Introduction
Young adults are changing how they interact with their friends, acquaintances, family, and coworkers as the popularity of online social networking grows. With so many methods of virtual communication available to young adults, and social media being just one of the latest trends, how is interpersonal communication being affected? Is computer-mediated communication replacing face-to-face communication for this age group? How are young adults using social networking to communicate? The research suggests that social networking sites are just another tool in communication and that social networks are not affecting face-to-face communication by a significant degree. This article will examine recent research findings and journals related to these topics and discuss future implications of the evolution of communication to social media.
Background Information
The terms “social networking” and “social media” commonly refer to the use of a website that fosters relationships within an online community and a website that allows people to interact with each other through features that are built into the website (Coyle et al., 2008, p. 13). Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and LinkedIn have grown to be the four most popular social networking sites. Facebook, which originally started as a place for college students to connect with their peers (Phillips, 2007) has grown worldwide and is now the second most visited website in the world, right behind Google. It’s largest demographic continues to be college students and young adults, though other demographics are signing up at increasing rates (Facebook.com, 2010). It’s proving to be a platform for all ages and demographics. Twitter, which coined the phrase “micro-blogging,” is now the ninth most visited website in the world (Twitter.com, 2010). LinkedIn, which targets a more professional demographic, is ranked as the twenty-fourth most popular website in the world (LinkedIn.com, 2010), and MySpace, with its slightly younger demographic, ranks at thirtieth most popular in the world (MySpace.com, 2010). Each website targets slightly different audiences but all provide a common place for people to link up virtually, regardless of their geographic locations, and share information with each other. Michael Dulworth noted:
The great benefit of virtual networking is the ease with which you can connect to people anytime, anywhere. This can be done asynchronously (that is, without being connected to someone in real time, such as by e-mail) or synchronously (connected in real time via instant messaging [IM] or a video teleconference). (2008, p. 128)
Essentially these websites allow people to connect with others anywhere and at any time, without requiring absolute real-time attention, unlike talking face-to-face or over the phone.
Young adults are spending increasing amounts of time on online social networking. According to The Nielsen Company, the average amount of time that a social media user spent on social networking websites in 2009 averaged to 5 hours 35 minutes per month, and those numbers are increasing as time goes on and social networking sites develop (Led by Facebook, 2010).
Social and Communication Issues
Social networking and its effects on general communication have been recent topics of study for some scholars. Hanson (2007) said that even though “technology gives us alternate ways for how we do things,” (p. ix) “the use of internet has influenced the way we communicate with other people and how we feel about that interaction” ( p. 5). She believed that even though technology gives us new and maybe faster ways of doing something, such as maintaining a relationship with someone, the actual methods are changing the way we feel about our communications with people through these new avenues. The internet and social media allow people to communicate faster and in more dynamic ways, but it might be easier for someone to ignore thinking about the consequences of his/her actions or the quality of those interactions (2007, p. 6). For example, a person might leave a wall post or comment for his/her friend on Facebook, but Hanson suggests that it might be done with little thought as to what’s being communicated or the quality of that interaction in regards to that relationship. Dwyer (2007) studied digital relationships in what she calls the “MySpace generation”. She concluded that because this new method of communication eliminates the majority of social cues from an interaction, communication goes relatively unregulated.
Dwyer (2007) studied digital relationships in what she calls the “MySpace generation”. She concluded that because this new method of communication eliminates the majority of social cues from an interaction, communication goes relatively unregulated.
When people perceive social context cues, these can trigger cognitive interpretations and related emotional states. In response to these cues, people adjust their communication depending on their subjective interpretation of the situation. When social context cues are strongly perceived, behavior becomes more other-focused and carefully managed. Conversely, when communication of these cues is weak and cues are not perceived, feelings of anonymity result in more self-centered and unregulated behavior. (pg. 1)
Dwyer suggests that without social cues, people are more likely to speak directly and without thought of the other person’s reaction. This opens to door to offensives and misunderstandings within relationships that might have been avoided with the present social cues.
Some scholars have suggested that social networking is isolating individuals and decreasing face-to-face communication between people. Kraut, Brynin and Kiesler (2006) said that the internet has become a communication platform that has replaced face-to-face visits in some cases (p. 30), and “as Internet usage becomes more prominent, its displacement of alternative activities becomes more substantial” (p. 52). Their study examined the depth of which the internet displaced activities, particularly those around the home. They found that:
Compared with 1995, people spent more time at home in 2005, ate together as a family in the evening to the same extent, and set aside just as much time for activities with children, but they spent less time in conversation with family and other household members and devoted less time to visiting (2006, p. 61).
They did note that “the reduction in contact with family and visits with friends and others not in the household is part of a trend that has been visible for some time” (p. 62), so it may not have been directly related to internet usage. Their ultimate conclusion was “computer-mediated communication tends more to supplement existing social relations than to replace them,” and there are “hardly any differences between Internet users and nonusers in various forms of social activity.”Berker (2006) also wrote about the effects that social networking and the internet have had on families: “The physical household was in actuality only a node in a much larger network of significant others, which, to a large extent, determined the nature and rhythms of its preoccupations” (p. 66). Berker felt that the household has become a small unit in a chain of ever-expanding networks within the internet. Each person in the household is responsible to other people and websites in that network rather than to just those in the immediate household. He felt that the internet sets the preoccupations of family life.
Berker (2006) also wrote about the effects that social networking and the internet have had on families: “The physical household was in actuality only a node in a much larger network of significant others, which, to a large extent, determined the nature and rhythms of its preoccupations” (p. 66). Berker felt that the household has become a small unit in a chain of ever-expanding networks within the internet. Each person in the household is responsible to other people and websites in that network rather than to just those in the immediate household. He felt that the internet sets the preoccupations of family life.
Social and Communication Benefits
Many scholars believe that main function of social networking is to augment face-to-face relationships rather than replace them or build new contacts. Ling (2010) said “Facebook, and other forms of online interaction supplement co-present and telephonic contact” (p. 183). One study reported that the main purpose of social networking was for users to keep in touch with their friends. Only trivial communications were exchanged through these sites, and social networking didn’t act as a replacement for face-to-face communication and voice calls (Coyle et al. 2008, p. 15). An aspect of social networking that has become popular is its ability to connect people who geographically cannot have a face-to-face communications. Facebook and sites like it allow people to connect to old friends and acquaintances or to stay connected as friends and family travel or move geographically. Essentially it allows people “to stay linked with people with whom they used to be more closely involved, e.g., former classmates” (Coyle et al., 2008, p. 14). At this point, a social network user has already made the choice, or had the choice made for them, to see that person less regularly, even though they are still interested in their well-being and recent news. Social networking websites allow family members to keep in close contact while in separate geographic regions (Berker, 2006, p. 62).
An aspect of social networking that has become popular is its ability to connect people who geographically cannot have a face-to-face communications. Facebook and sites like it allow people to connect to old friends and acquaintances or to stay connected as friends and family travel or move geographically. Essentially it allows people “to stay linked with people with whom they used to be more closely involved, e.g., former classmates” (Coyle et al., 2008, p. 14). At this point, a social network user has already made the choice, or had the choice made for them, to see that person less regularly, even though they are still interested in their well-being and recent news. Social networking websites allow family members to keep in close contact while in separate geographic regions (Berker, 2006, p. 62).
Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe (2007) feel that there is a portion of social networking that is understudied and underrepresented: “Facebook represents an understudied offline to online trend… Facebook users engage in “searching” for people with whom they have an offline connection more than they “browse” for complete strangers to meet” (p. 1144). They believe that individuals, through social networking websites, connect to people that they have met in the real world. Their research indicates that people rarely meet new people online. Introductions may take place online through a mutual friend, but it’s far more likely that people meet in person first and then connect online. Ellison et al. (2007) also discuss how social capital is affected by social networking. They define 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” (p. 1145). This social capital can be significantly built up through sites like Facebook and LinkedIn, allowing users to tap into the resources available to them through their connections, or “friends”. Users can build capital by creating loose social ties through networking sites and sustain capital by maintaining relationships with friends who are close and with those who live have moved away. Their study, which surveyed college students, found that “students use Facebook primarily to maintain existing offline relationships or to solidify what would otherwise be ephemeral, temporary acquaintanceships” (p.1155). In other words, social networking sites allow individuals to build and maintain connections that would have faded away since the initial point of contact.Ratan et al. (2010) address the issue of the lack of social cues in their research. They suggest that self-disclosure, even though it opens the door to unfiltered communication, is essential in building trust between people, and thus is needed to form close, relationships online (pg. 99). Because of the lack of social cues, people are more likely to divulge information about themselves or their feelings, without the hinderance of social cues and feedback from the other person. This could lead to strengthened bonds in real life between people because of honest online communications.
Ratan et al. (2010) address the issue of the lack of social cues in their research. They suggest that self-disclosure, even though it opens the door to unfiltered communication, is essential in building trust between people, and thus is needed to form close, relationships online (pg. 99). Because of the lack of social cues, people are more likely to divulge information about themselves or their feelings, without the hindrance of social cues and feedback from the other person. This could lead to strengthened bonds in real life between people because of honest online communications.
Discussion
Overall the research seems fairly consistent. Most studies conclude that social networking websites are not replacing face-to-face social interaction entirely because such interactions tend to be relatively superficial, except for the uninhibited and honest communication that tends to happen between people who already know each other. Social networking may act in place of face-to-face communication only when there are few other ways for people to stay in contact, as the case might be when a family member or friend moves to another location.
One thing that definitely seems to be affected by social network sites is how people feel when they are communicating online, thanks in part to the lack of social cues. Research implies that people are less intimidated by the other person’s presence while communicating via a social networking site, making their communication much more honest and open. This could open the door to someone saying something they regret or something they wouldn’t have the courage to say face-to-face. However, as Ratan et al. wrote, blatant honesty in communication does set the stage for real and trustworthy relationships. People’s reaction to the lack of social cues seems to be a delicate balance between good and evil, and that pendulum probably moves greatly depending on the individuals involved and the parameters of their relationship.
It will be interesting to see how, looking retrospectively decades from now, social networking really did effect our communication styles, lifestyles and relationships. More children are growing up using social networks, which allow them to be constantly connected to their peers and other influences such as musical artists, celebrities and news outlets. This connection is hard for parents to monitor because the internet seems to be present everywhere. More ways of connecting means more streams of information. Younger kids will be more connected to the world outside their homes than ever, and parents will have a difficult time controlling what their children are exposed to through these social networks. How will this shape the upcoming generations?
References
- Coyle, C. L., & Vaughn, H. (2008). Social Networking: Communication Revolution or Evolution? Bell Labs Technical Journal, 13-17.
- Berker, T. (2006). Domestication of Media and Technology. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
- Dulworth, M., (2008). The Connect Effect. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
- Dwyer, C. (2007). Digital Relationships in the ‘MySpace’ Generation: Results From a Qualitative Study. In Pace University. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from database.
- Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook ‘‘Friends:’’ Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. [Editorial]. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143-1168. Retrieved October 17, 2010 from Wiley Online Library database.. (2010). Retrieved October 17, 2010 from Alexa, Alexa: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ facebook.com.
- Hanson, Jarice (2007). 24/7. New York: Praeger.
- Kraut, R., Brynin, M., & Kiesler, S. (2006). Computers, Phones, and the Internet. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press.
- Led by Facebook, Twitter, Global Time Spent on Social Media Sites up 82% Year over Year. (2010). NielsenWire: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/global/led-by-facebook-twitter- global-time-spent-on-social-media-sites-up-82-year-over-year/.
- LinkedIn.com. (2010). Retrieved October 17, 2010 from Alexa, Alexa: http://www.alexa.com/ siteinfo/LinkedIn.com
- Ling, R., (2010). New Tech, New Ties. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
- MySpace.com. (2010). Retrieved October 17, 2010 from Alexa, Alexa: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/MySpace.com
- Phillips, S. (2007). Guardian.co.uk. Retrieved October 17, 2010 from Guardian News and Media Limited, Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jul/25/ media.newmedia
- Ratan, R. A., Chung, J. E., Shen, C., Williams, D., Poole, M. S. (2010). Schmoozing and Smiting: Trust, Social Institutions, and Communication Patterns in an MMOG. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Retrieved November 14, 2010, from http:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01534.x/abstract
- Twitter.com. (2010). Retrieved October 17, 2010 from Alexa, Alexa:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/Twitter.com