Content uploaded by Cheryl L. Coyle
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cheryl L. Coyle on Apr 24, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
◆
Social Networking: Communication
Revolution or Evolution?
Cheryl L. Coyle and Heather Vaughn
Social networks and the need to communicate are universal human
conditions. A general assumption is that communication technologies help to
increase and strengthen social ties. The Internet provides many social
networking opportunities. But how do social networking sites affect
individual relationships? Do people use social networking sites to expand
their personal networks, to find people who have had similar experiences, to
discuss a common hobby, for the potential of offline dating? Or, do people
spend time on networking sites to deepen their existing personal networks
and stay connected to old friends or distant family? What is the nature of
the communications that transpire on social networking sites? Is it personal,
emotional, private, and important; or trivial, informal, and public? We
examined the literature on social networking sites and conducted our own
studies of how students on American college campuses engage in social
networking. © 2008 Alcatel-Lucent.
and growth of online social networks which allows
users to interact. Most social networking sites encour-
age communication with others by providing directo-
ries of relevant user populations, opportunities for
self-description and content uploads, and/or recom-
mender systems.
Some researchers suggest that technology-mediated
communication fosters “connected presence” and that
offline social networks are affected by the technology
that is used for communication [9]. One study
reported that Internet users have somewhat larger
social networks than nonusers, and that the Internet
helps sustain an individual’s social network [3].
An investigation conducted a decade ago found that
an overwhelming majority of survey respondents
reported they had formed personal relationships online
[10]. But do these cyberspace relationships change
social networks in any meaningful way?
A social network is a configuration of people con-
nected to one another through interpersonal means,
such as friendship, common interests, or ideas. “Social
networking” was not created in the age of the
Internet; it existed long before. Social networks exist
because humans are societal and require relationships
with other humans in order to survive. This need to
bond emotionally with others was documented as far
back as 1958, in Harlow’s famous study of infant rhe-
sus monkeys and wire mothers [4]. Social networks
are critical to the psychological well-being of humans;
this has been well documented throughout the years
and is still interesting to researchers today [2, 5].
Networked computers allow social networks to
expand and grow in ways that were previously unan-
ticipated. Social networking, as the phrase is being used
in industry and in pop culture today, refers to the use
of a specific type of Web site focused on the creation
Bell Labs Technical Journal 13(2), 13–18 (2008) ©2008 Alcatel-Lucent. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published
online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/bltj.20298
14 Bell Labs Technical Journal DOI: 10.1002/bltj
A meta-analysis was conducted of 16 studies run
between 1995 and 2003, with data from over 35,000
subjects [11]. The authors concluded there is little to
no relationship between Internet use and social inter-
action. Their overall finding was that “the Internet
has not had any broad effect on social interaction.”
The authors’ explanation for the lack of relationship
between Internet use and offline social connections was
the difference in communication with friends versus
family. They suggest the Internet may serve as a
source of “friendship-reminders” to give attention
to one’s friends, which is necessary for friendship to
thrive, yet is not necessary for relationships with fam-
ily, which are less fleeting. “Even though the Internet
may have changed many habits, the effects of those
changes on fundamental relationships and psycho-
logical well-being would likely be small or slow in
emerging.”
While there has been little documented support
that social networking sites and other Internet use are
changing human relationships, we are hearing that
“social computing is transforming organizations and
societies” [6]. Indeed, there is no question about the
existence and dominance of this infrastructure, but
there are interesting issues to explore within it: Why
do people engage with social networking sites and
what do they do while there?
A recent study found that college students use
Facebook*, a popular social networking site, to main-
tain their social capital [3]. They use Facebook to stay
linked with people with whom they used to be more
closely involved, e.g., former classmates.
A related study investigated whether college stu-
dents use Facebook for “social searching” or “social
browsing” [8]. Social searching occurs when a
Facebook user looks up particular individuals he or
she already knows or has become aware of via an
offline connection in order to learn more about them.
Social browsing, on the other hand, occurs when
users try to find strangers online whom they would
like to meet offline. Overwhelmingly, college students
are using Facebook for social searching [8].
These studies explored the reasons people engage
in social networking but have not necessarily exam-
ined the nature of the communication that takes place
on these sites. As part of a larger study we conducted
on communication behaviors and decisions [1], we
collected our own data on college students’ use of net-
working sites. We wanted to learn more about why
students engage in social networking as well as dis-
cover something about the type of communication
they engage in while there.
Method
We conducted a survey and two focus groups to
learn about college students’ communication habits,
including social networking. We designed a question-
naire that included open-ended questions regarding
situations in which someone is more likely to choose
one method of communication over another, e.g.,
voice versus short message service (SMS) versus
instant messaging (IM). We included three questions
on use of social networking sites. Two questions asked
for a numerical response:
1. “How many social networking accounts do you
have?”
2. “On average, how many times a day do you log
on to a social networking site?”
The third question asked people to describe the
who, what, where, why, and when of their commu-
nication via social networking sites. We collected data
from 68 undergraduates, ages 18 to 22. In order to
probe for detailed information about college students’
communication habits, we also conducted two focus
groups at two different universities in New Jersey,
with seven and six college students, respectively.
Results
About a third of the people we surveyed (37 per-
cent) indicated they have one social networking
account, 53 percent have two accounts, and 9 per-
cent reported having three accounts. On average, peo-
ple visit their accounts about three times per day, but
there is wide variability (min: 0; max: 17.5; mean:
3.3; sd: 3.3). Note that the maximum is not a whole
Panel 1.Abbreviations,Acronyms, and Terms
IM—Instant messaging
IT—Information technology
SMS—Short message service
DOI: 10.1002/bltj Bell Labs Technical Journal 15
number because one person wrote 17.5 in answer to
the question.
Verbatim replies to the open-ended question “I
am more likely to use a social networking site because
. . .” were evaluated independently by the two authors.
Of the 68 questionnaires, two people left the question
blank and another eight answered that they did not
use social networking sites; thus there were 58
responses to be evaluated. After reading through all
the responses, the authors identified eight general
categories of responses, which are listed in Table I.
Each author then rated each response as belonging to
one or more of the categories. Responses or partial
responses that could not be put into one of the eight
categories were tagged as “other.” Interrater agree-
ment after the first round of evaluations was 88 per-
cent. The authors then discussed all responses they
had not initially categorized the same and easily came
to agreement on 100 percent of the responses.
The most common reason provided by the under-
graduates for using social networking sites was “keeping
in touch with friends.” Of those respondents who use
social networking sites, 41 percent mentioned “keeping
in touch” when asked why they use them. Table I
shows the percentage of replies for each of the eight
categories of answers.
Our focus groups probed into the motivational
contexts for using social networking sites. Focus
group participants described Facebook as a good com-
munication method when there is a low need for a
response or when one person is not particularly close
with others in the network. Generally, they said,
Facebook is for a brief exchange and for trivial infor-
mation. Finally, social networking sites are not often
chosen for communication of emotional content.
Focus group participants were asked to identify
which communication method they would choose
when they had to communicate something impor-
tant, and social networking was never chosen. This
form of communication is for chatty, social searching;
it is used to post humorous comments about content
on another person’s account or to “see what others
are up to.” Young adult Americans are not generally
communicating with unknown others who share
similar interests via these social networking sites;
rather, they are using them as a form of entertain-
ment and a way to stay connected with people they
already know.
Discussion
Our survey results support the findings of others
that the main purpose of social networking is to keep
in touch with friends. Our findings also indicate that
social networking sites are used for trivial communi-
cations (i.e., unimportant message content) with
friends, both close and nonclose, and that they are
used to maintain friendships, but as a noncentral form
of socializing. Social networking may be convenient
for retaining contact when time and distance are
issues, but it does not replace voice calls and face-to-
face communication. Not a single respondent of the
68 people we surveyed answered that he or she used
social networking sites to meet new people.
A Web survey conducted in South Korea, one of
the most technologically “mature” countries in the
world, found that IM is used to maintain a small com-
munication network with other IM users, but not for
communicating with people outside one’s existing
social network [7]. These findings are in agreement
with findings about social networking sites. People are
using technology to communicate with people they
already know. They are not using it to find new people.
Categories of responses % Respondents*
To keep in touch with friends 41
It’s fun; entertaining 17
To post or look at photos 12
I use it when I’m bored 12
I use it only in response to 10
someone contacting me on
the site
Everyone is doing it 10
I use it when I don’t have 7
any contact info
Because you can send a 3
message to multiple people
Other 19
Table I. Undergraduates’ reasons for using social
networking sites.
* Total is greater than 100% because respondents listed multiple reasons.
16 Bell Labs Technical Journal DOI: 10.1002/bltj
Although technology is evolving rapidly, people as
societal beings are not necessarily changing in their
basic social motivations. In answer to the question
posed in the title of this paper, social networking has
not revolutionized communication; rather, it appears—
at this time at least—that social networking is simply
another form of communication that is evolving over
time with the aid of technology.
While it may seem that information technology
(IT)-based social communication is superficial and
that social networking sites are used to retain existing
networks, the ability to harness the more intimate
aspects of social relationships by including voice com-
munication, presence, and location information on
sites could further change social networking and per-
haps provide the “something extra” needed for a com-
munication revolution. Perhaps the ability to game
individually and then in a group will change social
communication more radically. Additionally, artificial
intelligence indexing “others like you” may help peo-
ple find community and identity not easily available
by other communication methods.
Finally, something noted in research but not
always compared with other forms of communication
is that social networking sites are exploding around
individuals’ abilities to be creative and expressive. One
can play with presentations of self and share rich con-
tent such as video and art, bridging a gap through
which a phone or an IM client is too narrow a chan-
nel. It takes little skill using social networking sites to
publish one’s own life. But as we posited in an earlier
paper, it is unlikely that social networking sites will
easily predict compatibility when meeting new people
[12]. Being social is a multisensory event, and not
one that technology-based communication has been
able to fully simulate. Face-to-face introductions and
time spent in physical company will continue to dic-
tate change and growth for a person’s true familial
and friend social networks.
Acknowledgements
The authors greatly appreciate the internships,
student time, and class participation granted by Janice
Stapley at Monmouth University and Arnold Glass at
Rutgers University.
*Trademarks
Facebook is a trademark of Facebook, Inc.
References
[1] C. Coyle, P. Santos, and H. Vaughn,
“Communication Decisions: Why Call vs.
Poke?” Adjunct Proc. 9th Internat. Conf. on
Ubiquitous Computing (Ubicomp ‘07)
(Innsbruck, Aus., 2007), pp. 184–187.
[2] E. D. Durden, T. D. Hill, and R. J. Angel, “Social
Demands, Social Supports, and Psychological
Distress Among Low-Income Women,” J. Social
and Personal Relationships, 24:3 (2007),
343–361.
[3] N. B. Ellison, C. Steinfield, and C. Lampe, “The
Benefits of Facebook ‘Friends’: Social Capital
and College Students’ Use of Online Social
Network Sites,” J. Comput.-Mediated
Commun., 12:4 (2007), 1143–1168.
[4] H. F. Harlow and R. R. Zimmermann, “The
Development of Affectional Responses in Infant
Monkeys,” Proc. Amer. Philosophical Soc.,
102:5 (1958), 501–509.
[5] S. Henderson, “The Social Network, Support
and Neurosis: The Function of Attachment in
Adult Life,” British J. Psychiatry, 131 (1977),
185–191.
[6] W. Kellogg, “Perspectives on Social Computing,”
Proc. 11th Internat. Federation for Inform.
Processing (IFIP) TC-13 Internat. Conf. on
Human-Comput. Interaction (INTERACT ‘07)
(Rio de Janeiro, Braz., 2007), published in
Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. (LNCS 4662)
(C. Baranauskas, P. Palanque, J. Abascal, and
S. D. J. Barbosa, eds.), Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, New York, 2007, Part I, p. 4.
[7] H. Kim, G. J. Kim, H. W. Park, and R. E. Rice,
“Configurations of Relationships in Different
Media: FtF, Email, Instant Messenger, Mobile
Phone, and SMS,” J. Comput.-Mediated
Commun., 12:4 (2007), 1183–1207.
[8] C. Lampe, N. Ellison, and C. Steinfield,
“A Face(book) in the Crowd: Social Searching
vs. Social Browsing,” Proc. 20th Anniv. Conf.
on Comput. Supported Cooperative Work
(CSCW ‘06) (Banff, Alberta, Can., 2006),
pp. 167–170.
[9] C. Licoppe and Z. Smoreda, “Are Social
Networks Technologically Embedded? How
Networks Are Changing Today with Changes in
Communication Technology,” Social Networks,
27:4 (2005), 317–335.
DOI: 10.1002/bltj Bell Labs Technical Journal 17
[10] M. R. Parks and L. D. Roberts, “‘Making
MOOsic’: The Development of Personal
Relationships On-Line and a Comparison to
Their Off-Line Counterparts,” J. Social and
Personal Relationships, 15:4 (1998), 517–537.
[11] I. Shklovski, S. Kiesler, and R. Kraut, “The
Internet and Social Interaction: A Meta-Analysis
and Critique of Studies, 1995–2003,”
Computers, Phones, and the Internet:
Domesticating Information Technology (R.
Kraut, M. Brynin, and S. Kiesler, eds.), Oxford
Univ. Press, New York, 2006, pp. 765–807.
[12] H. Vaughn, P. A. Santos, and C. L. Coyle,
“Strangers on a Train: Serendipitous Meetings,
Intelligent Networks, and Je Ne Sais Quoi,”
Proc. Comput./Human Interaction Conf.
(CHI ‘07) (San Jose, CA, 2007), http://www
.mediacityproject.com/shared-encounters/
papers/10_StrangersonaTrain.pdf.
(Manuscript approved March 2008)
CHERYL L. COYLE is a technical manager in the Bell
Labs Human Factors group in New Jersey
and leads a team currently engaged in
research on communication behaviors. She
earned her Ph.D. in cognitive psychology
from Rutgers University in New Brunswick,
New Jersey. During her tenure with AT&T, Lucent
Technologies, and Alcatel-Lucent, Dr. Coyle has worked
on terminals, touch tone user interfaces, and Web-
based applications and services with the goal of
improving the experience of the end user. She is the
Chair of Alcatel-Lucent’s Usability Special Interest
Group (USIG). She and her team have recently
embarked on field research on the communication
decisions and habits of young Americans.
HEATHER VAUGHN is a member of technical staff in the
Bell Labs Human Factors group in New
Jersey. She earned her Ph.D. in cognitive
psychology from Columbia University in
New York City. During her tenure with
Lucent Technologies and Alcatel-Lucent,
Dr. Vaughn has worked on personal computer (PC)
applications, small device applications, and Web-based
applications and services with the goal of improving end
user experiences. Her current research focus is on
communication behaviors.
◆