspective
  other than gifting, say impression management or self-
  as-source
   Shin, D., & Kim, W. (2008). Applying the technology
acceptance model and flow theory to Cyworld user behavior:
        Implication of the Web2.0 user acceptance.
• Focus on hugely popular Korean site which nearly 90% of
  young people use
• Applies a modified TAM model adding in the concepts of
  synchronicity, involvement, and flow as enhancing
  constructs to predict users’ attitudes toward and intention
  to use Cyworld
• A user’s personal space on Cyworld is called a
  “minihompy” and it features blogging, photos, message
  board, guest book, personal bulletin board, and a room for
  their avatar, a mini-me
• Users can link to other users minihompys
• Users can buy clothes for their avatars, furnishings for
  their rooms, and other accoutrements
  Shin, D., & Kim, W. (2008). Applying the technology
   acceptance model and flow theory to Cyworld user
  behavior: Implication of the Web2.0 user acceptance.

• Technology acceptance model
  – Offshoot of theory of reasoned action
  – Attitude toward an action, subjective norm both
    influence behavioral intention
  – Behavioral intention is known to be a strong predictor
    of actually taking an action
  – Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are
    major factors influencing behavioral intention to use a
    technology; didn’t see ease of use in this application
  – Three new variables specific to Cyworld incorporated
    into the model: synchronicity, involvement, and flow
    experience
        Shin, D., & Kim, W. (2008). Applying the technology
         acceptance model and flow theory to Cyworld user
        behavior: Implication of the Web2.0 user acceptance.
• Hypotheses:                              H6: There is a positive relationship
                                           between perceived involvement and
•   H1: Attitude toward Cyworld is
    positively related to the intention to perceived enjoyment.
    use Cyworld.                           H7: There is a positive relationship
•   H2: There is a positive relationship between perceived involvement and
    between perceived usefulness and attitude toward Web2.0. (?)
    intention to use Cyworld.              H8: There is a positive relationship
•   H3: There is a positive relationship between perceived synchronicity
    between perceived usefulness and and perceived usefulness.
    attitude toward Cyworld.               H9: There is a positive relationship
•   H4: There is a positive relationship between perceived synchronicity
    between perceived enjoyment and and attitude toward Cyworld.
    intention to use Cyworld.              H10: Flow experience has a strong
•   H5: There is a positive relationship effect on intention to use Cyworld
    between perceived enjoyment and
    attitude toward Cyworld.
   Shin, D., & Kim, W. (2008). Applying the technology
    acceptance model and flow theory to Cyworld user
   behavior: Implication of the Web2.0 user acceptance.
• Got a sample of 950 home pages using the “random
  home page finder” feature of Cyworld (now that’s
  convenient! Wonder how “random” it really is)
• Posted recruitment information and a copy of the survey
  instrument on the users’ bulletin boards (wow, this is a
  researcher’s dream! Especially when combined with the
  nonymity feature which ties the user to a state issued ID
  number)
• 352 respondents completed the survey for a very good
  response rate of 37% (by my calculations; the
  researchers claim a response rate of 43.3% (maybe some
  confusion here as to whether this represented a total after
  a second wave of posting surveys)
• No information is provided on how concepts were
  measured, reliability of measure, etc.
  Shin, D., & Kim, W. (2008). Applying the technology
   acceptance model and flow theory to Cyworld user
  behavior: Implication of the Web2.0 user acceptance.

• Results
  – Used SEM to analyze the data
  – The author does not report the chi-square result for
    some reason (probably significant given such a large
    sample size?) but the other indicators suggest that the
    model is a good fit
  – Eight of the ten hypotheses were supported, and two
    rejected (some of the significance levels were p<.10
    which is not a very stringent criterion)
  – Rejected hypotheses were the direct paths from
    perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment to
    intention to use Cyworld
  – Perceived usefulness is usually a good predictor in
    TAM studies
Shin, D., & Kim, W. (2008). Applying the technology
 acceptance model and flow theory to Cyworld user
behavior: Implication of the Web2.0 user acceptance.




                       Flow is out
                       here all alone
    Shin, D., & Kim, W. (2008). Applying the technology
     acceptance model and flow theory to Cyworld user
    behavior: Implication of the Web2.0 user acceptance.
•   There is an error on page 381 where instead of saying that perceived
    usefulness and perceived enjoyment would mediate the relationship
    between perceived synchronicity and perceived intention, the text states
    perceived involvement.
•   The only variable which had a direct effect on behavioral intention was
    perceived flow
•   The effects of perceived synchronicity and perceived involvement on
    intention were mediated by perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment
•   However, the direct effects of perceived synchronicity and involvement on
    attitude were stronger than their mediated effects through, respectively,
    perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment
•   Lack of direct effect of usefulness and enjoyment on intention to use
    suggests that maybe there is something different about this particular
    technology that requires a higher level of usefulness or enjoyment to predict
    regular use
     – It may be that since everybody uses Cyworld it is a less discretionary choice and
       you may not need to enjoy it or even find it particularly useful to feel you need to
       use it?
Donath (2007). Signals in Social Supernets.
• Grooming, Gossip, and Online Friending
• Are social networks sites going to provide the tools that are needed
  to be able to efficiently expand the scale of one’s social networks?
• Presumably there are limits to the number of contacts one can
  manage f2f or through conventional means
    – While apes use grooming to nourish and maintain their social ties, they
      can only pick so many lice
    – Humans are able to use language to accomplish many of the same
      relational formation and maintenance tasks, but again their resources to
      do this are limited given the many demands of daily living
    – Author argues that although tools like email enable you to keep in touch
      with or send news to multiple others, there is a greater need to be able
      to keep up with the news of others in context, to learn about their
      relationships, and to have a basis for the development of trust
    – These are the services that social networks would seek to provide,
      enabling social networks of much greater scale
Donath (2007). Signals in Social Supernets.

• Author’s goal to offer a theoretical framework for
  assessing the potential of SNS to transform
  social relations and to provide guidance to
  designers for making SNS better social tools
• The analysis is based on signaling theory, which
  “models why some communications are reliably
  honest and others are not”
• Thus a central focus is on how SNS can more
  fully address the issue of interpersonal trust,
  particularly as it affects the establishment of
  reliable identity
Donath (2007). Signals in Social Supernets.

• Signaling theory
  – The extent to which we require communications to be
    scrupulously honest is highly variable and depends
    on the consequences of dishonesty in a particular
    context
  – On a message board talking about sports it may not
    matter so much as it would on, say, a forum talking
    about brain cancer
  – To be a reliable signal, the costs of deceptively
    producing the signal must outweigh the benefits.
     • What types of signals and situations bring this about?
Donath (2007). Signals in Social Supernets

• assessment signals to produce the signal you have to
  possess the quality
• "Strategic" or "handicap" signals You show that you have
  a lot of something by conspicously wasting it, such as
  light a cigar with $100 bills
   – Only reliable as to the cost of the specific display (the smoker
     may have used up the entire week’s pay on that cigar) and not to
     any other qualities
   – Conventional signals are indicators like age or gender that are
     not inherently reliable but can be checked for authenticity
      • A ring on the left hand, fourth finger, is a conventional signal but it
        can be worn by single people to ward off unwanted attentions, or left
        off by potential cheaters, and there will be people in the individual’s
        social world who will know whether the signal is accurate or not
Donath (2007). Signals in Social Supernets

• Signals can vary with respect to how costly deception is
   – It may not be very costly to describe yourself on your profile as
     “fun-loving” or show yourself in a photo at a party, but it may be
     very costly to describe yourself as tall and blonde, both in terms
     of those in your network who know you to be dark and petite, in
     the effort required to find a picture that will confirm the
     description, and in the disappointment persons who meet you for
     the first time and discover that you have exaggerated
• SNS can invent ways to make it more costly to be
  dishonest (for example to claim someone as a contact
  when they’re not really known to you) but people can
  usually find a way to circumvent these precautions
   – Requiring confirmation of the friendship should make it more
     costly, but in fact most people don’t like to reject friend requests
     and agree even if they barely know someone or think they might
     know them
Donath (2007). Signals in Social Supernets

• Trust and Identity in Large Mobile Societies
• Can SNSs provide a means for extending trust and assessing
  reliability?
   – Theoretically the links to others provide a means for vetting, although if
     all of the friends are in on it or approve of it a person can provide a
     completely false persona on the profile with the sanction and complicity
     of the friend network
   – The social context provided by friend networks helps to resolve
     ambiguities and offers evidence of how one treats social relations and is
     treated by them-you are tied to the identity developed within that nexus
     of social contacts
   – One of the greatest benefits of SNS is to add trust to weak ties
   – Weak ties can be extremely beneficial in connecting you to useful
     resources and persons you would not otherwise encounter
   – Site designs that make adding contacts too easy compromise the trust
     aspect of social networks
Donath (2007). Signals in Social Supernets

   – It’s a good idea to increase the “costs” of indiscriminately creating
     links, such as penalizing people for too many declined links, or
     allowing people to whom you link the ability to post on your page
     (you should know them reasonably well to have confidence that
     you won’t be embarrassed by what they post)
• Types of Relationships
   – The combination of strong ties to provide a context for trust, and a
     network of heterogeneous weak ties to extend access to persons
     and resources beyond the immediate social circle suggests that
     the possibility of creating a social supernet is viable
   – Mere presence of a friend link is not very informative
   – More information about the closeness of a relationship can be
     gleaned from other activities such as wall posts, comments on
     each others posts, videos, photos, mutual tagging, etc
   – Time spent on maintaining the relationship digitally may signal
     closeness or just somebody with time on their hands
Donath (2007). Signals in Social Supernets

• Reducing receiver costs
  – Time spent carefully checking out potential friends
    before accepting them may be paid for by freedom
    from spam or unwanted posts on ones profile page
  – Applications which visualize social networks may help
    to reduce the costs of vigilance in assessing the
    reliability of information about a potential contact
  – Would have the effect of making people more aware
    of the impression created not just by their profile but
    also by the totality of their network connections
  – Could also make things like the homogeneity or
    heterogenity of one’s network visible, as well as the
    frequency of one’s contact with network members or
    other indicators
Donath (2007). Signals in Social Supernets

• Fashion and the Display of Information-Based
  Status
  – Being in fashion/at the forefront with respect to
    applications signals status, innovativeness and
    “fitness” in the constantly evolving online world
• Information Exposure: Signaling Imperviousness
  – Posting risky or too revealing information is a way of
    signaling imperviousness to danger, demonstrating
    cool in the sense of composure and fearlessness
  – Or they may just be stupid
Donath (2007). Signals in Social Supernets

People no longer need personal
 relationships to meet their basic survival
 needs (?)
The strengths of SNS may lie in their ability
 to provide access to information while
 helping them to maintain a socially local
 network of relationships (strong plus weak
 ties, bridging and bonding, etc)
Donath (2007). Signals in Social Supernets

• The current generation of teens who are ubiquitously
  connected to IM, MySpace, etc. have acquired and
  continue to invent and appropriate entirely new ways to
  use the media they consume, particularly SNS, to
  indicate and infer popularity, their friends and romantic
  interests, and social skill
• Their breakups and makeups are there for the whole
  world to follow if they wish it to be so
• SNS may reduce anonymity and loneliness
• LB MoSoSos in particular may leverage physical
  proximity to provide a context and occasion for new
  relationship formation
• Novelty and the continuous updating of personal
  information about one’s contacts may be sufficient to
  keep people connected to SNS and make the social
  supernet idea feasible
Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately
     public: Social networking on YouTube.

• Defines SNS in terms of the ability to publicly
  articulate connections between people
• The presence of the connection and not the
  nature or strength of the connection is what is
  made explicit
• Connections can be made through varying
  media
• These media circuits could be made through the
  telephone, as in immigrants from Mexico staying
  in touch with loved ones at home, or through
  sharing videos with a subset of friends on
  YouTube
Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately
     public: Social networking on YouTube
• On YouTube, sharing videos with one set of friends and
  not with others indicates that there are different media
  circuits in operation, and there are different social
  configurations
• People share technically substandard video on YouTube
  for the same reasons they IM, not to impart high quality
  information but to display affinity
• Private vs. public-what is hidden or withdrawn vs. what is
  open and accessible; also, what is individual vs. what is
  collective
• Both of these factors can be applied to video; how much
  information is available about the individual, and with
  whom (and how many) the information is shared (to
  whom it “belongs”)
Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately
     public: Social networking on YouTube
• Fractalization(?) of the public and private
• Who can access, manipulation and distribute information
  differs greatly by context, so what is private in one context
  could rightly be viewed as public in another
• Use the image of a fractal, as a larger image which, when
  you inspect its component parts, has smaller versions of
  the larger one, and still smaller versions, etc
   – A somewhat strained metaphor (rooms in homes are private
     spaces within homes; homes are private spaces within
     neighborhoods; then it sort of breaks down….
   – :Gal, ‘‘Whatever the local, historically specific content of the
     dichotomy, the distinction between public and private can be
     reproduced repeatedly by projecting it onto narrower contexts or
     broader ones’’
   – Video sharing practices “subdivide in ways that reflect different
     relationship dynamics and social networks:
Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately
     public: Social networking on YouTube

• Method
  – Used a combination of qualitative methods
    including semi-structured interviews and
    observations of postings, examination of
    subscription and friending practices, attending
    events and meetups
  – 54 interviewees ranging in age from 9 to 43
  – Lot of method variance-used phone, IM, and
    f2f methods to interview people
Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately
     public: Social networking on YouTube

• Used personal acquaintances of the researchers
  as subjects, which is not really the done thing
  although the farther out their networks they
  traveled the less it would be an issue
• Asked them questions about pros and cons of
  posting on YouTube, about the people they
  friended, difference between subscribing and
  friending, if they knew the people who
  commented on their videos, etc.
• Some were highly visible posters, YouTube
  celebrities, and some were scarcely known
Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately
     public: Social networking on YouTube
• Findings
• Some media circuits reinforced social relationships that
  began in person, e.g. family members commenting on
  each other’s videos
• People can complete media circuits to unknown others
  and expand their networks by posting videos for
  unknown others to see, or by commenting on videos
  posted by unknown others
• YouTube posters can expand or limit access to their
  videos by tagging in narrow ways (e.g. using your name
  as a tag) or by restricting access to friends only
• Some friends who do not know each other well may
  make videos together and become friends (? How often
  does this happen?)
Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately
     public: Social networking on YouTube

• Technical issues don’t matter much
  – Creating and circulating videos is a process of
    defining and maintaining social networks
  – The public end of the continuum
     • Some video makers are quite public about their identity and
       make every effort to get a broad swath of the public to view
       their work including making their content appear to be as
       broadly relevant as possible
  – The private end of the continuum
     • Others keep their identity as video makers to themselves,
       target the content very narrowly, and restrict viewing to only a
       small group of friends
Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately
     public: Social networking on YouTube

• Some video makers may be publicly private, in that they
  reveal their identity but tag the content narrowly or
  cryptically or not at all or restrict who can view it
• Some people post video that is intended only for a
  handful of insiders publicly, because they don’t want to
  require them to have accounts to view the videos, which
  are required of “friends”
• The same poster could vary widely in terms of how
  publicly private they might be; some videos might be
  tagged in such a way as to invite broad viewing even
  though most are ‘restricted’ to friends by their very
  narrow or cryptic tagging
Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately
     public: Social networking on YouTube
• Privately public
• Videosharers keep their identity private but use tagging
  and public access to share the video as widely as
  possible, attract comment, etc
   – Can also accomplish this through various techniques internal to
     the video such as distorting voices on the video, wearing masks,
     not speaking, etc.
   – Want to stay anonymous so as not to attract attention from the
     workplace or encourage stalkers, among other motives for
     wanting to remain anonymous, or because one is engaging in
     activities that are best kept secret like surprising people
       • “When he [CT] makes videos with RJ, he reveals his face, name,
         and location. Yet when he made theVlad film, he withheld that
         information and sought more ‘‘privately public’’ connections to new
         fans”
Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately
     public: Social networking on YouTube

• Example of MadV, who encourages viewing by picking
  topics with broad appeal and friending generously
   – People pick up symbols from his videos and reproduce them in
     other social situations, extending his media circuit and
     expanding the influence of his social networks
   – People who make hateful comments or who try to reveal his
     identity are removed from subscriber lists and their comments
     deleted
   – He does not initiate friend requests or subscribe to other’s
     channels, and he is firmly at the center of his social network
• Note that on MadV’s channel page he has a link to the
  JCMC article!
Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately
     public: Social networking on YouTube

• When YouTube was acquired by Google, the
  tags that were attached to videos then became
  part of the search process and the video might
  be more easily found and more frequently
  viewed
• “On YouTube, frequent interaction between
  video makers and viewers is a core component
  of participation on the site. Viewers and
  commenters are often themselves video makers,
  who comment with the strategic intent of forming
  social relationships with others who will support
  their work”
   Spatially Bounded Online Social Networks and
        Social Capital:The Role of Facebook

• Displaying your connections on a social networking site is a way of
  providing a warrant for your claims to your identity (Donath and
  boyd)
• Social networking sites are distinct from earlier versions like
  newsgroups etc in that they provide a way for you to extend your
  offline social networks as well as meet new people-e.g. in the older
  groups the trajectory was from online meeting based around shared
  interests to offline meetings, whereas here there is movement in the
  other direction as well in order to maintain or strengthen or extend
  existing relationships
• Geographical orientation of sites like Facebook may serve to enrich
  social capital in offline networks
    – Fewer people play with identities due to the tie to real-world existing
      connections
    – Donath and boyd hypothesize that sites like Facebook could increase
      an individuals’ number of weak ties, if not strengthen strong ties, eg.
      Increase social capital (information, connections, opportunities)
    Spatially Bounded Online Social Networks and
         Social Capital:The Role of Facebook

•   Bourdieu and Wacquant--social capital as “the sum of the resources, actual
    or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a
    durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual
    acquaintance and recognition”
•   “For individuals, social capital allows individuals to benefit in a variety of
    ways in that participation in a social network allows a person to draw on
    resources from other members of the network and to leverage connections
    from multiple social contexts. These resources can take the form of
    important information, employment opportunities, personal relationships, or
    the capacity to organize groups (Paxton, 1999). Access to individuals
    outside one’s close circle provides access to non-redundant information,
    resulting in benefits such as employment connections” (p. 7, Ellison et al)
•   Networks in which there are not direct links between all participants, what
    are called structural holes, are actually more efficient for the diffusion of
    information because of supporting the transfer of information between
    subgroups or from groups were it is old news to groups where it is new and
    useful
•   Distinction between bridging social capital which is provided by social
    networks and bonding social capital (Putnam)
 Spatially Bounded Online Social Networks
 and Social Capital:The Role of Facebook
• Subjects were 286 undergrads at MSU
• Were surveyed for demographic information,
  Facebook intensity (no. of friends, typical daily
  amount of time on the site, attachment to an
  integration into Facebook community), purposes
  of using Facebook (information, entertainment,
  looking up people, making new friends),
  perceived critical mass, self-esteem and
  satisfaction with life at college, measures of
  social capital (bridging, bonding, high school)
  Spatially Bounded Online Social Networks
  and Social Capital:The Role of Facebook
• Findings
• Who is using Facebook? High penetration Almost all of the
  students were, and there were few differences between the ones
  who were and weren’t except that the weren’ts were a little
  older/more likely to be off campus, had significantly higher high
  school social capital although not the other two types
• How were they using it? Reported an average of 10-30 minutes a
  day and 150-200 friends; for fun and killing time rather than
  gathering information, more for interacting with offline friends than
  meeting new people, especially keeping up with high school friends
• Facebook appeared to have a large impact on student’s ability to
  develop bridging social capital on campus
• Facebook use especially helpful in increasing social capital for those
  with low self-esteem and low satisfaction with student life
 Spatially Bounded Online Social Networks
 and Social Capital:The Role of Facebook
• Bonding social capital also predicted by
  Facebook intensity
• General Internet use not related to social capital
  measures except for high school social capital
• Usage characterized primarily as offline to online
  movement to strengthen and extend existing
  offline relationships
  – Features like the “birthday greeting” feature which
    was provided by the site were useful for increasing
    bonding social capital
 Spatially Bounded Online Social Networks
 and Social Capital:The Role of Facebook
• Haythornthwaite (2005) new media “create latent tie
  connectivity among group members that provides the
  technical means for activating weak ties” (p. 125). Latent
  ties are those social network ties that are “technically
  possible but not activated socially” (p. 137). Facebook
  enables participants to capitalize on weak ties (such as
  “friending” a friend of a friend) and convert latent ties to
  weak ties (such as looking up the profile of someone in a
  shared class and finding mutual areas of interest and
  possible discussion topics).”
• These weak ties will provide new information and new
  opportunities

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:12/22/2012
language:Unknown
pages:75