IT, What Has it Done to US!?!?!?!
I felt like I had déjà vu this week as I was reading and taking notes. The word that kept popping up was multiplexity. Although theorists of the field hypothesized anything from the Internet “achieving what highways did not, in bringing people together,” to the internet completely atomizing us and further privatizing public and parochial space. The Kronholz article is amazing in that it is a clear demonstration of the ability and proclivity of online users to exchange social support and favors with complete complete strangers. This harkens to the section in the Wellman article discussing generalized reciprocity. According to Wellman, the more one feels like part of a community the more likely she is to contribute and help others. Apparently this is part of building one’s identity online through deeds since other characteristics are downplayed by the nature of the medium. The idea that a chain letter could generate 160,478 responses from 189 countries and all 50 states is incredible. The way this message traveled just shows the reach of IT and the proclivity towards reciprocity, even when in response to a chain letter of all things. I was completely surprised by the success of this girl’s chain letter since I know that when I receive chain letters I don’t even open them. They are automatically spammed out of my mailbox! Although I found the Wellman spin on the issue of reciprocity among strangers interesting, I’m not sure that group attachment is what can be pointed to in explaining reciprocity among complete strangers. From some of our other readings it became clear that many IT users don’t view the technology as a completely different world, but rather an extension to real-time interactions. I’m not even sure that his argument that helping others promotes self esteem would cover the findings of the Kronholz article! This is a unique phenomenon because in real-time, people are very apprehensive about interacting, and exchanging anything (sometimes even a glances) with strangers.
What “group” would IT users identify with, if any at all? What are some other reasons or theoretical constructs that could explain reciprocity among strangers online?
Question:
IT, What Has it Done to Us?!!?!
And now the milieu of articles discussing, multiplex relations: The Baym article very clearly shows that college students use the internet as much as the telephone and perceived as high in quality (though slightly lower than face-to-face interaction.) I particularly enjoyed the part which drew attention to the fallacy many researchers in the past examined Internet use by looking at heavy vs. light use etc. This belief parallels the direct effects model of media consumption which hasn’t been supported for a number of years! Ultimately Baym’s research shows that IT based communication both supplements offline activity and current relationships, while taking on a unique social quality in cultivating weak ties.
Dr. Hampton’s article points to the tendency for ties made online to migrate offline and vice versa. Since the Internet has limited bandwidth, as one begins to fancy a weak tie met online, she begins to cultivate that media through other media like phone, and perhaps eventually face to face. The most interesting aspect of the Hampton argument is by far his recommendation that IT could become central to reviving public participation and interactions.
Question:
Do you truly think that IT can reverse this overwhelming trend? If so what is your theoretical basis for believing this?
The Gustavo Mesch study was very interesting in that it studies Israeli youth as opposed to American youth. It was refreshing to see a study that didn’t sample American youth. Finally, rather than postulating about the effect of IT on social networks we can actually see some results from a different culture. I was surprised by the fact that when asked where the respondents had met their first friend that 12% replied online. Out of a considerably large sample (987) 12% reported having met their first friend online. Also a higher percentage of males than females reported having online friends. In terms of multiplexity, the study showed that friends met face to face first seemed to last longer than other relationships. Why is this?
Question:
Why aren’t durations of relationships comparable when the tie is met online instead of met face-to-face first? Is multiplexity create relationships that last longer, but only when initiated face to face? Why does multiplexity only work on one direction in this sense?