· Baym, N. (1995). The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication. In Steven G. Jones, ed.CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community (pp.138-163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
· Bruckman, Amy (1996). Finding one’s own space in cyberspace. Technology Review, 99 (1), 48-52.
· Danet, B., Ruedenberg, L., & Rosenbaum-Tamari, Y. (1997). Hmmm...where's all that smoke coming from: Writing, play and performance on Internet Relay Chat. In S. Rafaeli, F. Sudweeks & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), Networks and Netplay: Virtual Groups on the Inter net. Cambridge, MA: AAAI/MIT. (also available in: Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2 (4).
· Kaufman, M. (1996). They call it cyberlove. In Kling, R. (Ed.) Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices (Vol.2). San Diego, Ca: Academic Press.
· Kling, R. (1996, July). Social relationships in Electronic forums. CMC Magazine, http://www.december.com/mag/1996/jul/kling.html
· Lea, M. and Spears, M. (1995). Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer networks. In Wood, J.T. & Duck, S. (Eds.). Understudied Relationships: Off the Beaten Track. (pp. 197-236). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
· Mabry, E. (1997). Framing flames: The structure of argumentative messages on the net. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2 (4).
· Parks, M. R.; & Floyd, K. (1996, Winter). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46, 80-97 also available at: Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 46(1).
· Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.
· Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Social Networking
Beginning and maintaining interpersonal relationships in the virtual kingdom is becoming increasingly popular in our society. As new communication networks are developing in the world, people are using technology not only in business, industry, education or communication, but as a social tool that is linking together people all across the globe. According to the Internet Society, the use of electronic mail is growing exponentially making communication with someone geographically distant about as easy as if speaking with them in the next room .(Lea and Spears, 1995). The emergence and accessibility of email, chat rooms, instant messaging, and bulletins have made it easier for people to develop personal online relationships. Although online relationships through social networking lack characteristics in areas of non-verbal communication, physical cues, and impersonality of the computer, the frequency and uniqueness of these relationships are popular amongst millions of computer users. My research focuses on three questions; how and why people are socially connecting online? Are online relationships comparable to face-to-face meetings? And lastly what are the effects of social networking and personal relationships online? In an age where technology is at our fingertips, society has the opportunity build and sustain relationships without ever having to leave the comfort of their own home.
“The lost art of conversation is surviving online” (Kaufman, 1996) helps explain t as to why people are participating in social networking through the internet based on social interaction, affiliation, and a sense of community. Social networking allows people to carry on tasks and activities just as they would in “real life”. From the safety of their homes users are able to communicate with friends and family, shop for virtually anything desired, and even attend school. This is beneficiary for people with restricted lifestyles allowing people to socialize online, meet new people, and attend to their favorite interests even if they work unusual hours or are unable to leave home. “CMC users, just like communicators in any context, should desire to transact personal, rewarding, complex relationships and that they will communicate to do so. This is shown most clearly in e-mail usage in organizations.” (Walther, 1992). This sense of affiliation describes how people expend their energy through social networking to get others to connect and share with them. Along with affiliation the sense of community drives people to look for others to relate to, share with, and become close to. People form relationships from commonalities in CMC, rather than by location when face to face. According to Robert Kling of CMC Magazine, “because technology can break down time or place barriers for people, virtually anyone can meet in a common place at anytime”. This in turn explains why so many people interact through social networking, it’s easy and everywhere!
Computers and the internet are now found almost virtually anywhere available in homes, at work, schools, libraries and now even cafés. Only a computer, modem, and internet connection is need for your most basic communication, and the use is growing exponentially across the world. The accessibility of these Social Networking Sites allows people to chat at anytime of the day. The popularity of email, chat rooms and instant messaging allow users to chat with multiple people through a number of networks or even private locations. The growth of independent networks such as Facebook, America On-Line and Myspace, provide access to millions of users each day. Whether social issues, affiliation or the need for sense of community form the basis for personal online relationships there are two opposite sides comparing online relationships to the traditional face-to-face relationship.
There are two different views researchers have found regarding personal connections within social networking. The first outlook describes online networking as shallow, impersonal, and hostile believing that only the illusion of community is created on the internet. It points to the reduction of social cues meaning the absence of physical context such as nonverbal cues, physical characteristics, kinesics, and facial expressions. Because less of this information is actually demonstrated online rather than face-to-face, this view elaborates that people have greater difficulty recognizing and moving towards shared points of view (Kiesler & Sproull, 1996). These observations argue the weaknesses that social networking can present. Here it is illustrated that social networking is lacking in interpersonal qualities considered necessary for building connection. The idea that always meeting through means of a computer may become frustrating for many people, thus in term initiating the need to meet face-to-face. People begin to miss the interactions that occur through face-to-face conversation. It is much easier to read one’s emotions, sarcasm, and honesty up front as opposed to via an online community, arguing the significant qualities that social networking lacks.
The second perspective argues that “computer mediated communication liberates interpersonal relationships from the confines of physical locality and thus creates opportunities for new, but genuine, personal relationships and communities” (Parks and Floyd, 1996). In this opinion, the fact that the users do not meet face-to-face does not necessarily mean the relationship is any less “real” or significant for those involved. (Lea and Spears, 1995). Because of the internets easy access and availability users may adapt quickly to these situations inciting them to further pursue relationships online. The use of emoticons, a symbol or combination of symbols used to convey emotional content in written or message form (dictionary.com), help conceptualize the message being delivered. Emoticons are useful in making up for the lack of nonverbal contextual cues within social networking. This suggests that although social networking may not have the same personal understanding as a face-to-face conversation, it has adapted itself to make up for it through its strengths of accessibility and substitute of expressions through emoticons. Social networking can be viewed as being just as facilitating as a face-to-face conversation because of such adaptations and availability that are in some cases more beneficiary than “real life” conversation.
Lastly, the positive and negative effects of online networking help determine important factors when trying to establish a relationship or avoid its dark side. Social networking can establish genuine personal relationships in the eyes of the participants, some people even report that they are much deeper and better quality than real-life friendship (Bruckman, 1996). In spite of a high quality relationship, this in turn has allowed social networking to expand off the computer through letters, telephone and arranged face-to-face meetings. Internet users are able to organize their own groups based upon personal interests, jobs, etc. allowing people to come and go as they please. These groups or communities may also be apart of a support network such as groups for abused women and children, cancer foundations, and other common interest groups. Social networking allows users open up to others without the pressures of an on-the-spot conversation. The benefit of communicating through the computer allows the user to express themselves freely and overcome any shyness that may arise in a face-to-face situation. This freedom of expression allows any user to explore new behaviors, interact and meet new people and educate themselves in newly discovered areas.
While many positive benefits come from establishing online connections, an ugly side to social networking can arise. Social networking, or computer mediated communications in general, creates many opportunities for self-presentation and identity manipulation (Lea and Spears, 1995). Many feel that this manipulation is not ethical and not fair for the participants involved. Threats, violation of privacy, sexual harassment and even virtual rape are all prevalent dangers when initiating conversation with relative strangers through the internet. Brenda Danet, Lucia Ruedenberg-Wright, and Yehudit Rosenbaum-Tamari (1997) state that cyberspace is "by no means wholly benign," and that CMC can release "aggressive, even shockingly malicious behavior, including sexual harassment and racism." Social networking brings people from distant geographic locations together, including the possibility of bitter, even dangerous people. Flaming, or "messages that are precipitate, often personally derogatory, ad hominem attacks directed toward someone due to a position taken in a message distributed (posted) to the group." (Edward Mabry, 1997) are real life threats. These behaviors can only be controlled to a certain degree and social networkers must be aware of this. Social networks must continue to work on privacy settings and restrictions to prevent such threats because issues like these hinder the safety and success of online networking.
In conclusion, online relationships through social networking are happening across the globe. People are intrigued by developing personal relationships online because the technology is still new and its advancements increase the curiosity and popularity of users old and young. The success of social networking, measured through its advancement and increased popularity, has been a result of the “blurring” of traditional boundaries between interpersonal and mass communication, allowing for "new opportunities and risks for the way individuals relate to one another" (Parks and Floyd, 1996; Lea & Spears, 1995). People are able to connect with others anywhere at any point in time. As stated before, networkers can openly share information whether personal or impersonal without the restrictions of face-to-face conversation. Online networking has adapted itself to the point where some users enjoy it more than “real life” interaction. While there are still disappointments and weaknesses dealing with privacy and deception, social networks are working to improve this. Taking into consideration all positive and negative aspects to social networking, people still thrive to reach others with commonalities and interests. The internet will continue to provide new social networks and channels for people to meet with strangers, initiate conversation and build relationships similar to face-to-face communication for years to come.
“The lost art of conversation is surviving online” (Kaufman, 1996) helps explain t as to why people are participating in social networking through the internet based on social interaction, affiliation, and a sense of community. Social networking allows people to carry on tasks and activities just as they would in “real life”. From the safety of their homes users are able to communicate with friends and family, shop for virtually anything desired, and even attend school. This is beneficiary for people with restricted lifestyles allowing people to socialize online, meet new people, and attend to their favorite interests even if they work unusual hours or are unable to leave home. “CMC users, just like communicators in any context, should desire to transact personal, rewarding, complex relationships and that they will communicate to do so. This is shown most clearly in e-mail usage in organizations.” (Walther, 1992). This sense of affiliation describes how people expend their energy through social networking to get others to connect and share with them. Along with affiliation the sense of community drives people to look for others to relate to, share with, and become close to. People form relationships from commonalities in CMC, rather than by location when face to face. According to Robert Kling of CMC Magazine, “because technology can break down time or place barriers for people, virtually anyone can meet in a common place at anytime”. This in turn explains why so many people interact through social networking, it’s easy and everywhere!
Computers and the internet are now found almost virtually anywhere available in homes, at work, schools, libraries and now even cafés. Only a computer, modem, and internet connection is need for your most basic communication, and the use is growing exponentially across the world. The accessibility of these Social Networking Sites allows people to chat at anytime of the day. The popularity of email, chat rooms and instant messaging allow users to chat with multiple people through a number of networks or even private locations. The growth of independent networks such as Facebook, America On-Line and Myspace, provide access to millions of users each day. Whether social issues, affiliation or the need for sense of community form the basis for personal online relationships there are two opposite sides comparing online relationships to the traditional face-to-face relationship.
There are two different views researchers have found regarding personal connections within social networking. The first outlook describes online networking as shallow, impersonal, and hostile believing that only the illusion of community is created on the internet. It points to the reduction of social cues meaning the absence of physical context such as nonverbal cues, physical characteristics, kinesics, and facial expressions. Because less of this information is actually demonstrated online rather than face-to-face, this view elaborates that people have greater difficulty recognizing and moving towards shared points of view (Kiesler & Sproull, 1996). These observations argue the weaknesses that social networking can present. Here it is illustrated that social networking is lacking in interpersonal qualities considered necessary for building connection. The idea that always meeting through means of a computer may become frustrating for many people, thus in term initiating the need to meet face-to-face. People begin to miss the interactions that occur through face-to-face conversation. It is much easier to read one’s emotions, sarcasm, and honesty up front as opposed to via an online community, arguing the significant qualities that social networking lacks.
The second perspective argues that “computer mediated communication liberates interpersonal relationships from the confines of physical locality and thus creates opportunities for new, but genuine, personal relationships and communities” (Parks and Floyd, 1996). In this opinion, the fact that the users do not meet face-to-face does not necessarily mean the relationship is any less “real” or significant for those involved. (Lea and Spears, 1995). Because of the internets easy access and availability users may adapt quickly to these situations inciting them to further pursue relationships online. The use of emoticons, a symbol or combination of symbols used to convey emotional content in written or message form (dictionary.com), help conceptualize the message being delivered. Emoticons are useful in making up for the lack of nonverbal contextual cues within social networking. This suggests that although social networking may not have the same personal understanding as a face-to-face conversation, it has adapted itself to make up for it through its strengths of accessibility and substitute of expressions through emoticons. Social networking can be viewed as being just as facilitating as a face-to-face conversation because of such adaptations and availability that are in some cases more beneficiary than “real life” conversation.
Lastly, the positive and negative effects of online networking help determine important factors when trying to establish a relationship or avoid its dark side. Social networking can establish genuine personal relationships in the eyes of the participants, some people even report that they are much deeper and better quality than real-life friendship (Bruckman, 1996). In spite of a high quality relationship, this in turn has allowed social networking to expand off the computer through letters, telephone and arranged face-to-face meetings. Internet users are able to organize their own groups based upon personal interests, jobs, etc. allowing people to come and go as they please. These groups or communities may also be apart of a support network such as groups for abused women and children, cancer foundations, and other common interest groups. Social networking allows users open up to others without the pressures of an on-the-spot conversation. The benefit of communicating through the computer allows the user to express themselves freely and overcome any shyness that may arise in a face-to-face situation. This freedom of expression allows any user to explore new behaviors, interact and meet new people and educate themselves in newly discovered areas.
While many positive benefits come from establishing online connections, an ugly side to social networking can arise. Social networking, or computer mediated communications in general, creates many opportunities for self-presentation and identity manipulation (Lea and Spears, 1995). Many feel that this manipulation is not ethical and not fair for the participants involved. Threats, violation of privacy, sexual harassment and even virtual rape are all prevalent dangers when initiating conversation with relative strangers through the internet. Brenda Danet, Lucia Ruedenberg-Wright, and Yehudit Rosenbaum-Tamari (1997) state that cyberspace is "by no means wholly benign," and that CMC can release "aggressive, even shockingly malicious behavior, including sexual harassment and racism." Social networking brings people from distant geographic locations together, including the possibility of bitter, even dangerous people. Flaming, or "messages that are precipitate, often personally derogatory, ad hominem attacks directed toward someone due to a position taken in a message distributed (posted) to the group." (Edward Mabry, 1997) are real life threats. These behaviors can only be controlled to a certain degree and social networkers must be aware of this. Social networks must continue to work on privacy settings and restrictions to prevent such threats because issues like these hinder the safety and success of online networking.
In conclusion, online relationships through social networking are happening across the globe. People are intrigued by developing personal relationships online because the technology is still new and its advancements increase the curiosity and popularity of users old and young. The success of social networking, measured through its advancement and increased popularity, has been a result of the “blurring” of traditional boundaries between interpersonal and mass communication, allowing for "new opportunities and risks for the way individuals relate to one another" (Parks and Floyd, 1996; Lea & Spears, 1995). People are able to connect with others anywhere at any point in time. As stated before, networkers can openly share information whether personal or impersonal without the restrictions of face-to-face conversation. Online networking has adapted itself to the point where some users enjoy it more than “real life” interaction. While there are still disappointments and weaknesses dealing with privacy and deception, social networks are working to improve this. Taking into consideration all positive and negative aspects to social networking, people still thrive to reach others with commonalities and interests. The internet will continue to provide new social networks and channels for people to meet with strangers, initiate conversation and build relationships similar to face-to-face communication for years to come.
prelude to paper
Hey guys, before you read my paper, (if you do haha), I just want to say I did my research on various aspects of social networking, positive and negative, and how that has led to its popularity, creating of online relationships, likes/dislikes, and advancements. Hope you enjoy it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
