Thursday, September 24, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
We are seeing a similar process unfold now, in regards to a brief (4-page) write-up of an academic study examining jealously and Facebook use titled, "More Information than You Ever Wanted: Does Facebook Bring Out the Green-Eyed Monster of Jealousy?" (by Muise, Christofides and Desmarais) which available from the publisher's website. The LA Times, for instance, warns us that “Facebook could be ruining your relationship and driving you toward compulsively jealous behavior” and that “Facebook use may be fueling wild flights of jealous investigation.” I thought it important to say a few things about what the study does and does not do.
First of all, the study is reported as a “rapid communication” and thus does not offer details that may help readers contextualize the findings. The article focuses on a variable called “Facebook jealousy” but doesn’t include all the survey questions that were used to create this variable. Thus it is unclear what it is really measuring. Likewise, a full regression table isn’t included, which makes it difficult to assess the findings. Something can have a “significant” effect on something else, but that doesn’t mean it is meaningful. So this piece should be seen as a preliminary step prompting future research as opposed to providing a definitive, conclusive model for understanding jealousy and SNS information.
The researchers use a regression analysis to examine the effect of variables, such as gender, on their outcome variable, which is Facebook jealousy. Because they used survey data from one point in time, this analysis can’t really say anything about causality – a point that is not clear in the popular press coverage. In a regression, we use the term “predict” when talking about the effect of one variable on another, but this is not equivalent to the common understanding of ‘prediction,’ which implies a statement about something that will happen in the future. In colloquial terms, prediction implies knowledge of a causal relationship, but when describing a regression it just means that one scores on one variable (such as gender) are related to scores on another (such as jealousy).
The study finds that the most important variables for predicting “Facebook jealousy” are gender and trait jealousy; together these two variables accounted for 46% of the variance in the dependent variable (Facebook jealousy). What this means is that the more jealous someone is (overall, meaning in the “real world”), the more likely it is that they will report doing things like monitoring their partner’s behavior on Facebook. This doesn’t seem all that surprising or news-worthy to me, but rather just another example of the way in which our online and offline selves and behaviors are closely intertwined. The researchers also examine the extent to which time spent on Facebook predicts higher Facebook jealousy scores, and found that there was a significant relationship such that 2% of the variance in the dependent variable was associated with time on Facebook. 2% is a pretty small contribution. It makes sense that people who spend more time on the site would be more likely to encounter information that triggers previously existing tendencies toward jealousy and that those who were already motivated to track the activities of their partner might spend more time on the site. What this study cannot claim is that Facebook makes people more jealous. Rather, it seems that Facebook is another outlet for engaging in specific kinds of behavior that are associated with jealousy in other contexts.
The authors point out, and I agree, that more research needs to be done to really understand the ways in which information found in Facebook may contribute to feelings of jealousy. What I do not agree with is the idea that Facebook constitutes a “fundamental shift” in the ways that jealousy functions within a relationship. The authors write: “In the past, flirty gestures of interest or signs of subtle disregard remained entirely within a person’s own control, and partners in close relationships were most often not subjected to the daily scrutiny of their exchanges with members of their social circle.” A substantial body of research suggests that non-verbal communication is not always within our control, and that leakage of information often occurs. This is why we pay more attention to non-verbal information, like eye contact, than to verbal information when forming impressions and assessing statements by others (although non-verbal cues aren’t always accurate, we tend to privilege them). In both online and offline settings, we may try to send one signal but actually communicate another, and those who are looking for evidence of straying interest will find plenty to ruminate over, whether it be a boyfriend’s new Facebook Friend, an offhand comment by a mutual friend, or a seemingly shifty glance or wandering eye. In short, this is another example of the process by which we use new technologies to do things we’ve always done.
It's unlikely to happen, but I would like to see equal media attention for research that explores the positive outcomes of SNS use. For instance, the most recent issue of the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication alone includes several pieces that describe and evidence positive outcomes of SNS use; I’d love to see equal attention paid to research like the following:
Young People, Online Networks, and Social Inclusion by Tanya Notley
Old Communication, New Literacies: Social Network Sites as Social Learning Resources by Christine Greenhow, Beth Robelia
Is There Social Capital in a Social Network Site?: Facebook Use and College Students' Life Satisfaction, Trust, and Participation by Sebastián Valenzuela, Namsu Park, Kerk F. Kee
Sunday, March 15, 2009
In Growing up on Facebook, NYT writer Peggy Orenstein notes the increased use of Facebook by adults, who are posting old photos and connecting with long-lost childhood friends. She wonders about how younger people are using the site and suggests that Facebook's "most profound impact may be to alter, even obliterate, conventional notions of the past, to change the way young people become adults." In general, I think the article is useful in articulating the need for research that explores the impact of these self-presentational opportunities on identity formation, especially among young people who are growing up with, and on, social network sites, although I don't share her concerns.
Orenstein suggests that the connections to one's past resurrected by these sites will hinder, not enhance, identity development. Alternatively, I believe online spaces can be used to forward a vision of self that can serve as a roadmap forward, even with an audience of hundreds. Indeed, this ability to strategically self-present oneself online will be a critical skill (in both professional and personal contexts) for the young people Orenstein writes about. In my work on online self-presentation in online dating profiles, I've written about the ways in which users draw upon their ideal selves when constructing an online representation of self. In one instance, reported in our 2006 JCMC article, a user listed described herself as thinner than she was in "real life" - but then went on to lose weight so as to bring her actual self closer to the self represented in her profile. In these and other examples in the literature, online spaces can serve as a context for experimenting with roles and identities, and thus can enhance the development process. The difference between online dating profiles and Facebook profiles is, of course, the presence of hundreds of "friends" who are presumably acting as a deterrent for blatant mis-representation and, as Orenstein reads it, a tether to one's past life, thus constricting options for growth. I think this concern doesn't acknowledge the ability of younger users to manage their online presence and the extent to which we expect one another to change over time. An alternate perspective could see this expanded social network of people from one's history as a supportive presence that enables individuals to stretch, knowing that they have links to their past should they need them.
A second point: the article focuses on one aspect of these sites, which is to enable self-expression, and only briefly mentions the flip side of the coin: the ability to observe others. It is described in somewhat negative terms (the student who is uncomfortable hearing about the details of a "friend") but as anyone who has spent time with Facebook's series of "Less about this person" options knows, this is an easy problem to solve. The positive side of seeing others is found in the social learning that this enables and the exposure to diverse information and perspectives that it brings. Our JCMC article on Facebook and bridging social capital (which was briefly mentioned in the NYT piece) highlights the potential benefits we receive from being exposed to a larger network of weak ties. For emerging adults, like college students, exposure to different perspectives and new information is likely to be especially beneficial precisely because they are trying on different identities and figuring out whether and how to re-invent themselves. Not all of us have the ability to go away to college, or to move to New York City or San Francisco. For young people without these opportunities, perhaps the exposure to people, ideas, and information that is enabled by these sites can serve an important role in supporting, not hindering, identity development.
Monday, September 15, 2008
While we use the term "social network site" to describe this phenomenon, the term "social networking sites" also appears in public discourse, and the two terms are often used interchangeably. We chose not to employ the term "networking" for two reasons: emphasis and scope. "Networking" emphasizes relationship initiation, often between strangers. While networking is possible on these sites, it is not the primary practice on many of them, nor is it what differentiates them from other forms of computer-mediated communication (CMC).
This seems to be very consistent with the distinction that Facebook is making when they say the site is a "social utility that connects you with the people around you." The research my colleagues at MSU and I have done addressing Facebook usage suggests that, at least among the population of undergraduates we study, Facebook is most commonly used to either a. articulate existing relationships or b. develop nascent relationships that are built on some shared offline connection. Although it does happen, we find that it is far less common for these users to friend complete strangers. Additionally, as we argue in a new paper, using Facebook to find out information about weak ties may be beneficial to users in ways that connecting with existing close friends or trying to friend total strangers may not be.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
- Last March I participated in a session on SNS at iConference in Los Angeles with danah, Fred, and Alice Marwick. I presented some of our work on social capital and Facebook.
- I spoke at my alma mater, Annenberg (USC) in March as well. As part of the Virtual Communities Speaker Series associated with their APOC program, I spent a day speaking with faculty and students. The Annenberg Program on Virtual Communities is a new Master's Program being offered by the school which is innovative in many ways.
- This summer I'll be in Northern California for a few weeks, working and visiting with family here. On Friday I spoke to HP's Social Computing Lab and Tuesday (July 1) I will visit Facebook and present the research I have been doing with Charles Steinfield and Cliff Lampe. I am also planning to speak at a panel on Web 2.0 technologies at the CRA Conference at Snowbird.
Monday, June 02, 2008
1. Knowledge of who my audience is when I blog
2. Limited amount of text on twitter
Not having a sense of who is reading is disconcerting and makes me less likely to try to fit blogging into an already busy day. Which relates of course to point 2 - the time commitment needed to maintain a vibrant blog seems beyond my capacities at the moment. Especially when it would take time away from actually getting research published. 140 characters is just so addictive and so effortless. On the other hand, twitter posts are ephemeral in two ways - they disappear (for the most part) and don't seem to be indexed by google. Thus my decision to try to maintain both modes of broadcasting, plus the occasional facebook status update, and to focus on the blog as a way to update folks about my activities and engage in pre-scholarship that will lead to published, peer-reviewed research. Wish me luck!
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Overall, I found the range of opinions was surprisingly narrow, with most of us agreeing that the SNSs had both positive and negative potential outcomes depending on how they were used and who was using them. The demonization of SNSs (Myspace abductions and the like) that I expected did not materialize, and many of Chazin’s comments weren’t really SNS-specific, but rather concerns about mediated communication replacing f2f (which have accompanied the introduction of the telephone and every communication technology since).
Two points struck me:
Few would disagree with Will Reader’s claim that “Face-to-face contact is, I believe, very important for the formation of intimate relationships.” I do disagree, however, with his suggestion that college students are using SNSs to manufacture friendship networks before arriving on campus and thus insulating themselves from friends who don’t mirror their beliefs and preferences (similar to the concept of the “Daily Me”). Reader writes, “It might be if, by choosing potential friends via their Facebook profiles, it means that folk cut themselves off from serendipitous encounters with those who are superficially different from them, ethnically, socio-economically, and even in terms of musical taste.” I haven’t seen Reader’s SNS papers as none are publicly available, so this may be true for the population he is studying. But our data suggest that students typically do not use Facebook to meet new people. (This is based on our 2006 survey data as reported in the JCMC article and is reinforced in our 2007 data, which we are currently writing up.) Rather, they use the site to learn more about people with whom they share some kind of an offline connection (e.g., live in their dorm, in the same class). This information-seeking can result in a f2f conversation, a casual friendship, or may go nowhere. Although we haven’t probed the specific case of what students do the summer before they begin college, I think Reader’s concerns about students using Facebook to create social echo chambers before setting foot on campus are unfounded.
Secondly, although I agreed with many of Judith’s points (and love her work on SNSs and other social media), I did wonder about one of her statements: “[SNSs] devalue the meaning of “friend.” Our traditional notion of friendship embraces trust, support, compatible values, etc. On social network sites, a “friend” may simply be someone on whose link you have clicked.”
This echoes a common set of concerns I’ve noticed around SNSs, involving the ease with which SNSs allow individuals to link to others as “friends” and the belief that this will somehow dilute the meaning of this term. As noted by “Stacy” in her comment on the NYT blog, Facebook users we’ve surveyed are very savvy about the wide range of relationships that are described by the term Facebook “Friend.” In fact, we’ve asked users in surveys and interviews about how many Facebook “Friends” they have and how many of these are “actual” friends. Our respondents can articulate how many of their "Facebook Friends" are "actual friends" - about one-third, on average. This suggests to me that
- Facebook users are able to distinguish between the term used by Facebook to indicate one’s contacts and “friendship” as traditionally conceived.
- Many of these “non-actual” friends are “weak ties” and thus the source of perspectives, information, and opportunities that Judith and I reference.
This is a small point, though, and overall I thought her summary of the benefits of weak ties as enabled by SNSs was excellent, as were danah's examples of SNSs in action. I also enjoyed the comments by readers, although I'll admit I found a few of them rather crytic.