Question 1:
Who are the five people you interact with most often?
1. Jaime L.: 23 interactions; 2 emails, 9 text messages and 12 cell phone. Close tie that I have known for nearly five years. She is one of my few remaining friends from freshman year that has not graduated. I spend most of my time out of class with Jaime. She lives one block away and is also graduating in December. 21-years-old.
2. Liz M.: 13 interactions; 9 emails, 2 cell phones, and 3 text messages. My sister, who lives in New York City. She is my only relative that lives on the east coast. She is two years older and we share many mutual friends. 24 yrs old.
3. Jarrett W.: 9 interactions; 2 emails, 5 cell phone and Jarrett is a text messages. A friend and close tie who lives in Boston. We have known each other for 4 years (3.5 of the years were at Penn). He just graduated and has joined a band (no real job). Philosophy major. 22 yrs old.
4. Cheryl W.: 8 interactions; 3 emails, 5 cell phone. Cheryl is my mother who lives in California. She is a close tie.
5. Nolie G.: 8 interactions; 5 AIM, 2 Cell and 1 text message. Nolie is my 22-year-old roommate. She is a close tie that I have known for fours years. We have lived together for the past three years. Although we are technically the same year at Penn, she will not graduate until this spring or next fall. Art major.
Who are the five people you interacted with most often for each of the communication mediums used?
Email:
1. Liz M.: 9
2. Cheryl M.: 3
3. Claire H.: 4. Major advisor in the Communications Department and has been at Penn for four months now. She is infamous for her frequent emails concerning academic events and information. Not Close.
4. Alina B.: 2. Alina is a T.A. for a course in which I am enrolled this semester. I have only known her for a few months and we are not close. She is from Eastern Europe.
5. Barnaby L.: 2. He is a friend that I have known for 3 years, but our tie is moderate because we do not discuss important matters. He attended Princeton and now lives in London, where he is originally from. He is 25.
6. Jarrett W.: 2
7. Jaime L.: 2
8. Mel G.: 2. She is my best friend from home that I have known for 9 years. Our tie is definitely close, but we communicate relatively infrequently. Lives in California and 22 yrs old.
9. SAS Faculty: 2. This category represents emails received from the general college listserve.
10. Alina Y.: 2. The head of the Slavic department, whom I have never met. I somehow ended up on a listserve for the Slavic Department events.
Cell Phone:
1. Jaime L.: 12
2. Cheryl W.: 5
3. Jarrett W.: 5
4. Nolie G.: 2
5. Sammy S.: 2. A friend and moderate tie who is a 21-year-old senior at Penn. We have known each other for two years and interact socially. Lives a block away.
6. Annie B.: 2 A friend and moderate tie who is a 21-year-old senior at Penn. We have known each other for 4 years. Lives a block away.
SMS:
1. Jaime: 9
2. Pat M.: 4. Pat is my roommate. I have known him for fours years and he is also a December graduate. He is a close tie. 22 yrs old. Political Science major.
3. Liz M.: 3
4. Trina G.: 2. Trina is my closest friend from Penn who lives in New York City. We have known one another for five years and lived together the first 4 years. She is 23 and from Texas.
5. Bryce L.: 2. A friend and close tie. He is a 21-year-old senior who lives one block away. We have known each other for 4 years.
6. Jarrett W.: 2
Facebook:
1. Mark P.: 2. Friend from California (home). Moderate tie whom I have known for 9 years.
2. Kelsey F.: 2 Friend and moderate tie. Lives in Washington D.C. 22 yrs old. Attended Penn for one semester.
3. Agnes T.: 1 Friend and close tie. Lives in China. Lived together at Penn for 3 years, but she graduated last year. 22yrs old.
4. Bradley E.: 1 Acquaintance and weak tie. Junior at Penn.
5. Chase M.: 1 Friend and weak tie. 23 yrs old and graduated from Penn last year. Lives outside Philadelphia now.
6. Jeff S.: 1 Friend and moderate tie. 22 yrs old and graduated 2006. Lived on my hall freshman year. Lives in Colorado now.
7. Josh Y.: 1 Friend from high school and weak tie.
8. Miles H.: 1 Classmate and weak tie. Senior.
9. Shannon J.: 1 Former roommate and weak tie. Fifth year senior.
AIM:
1. Nolie G.: 5
2. Trina G.: 2
3. Grant G.: 2 Friend and moderate tie. Lives in Washington D.C. Graduated 2007. From the town in California.
4. Pat Hunt.: 2 Friend from California and close tie. Known for 9 years.
5. Bryan M.: 1 Roommate and close tie. Graduated last year, but now attending grad school at Penn.
6. Agnes T.: 1
Question 2:
A. Is there a relationship between the medium of communication used and the strength of the tie?
CellPhone SMS Email AIM Facebook
Close 29 23 24 11 1
Moderate Tie 4 2 2 7
Not Close 18 3
When communicating with the 3 close ties with whom I interact most, Jaime L., my sister Liz and Jarrett W., I used 4 of the 5 mediums (none of them use AIM). This supports Wellman’s assertion, “the stronger the tie, the more media used” (2001). In fact, looking at the overall distribution of interaction, close ties are the only group that I interacted with using all five mediums. Alternatively, for weak ties (not close), I only used 2 new mediums, email and Facebook, which are less personal and most often asynchronous. My cell phone is more intimate because I carry it with me all the time, making me always available (Wellman, 2001, p. 239). I also lose my phone frequently, so I usually only have the numbers of people I contact most often programmed in the address book. As a result, when using my cell phone I primarily contact strong ties [cell phone (88%) and text messaging (92%)].
Overall, I communicate primarily with strong ties (71%), which Wellman and Wortley explain as “[a tie] that has at least two of the characteristics of intimacy, voluntariness and multiplexity” (1990, p. 566). Not surprisingly, most of the close ties that I communicate with on a regular basis, i.e. Jaime, Liz, Jarrett and my mom, each exhibit all three of these qualities, particularly the mutliplexity. A large majority of my personal network recently graduated last year (when I was supposed to graduate), thus I currently depend on a few multiplex close ties for most types of support (rather than a diverse group of specialized weaker ties).
B. The type of support exchanged?
Cell Phone SMS Email AIM Facebook Total
Emotional Aid 4 3 6 2 15
Small Services 8 5 4 4 3 24
Large Services 4 4 8
Companionship 18 17 11 7 8 61
Job Information 1 1
Information: Penn
Events/Announcements 12 12
Academic Course Info 3 3
Other 1 1
For this section I used Wellman and Wortley’s classifications for types of support: emotional aid, small services, large services, companionship, and job information. In addition I added two other categories: 1) Information concerning Penn events and announcements and 2) Academic course information/communication.
Overall, companionship was the most common type of support, accounting for 73% of Facebook, 68% of SMS, 54% of AIM, 53% of cell phone, and 26% of emails. This supports Baym et al. report that the predominant purpose of interaction (phone, face-to-face and Internet) was social. Most of my close ties no longer attend Penn or live outside Philadelphia, thus I depend greatly on new media for companionship. Wellman and Wortley would characterize my network as “spatially diverse,” which they assert contributes to the demand for the Internet and computer mediated communication (2001, p. 228). I use cell phone and SMS most for companionship, which is logical because I almost exclusively communicate with strong ties via these mediums and “strong ties are more likely to provide companionship” (Wellman & Wortley, 1990, p. 567). Cell phone is also a synchronous form of interaction, which provides the added bonus of co-presence to the companionship experience.
Small Services was the next most common type of support and was more equally distributed throughout the mediums (31% AIM, 27% Facebook, 23% Cell phone, 12% SMS, 10% Email). For small services I rely primarily on my roommate Nolie G (5 interactions), Jaime L. (4 ), my sister Liz (4) and my other roommate Pat M. (3), all of whom are strong ties. This supports Wellman and Wortley’s assertion that “strong ties provide significantly more small services” (1990, p. 566). In addition, with the exception of my sister, all of these people live within one block of me, which relates to the ideas that “neighbors are most likely to provide services” (Wellman & Wortley, 1990, p.570), and, “physical access promotes small and large services” (p. 569).
Emotional aid was given and/or received via cell phone, email, SMS and AIM with close ties (totaling 15 interactions). Surprisingly I used email most for emotional aid, which is often criticized as an impersonal medium. My sister and I exchanged the most emotional aid (5 interactions), 4 of which were over email. I do not think that this is an indication of an inherent relationship between email and emotional aid, but rather a unique aspect of my sister and I’s relationship.
Large services were all cell phone and email consisting of 5 interactions with my mom, 2 with my sister and 2 with Jaime. This supports the assertions that mother-daughter ties are especially supportive, as well as the idea that siblings are more likely than friends to provide large services. (Wellman & Wortley, 1990, p. 572-574).
C. The type of relationship?
Cell Phone SMS Email AIM Facebook Total
Parent 5 4 9
Sibling 1 3 9 13
Friend 24 6 11 7 9 57
Classmate 1 1
Acquaintance 1 1 2
Roommate 3 5 6 14
Professor/T.A. 3 3
Penn Faculty 9 9
Penn Organization/Group 3 3
I interact with friends more than any other type of relationship (46% of all communication) and I use all mediums (42% by cell phone, 19% email, 16% Facebook, 12% AIM and 11% SMS). I interact with my roommates the second most (11% of interactions) using the cell phone, SMS and AIM. Most of my interaction with my roommates is for small services (i.e. locking myself out) and physical companionship, so it is easier just to call, text or AIM from wherever I am to get a quick response. I communicate with my sister, only slightly less than my roommates, but we primarily communicate via email (69%), and occasionally text message or call. As Hampton explains, “Asynchronous communication facilitates temporal flexibility: people can read and respond to communication at individually convenient times and places” (Hampton, 2004, p. 226). Email also allows my sister and I to over come the obstacles of geography and time.
My phone demonstrated a relationship to the intimacy of the relationship. My friends, roommates and sister all represent very intimate relationships, thus I support Baym et al.’s report that phone is more likely to be used for intimate relationships.
Not surprisingly, I only use email (44%) and cell phone (56%) to communicate with my parents. As members of an older generation neither of my parents has any idea how to use AIM, text messaging or Facebook.
I interact with professors, T.A.’s and Penn faculty solely through email. I doubt the most professors would enjoy having students call them at home, so email allows both the student and the professor (or other faculty) to communicate on their own schedules without breaking the student-teacher relationship. This supports Baym, Zhang and Lin’s assertion that Internet provides a good channel for “getting schoolwork done and exchanging information” (2004, p.304).
D. Duration of the relationship?
Duration Cell Phone SMS Email AIM Facebook
0-1 years 9 1
1.1-3 years 3 5 3 2 3
3.1-5 years 23 17 6 9 4
5-10 years 1 2 2 3
11+ years 6 3 13
I interact most with people I have known for 3-5 years (48% of all interaction), using all mediums. They comprise 70% of cell phone, 68% of SMS and 69% of AIM. This is not surprising considering that this is how long I have known most of my college friends, who make up a large portion of my personal network. For people I have known less than a year, I interact almost exclusively through email; most of these ties are classmates, faculty and professors from this semester, thus email is the most appropriate means. For people I have know the longest (over 11 years), I communicate primarily through email (60%) and cell phone (27%). In fact, I email people I have known for more than 11 years more than any other group, particularly because this group represents my sister and mother, with whom I frequently exchange email.
E. Distance to the person?
Distance Cell Phone SMS Email AIM Facebook Total
0-5 miles 20 18 16 4 3 61
6-20 miles 1 1
21-200 2 5 13 6 2 28
201-999 5 2 2 9
1000+ 6 9 3 5 23
Nearly 50% of all of my interactions were with people living less than 5 miles away (avg. less than 1 mile). This group represents my local Penn network of friends, classmates, professors, faculty, etc., with whom I interact via cell phone, SMS, email, aim and facebook. As McPherson, Smith-Lovin & Cook explain, “We are more likely to have contact with those who are closer to us in geographic location than those who are distant” (2001, p. 429). While the advent of new technologies may “loosen the bounds of geography,” they will not entirely do away with the traditional pattern (McPherson, Smith-Lovin & Cook, 2001, p. 430). Most notably, cell phone and text massaging were used primarily for local ties (61% of my cell phone interactions and 72% of my text messaging) within 0-5 miles of me. This supports Baym et al.’s finding that telephone communication tends to be local rather than long distant (204, p. 310-311).
Email, on the other hand, was used to contact both local and distant network members, with the most interactions falling in either the 0-5 range or 20-200 (NYC). As Hampton explains, computers allow communication across significant geographic distances as well as supporting local interactions (2004, p. 225).
My data seems to support Baym et al.’s idea that the Internet is particularly useful in maintaining long distance relationships. For people that live over 1000 miles from me, I communicated more via computer mediated communication (17 interactions: 9 emails, 5 Facebook, and 3 AIM) than cell phone (6 interactions).
F. The person’s age or gender?
Cell Phone SMS Email AIM Facebook Total
20-21 18 13 5 2 38
22-23 9 9 5 13 9 45
24-30 1 3 13 17
31-50 5 5
51+ 5 4 9
When using my cell phone and text messaging, I interact most with people that are 20-21 years old. Most of my friends and classmates at Penn are this age; thus they represent my local Penn network. In addition, the person that I communicate with most, Jaime L., is 21.
For people ages 24-30 I primarily communicate via email. This age group represents young professionals and former Penn students, who graduated before 2006. Most people in this group have jobs, thus email is more convenient. For people over 50 (my mom and dad), I use email and cell phone.
G. The similarity of age and gender to your own?
Overall, I communicate most often with people that are my age (22-23), but it is distributed more broadly across all mediums. I communicate most via AIM with this age group (the only group I talk to via AIM), but cell phone, SMS and Facebook are not far behind. Of the 5 people I communicate with most, 2 are in this same group.
Cell Phone SMS Email AIM Facebook
Female 26 17 26 8 4
Male 7 8 9 5 7
For all mediums except Facebook, I interact more with females than males. Thus my diary suggests that most of my network interaction is homophilis in terms of gender, although McPherson’s argues that gender homophilily is typically low among “young, highly educated and Anglos” (me).
H. What if anything dos this say about the role of new media in networks?
My new media use patterns seem to strongly support many of the ideas put forth by Hampton and Wellman. I use email frequently to communicate with close ties, including all of the 5 people I contact most, all of whom represent relationships that were originally formed offline and are place-based, yet are maintained using new media. This supports Wellman’s assertion that “the rapid emergence of computer-mediated communications means that relations in cyberspace are joining with relations on the ground” (228). The asynchronous nature of CMC allows me to interact without the constraints of time and geography, which might severely affect a person in my unique situation (“in between” networks). As Hampton explains, “The internet reduces friction of space” (Hampton, 2004, p. 226). It is not opening my world to a vast heterogeneous population of new ties; instead I use new media to maintain the homophily of my previous Penn 06’ network, as more of a person-to-person network than a place-to-place one.
At the same time, new media are not completely isolating me from my local network, as the Dystopian view suggests, because I frequently interact with people near me and use CMC in my local network, supporting the idea of “glocalization,” or using global technologies for local ties (Hampton, 2004, p. 226). In reference to the Baym et al. article, I think that my diary demonstrates an online social life that has successfully integrated Internet into my interpersonal communication. In this regard, I identify with Wellman and Gulia’s parallel drawn between the telephone and online communication as new technologies. They explain that phone was once exotic, but now people take it for granted and use it frequently to communicate with both distant and local ties. Online interactions may also become normalized as a reasonable way to maintain ties. (348).
Question 3:
What characteristics of the tie and person were most common for those interactions that took place inside your home?
I had 46 interactions in my home, 87% of which were with close ties, 3% moderate and 3% weak ties. Most communication at home is on the cell phone (37%) or email (24%) and text (22%). 8 of the interactions were with people living over 3,000 miles away, 16 with people between 100 and 300 miles away, and 17 with people a mile or less. 27 of these interactions were for companionship, 9 emotional aid and 7 small services. I interacted with Jaime most (12), my sister (7), and Jarrett (5). 52% of my cell communication was at home.
In public places?
The Street: 11 interactions on the street (2 SMS and 9 cell phone). 8 with close ties and 3 moderate. 6 of the interactions were local and the other 5 distant. All but one of the interactions was for companionship. I usually call or text people when I am walking to keep me company.
Class (semi-public): 21 interactions with both close ties (14) and weak ties (6), from a broad age range. This is when I interact most with 24-30 year olds because they are my friends bored at work. I use primarily email (12) and SMS (4) because they are discrete. All female.
Library: (semi-public) I interact in the library more than any other public space (42 interactions via email, SMS, cell, AIM), with friends (23), Penn faculty (5), roommates (4) and parents (4). Of these interactions, 26 female and 11 male. Most live within a mile of me (24), yet 11 interactions were with people over 2,000 miles away. Mostly close and moderate and weak ties.
What if anything does this say about how new media may change the composition of our social networks?
I was surprised to discover that 60% of my total interactions were in public and semi-public places, challenging Putnam’s warning that people are not longer interacting in public. While new media liberate me from the constraints of geography in maintaining distant ties, they also considerably mobilize my communication. While I did use my cell phone more at home (17/33) than other places, 48% of my cell phone interactions were outside my home. Most of my computer-mediated interaction was also outside the home, even though Baym et al. reported that most CMC is based in the home. I do not think that new media are changing the composition of my social network, but rather how, where and when I choose to contact them. With the exception of some Penn Faculty and other university-related contacts, most of the members of my network could have been contacted through traditional media such as mail or landline telephone, but I choose to use other media out of convenience. If anything, I think that new media enhance my ability to control the composition of my network by maintaining ties that I feel particularly useful/important. New media simply allow me to move out of the private home and into public. This portability challenges the traditional boundaries of private and public, as Hampton states, “The growth of mobile phones and wireless computing has brought computer mediated communication out of the home and into the street, but people can cut themselves off from public spaces by creating private spheres of mobile interaction. ( 2004, 219). People interact less with strangers in public spaces; instead forfeit chance encounters for interaction will familiar ties with new media.
Most of my network members are person-to-person interactions, yet were formed as “place-based” relationships, such as college, high school, etc., so I agree with Hampton when he writes, “The reduction in the friction of space enabled by the Internet has not made geography or place irrelevant” (2004, p. 229). While I agree that the past few decades have seen a strong societal trend towards privatization of social interaction that is closely related to technological advancements in communication media, but it cannot be isolated from considerable confounding factors (i.e. transportation, political climate, economy, etc.).