Katherine Ognyanova (Katya) • Postdoctoral Research Fellow, The Lazer LabEmail: katya@ognyanova.net • Website: www.kateto.net • Twitter: @ognyanova

Relationships, Online and Offline:Core Discussion Networks,

Socialization and Social Isolation(Teaching Demo)

Roadmap

• Technology and social relations: Two stories.1• Core discussion ties: America is changing.2• Loneliness and isolation: Heartbreak breaks hearts.3• Our larger social networks: The social brain.4• How do ties form: social and physical distance.5

Talk onTwitter: #COMM245 / @ognyanova

Slide 4 www.kateto.net

Two stories about technology

Alone Together

Why We ExpectMore From Technologyand Less From Each Other

Sherry Turkle

Attention control

Life should not interrupt texting.

The Goldilocks effect

“Not too near, not too far: Just right.”

Sociable Robots

“the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship”

Networked: The new social operating system

Lee Rainie Barry Wellman

Techno-optimism

“While crying ‘the sky is falling’ makes for good headlines, it isn’t true.”

Networked Individualism

Remote relationships: physical & emotional

What is the effect of technology on social interactions?

• Networked: it helps us maintain relations & get social supportB

• Neither / Both / it just facilitates our chosen behaviorC

• No idea: Too busy checking Facebook on my phone to tellD

• Alone together: it has reduced authentic communicationA

Slide 14 www.kateto.net

Core discussion networks in America

Core Discussion Networks

“The people with whom you discussed matters important to you” (McPherson et al, 2006)

“The people you would seek advice, support or help from in times of severe emotional or financial crisis” (Binder et al, 2012)

Core discussion networks: demographics

Brashears, 2011

Core ties: changes over a quarter century

Discussion partners: from three to two on averageSocial isolation: from 6-8% to 12-24%

1985 2010

Core ties: changes in diversity

Discussion partners: more similar, fewer non-family (58%)Diversity Levels: lower for education, higher for race

1985 2010

Why the change?

“From time to time, most people discuss important matters with other people.Looking back over the last six months: whoare the people with whom you discussedmatters that are important to you?”

Why the decline in core network size?

• Technology has changed social life5

• Changes in the meaning of “discuss”1

• Changes in the meaning of “important topic”2

• Problems with the data collection, patience3

• Socio-demographic forces pushing us apart4

Shifting demographics

The population gets older, more racially diverse, and also more educated over time.

Technology and Social Isolation

Displacement hypothesis

Technology and Social Isolation

Weak Ties Hypothesis

The data on technology

Internet and cell phone use: associated with larger core network.• 12% larger for cell phone users• 11% larger for instant messenger (IM) users• 9% larger for people who share images online• 22% of Internet users have online-only friends, 15% migrant friends

Internet and social media use: associated with more diverse core network.• More likely to have non-kin (family/spouse) discussion partners• More likely to have cross-race discussion partners• More likely to have cross-party discussion partners• More likely to have occupational diversity of the discussion partners

(Pew, 2009; Hampton et al 2010, 2013)

No sign of displacement

Face-to-face contact remains the dominant mode of communication.• F2F: 210 days per year for each core tie• Cell: 195 days, and text: 125 days per year for each core tie• E-mail: 72 and IM: 55 days per year for each core tie• Social networks: 39 days per year for each core tie

Social media as an opportunity to maintain the core discussion network.• 71% of social network site users have core ties as online “friends”• For young people (18-22), 30% have a 90% of their core ties as “friends”• F2F time spent with friends does not decline with Internet use

(Pew, 2009; Hampton et al 2010, 2013)

Reality interferes with online relationships

Facebook Data Team, 2012

Why do core ties even matter?

Social support: companionship,Instrumental and emergency aid.

Why do core ties even matter?

Social influence: information spread and opinion formation.

Why do core ties even matter?

Diversity, trust and tolerancevs. echo chamber effects

Loneliness and social isolation

Loneliness: A discrepancy between desired and experienced interpersonal relationships

Loneliness and health

Affects physical and mental health.Risks: depression, substance abuse,cardiovascular disease, and mortality.

Lonely on the net

Lonely people on Facebook:• Have fewer friends• Communicate less• Engage in less positive self-disclosure• Engage in more negative self-disclosure• Are not more or less common than others

(Jin, 2013)

Slide 33 www.kateto.net

Larger networks: the social brain

Larger social groups

Dunbar’s number: 150

Relationship Layers

5

15

50

150

Active network (clan)

Affinity group (band)

Sympathy group

Support clique

Is the Web increasing Dunbar’s number?

Number of stable relationships on Twitter:

200

Median number of Facebook friends:

200(Pew Research, 2014)

(Goncalves, Perra & Vespignani, 2011)

Slide 37 www.kateto.net

How do social ties form: on and off the Web

Transitivity HomophilyProximity

Drivers of link formation and dissolution

Online relationship formation

Do we still need to select ties who are

close, similar, and friends of friends?

Geography in the Digital Age

Built-in transitivity, relaxed homophily.

Geography matters, and so does mobility.

What is the effect of technology on social interactions?

• Networked: it helps us maintain relations & get social supportB

• Neither / Both / it just facilitates our chosen behaviorC

• No idea: Too busy checking Facebook on my phone to tellD

• Alone together: it has reduced authentic communicationA

Contact Information:Katherine OgnyanovaE-mail: katya@ognyanova.netWebsite: www.kateto.netTwitter: @ognyanova