Hampton ASA 2012 Slides

Isolated?
New Technologies, Social Support,
Civic Engagement and Democracy.

Keith N. Hampton
Associate Professor
School of Communication & Information
Rutgers University

Email: keith.hampton@rutgers.edu
Web: www.mysocialnetwork.net
Twitter: @mysocnet

Fundamental Question

 Is the use of new information and
communication technologies (ICTs) associated
with social isolation?

Keith N. Hampton
keith.hampton@rutgers.edu
www.mysocialnetwork.net 2

A recent sample from the mass media…
“Facebook to Twitter—have made us more densely
networked than ever. Yet, we have never been lonelier
and that this loneliness is making us mentally and
physically ill.”
May 2012. The Atlantic.

Keith N. Hampton
www.mysocialnetwork.net

A recent sample from the mass media…
“We expect more from technology and less from one
another and seem increasingly drawn to technologies
that provide the illusion of companionship without the
demands of relationship.”
April 21, 2012. The New York Times.

Keith N. Hampton
www.mysocialnetwork.net

What is Social Isolation?
 The absence of core ties (discussion confidants).
 Speaks to the availability of social support and potential for
deliberative democracy.
 About strong ties.
 Marsden (1987); McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Brashears (2006)
 Low civic/civil engagement (participatory democracy).
 Civic behaviors: involvement in formal charitable and
community groups or institutions that address public issues or
concerns.
 Civil behaviors: support mechanisms and commitment to
provide informal services that are independent of government
and formal institutions.
 About weak ties.
 Putnam (2000).
Keith N. Hampton

Pew Research Center Projects
 Pew Internet & American Life Project.
 2008 Pew Research: Random digit dial national survey
of 2,512 adults.
 Includes non-users and users of various ICTs.
 2009 Pew Report on “Social Isolation & New Technology.”
 2010 Pew Research: Random digit dial national survey
of 2,255 adults.
 Included a 24% sub-sample of 2008 participants.
 2011 Pew Report on “Social Networking Sites and Our Lives.”
 Technology use measured as frequency of use at
home/work and type of use (e.g., mobile phone,
blogs, IM, share digital photos online, Facebook,
MySpace, etc.).
Keith N. Hampton

Core Relationships
 Administered the “important matters” name generator
from the 1985 and 2004 U.S. GSS.

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

 Recorded up to 5 unique names for each question.
 Asked a series of follow-up questions about each
name (e.g., to measure diversity kin/non-kin).
Keith N. Hampton

Core Discussion Networks: Size
40%

35%

30%
% population

25%
25.40%
22.50% 1985
20% 21.60%
19.60% 19.70% 2004
15% 17.40%
15.40% 2008
14.80% 14.70%
10% 11.70%
2010
9.10%
8.10%
5% 8.90% 29.70% 26.50% 16.60% 8.50% 9.80%
12.00% 34.90% 23.10% 15.40% 7.80% 6.80%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5
Network Size
Keith N. Hampton

Core Discussion Networks
Social Isolation
 No spike in social isolation since 1985.
 Predicting social isolation using logistic regression.
 Demographic controls: sex, age, education, marital
status, children, race, ethnicity.
 IM users = 49% less likely to be socially isolated.
 Heavy twitter users (daily use) = 51% more likely to be
socially isolated.
 However, there are few zeros (social isolation is rare)!
IM and Twitter use, also relatively rare. Few are IM
users (N=33/2250) or Twitter users (N=9/2250).
 This model is not valid or reliable!

Keith N. Hampton

Core Discussion Networks
Size
 Mean size of about 2 core ties (similar to the 2004 GSS).
 Predicting core network size using Poisson regression:
 No negative relationship between any type of Internet /
mobile phone use and size of core discussion networks.
 Internet user = 14% more close relationships than non-users.
 IM user = 12% more confidants than other Internet users.
 Facebook user (multiple times/day) = 9% more core ties than
other Internet users.
 The magnitude of the relationship between Internet use
and the size of core discussion networks is very high
compared to known network “boosters”:
 University degree (4 years edu) = 12% more close
relationships.
 Female = 15% more close relationships.
Keith N. Hampton

It looks good, but…
 Core network size is not the same as social isolation.
 At the societal level, core network size may not be a consistent
measure of well-being.
 Individual prosperity consistently predicts larger core
networks: i.e. education (and maybe ICT use).
 However, at the societal level, a small core network may not
indicate lower well-being at all.
 Where formal support is high (economy + State + civic society),
a small number of core ties may provide all the necessary
informal support. A small core may not indicate any deficit in
access to support (or democratic engagement).
 Contrast this with a society where formal resources are scarce,
the informal support available from a large core network may be
necessary for survival!
 – a network paradox.
Keith N. Hampton

A Network Paradox
 2008 survey of core discussion networks in Norway and Ukraine
conducted at the same time as the Pew Personal Networks &
Community Survey (Telenor Group).

USA NOR UKR
Mean discussion network 1.93 2.58 3.78
Isolated (%) 12.0 15.4 1.1
Have nonkin core tie (%) 50.7 48.4 75.9

 At the societal level, large core networks are not a sign of prosperity,
they are a sign of uncertainty and scarcity.
 Smaller core networks in America may be part of a longer historical
trend related to the relative availability of formal resources.
 ICTs may advance this trend further by increasing access to informal
social support (making access to informal support more efficient).

Keith N. Hampton

Do ICT users get more support?
 MOS Social Support Scale
 Total Support (0-100):
 Female = +2.4
 Married = +10.6
 Substantively higher support in comparison to known
contributors.
 Internet user compared to non-user = +3.4
 Blogger compared to other Internet users = +2.8
 Facebook (multiple times/day) compared to other Internet
users = +4.6
 Facebook use is equivalent to half a marriage!

Keith N. Hampton

Are ICTs users less democratically
engaged?
 Social isolation = low levels of civic/civil engagement.
 Should we expect a direct relationship? Is use of a
technology directly relate to engagement? Or is it mediated
by another predictor of engagement?
 Network diversity is one of the strongest predictor of civic
behaviors. The more diverse social milieus people
participate in (groups and places), the more diverse their
networks tend to be.
 Social milieus vary in the diversity they provide: public
spaces, semi-public spaces (e.g., cafes), schools, voluntary
groups, religious institutions, neighborhoods, etc.
 The question may not be, does ICT affect civic
engagement, but does ICT use affect network diversity.
Keith N. Hampton

Path model of the relationship between ICT use, social settings & network diversity.

Internet use
Semipublic
Frequent Internet use at spaces
home R2=.159

Frequent Internet use at work .124* .201***
Religious
institutions
R2=.087
Use only landline phone

Use only cell phone Voluntary groups Network
diversity
R2=.138
R2=.380
Blogging

Public spaces
Share digital photos online
R2=.125
.116*

Social networking services
Neighborhood
ties
Instant messaging R2=.197

Notes: Predicting difference from population mean network diversity. All coefficients on the arrows are unstandardized OLS regression
coefficients. The coefficients of control variables are not shown.
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p <.001 15

New Tech, Same Settings
 About half of the benefit, in terms of network
diversity, of using ICTs comes from the positive
relationship between ICT use and use of traditional
social settings.
 Internet users visit semipublic spaces more frequently.
 Heavy Internet users visit semipublic spaces even more
frequently.
 Bloggers go to church more, volunteer more, and are more
frequent visitors of public spaces.
 People who share digital photos online, volunteer more, and
visit public spaces more often.
 Those who have both a cell phone and a landline phone visit
semipublic spaces more, attend church more frequently, and
volunteer with more groups.

Keith N. Hampton

Bonding, Bridging or ICTs for
Civic/Civil Engagement?
 If we accept that ICT use is associated with larger core networks
(strong ties) and more diverse networks overall (weak ties), How
much do ICTs matter for civil/civic behaviors when we control for
core networks and network diversity?
 Logistic regression controlling for age, sex, education, race,
ethnicity, employment status, marriage, children, and mobility.
 Predicting civic behaviors:
 Participation in community groups, charitable organizations, sports
groups, youth groups, religious institutions, and other voluntary
organizations.
 Predicting civil behaviors:
 Listened to a neighbor’s problems, helping a neighbor with
household chores, lending a neighbor tools or supplies, caring a
neighbor’s family member, loaning a neighbor money.
Keith N. Hampton

Determinism or network affordance?
 Network diversity is a consistent, strong predictor of all civic
and civil behaviors.
 Civic behaviors: 80-110% more likely to engage when 1 SD above
the mean.
 Civil behaviors: 50-80% more likely to engage when 1 SD above
the mean.
 Core network size and/or diversity (kin/non-kin and political
diversity) rarely a predictor of any civic and civil behaviors.
 ICT use (IM, mobile phone, email, SMS, SNS) has no negative
relationships to civil or civic behaviors.
 Civic behaviors: ICTs are rarely a direct predictor.
 Civil behaviors: ICTs more consistent, but are still a relatively rare
predictor.
 It’s about affordances for networks, not determinism.
Keith N. Hampton

Conclusion
 ICT use does not have a negative relationship to social isolation.
 Core ties: little evidence of a recent change in social isolation
(the same change that has been happening for generations).
 ICT use may be part of a societal trend where prosperity predicts
smaller core networks (the opposite of individual trends).
 ICT use affords access to core ties, thus ICT users have better
access to informal social support.
 Civic/civil engagement: no evidence that ICT use is associated
with lower engagement.
 The direct relationship between ICT use and civic/civil engagement,
while not absent, is inconsistent and relatively modest.
 ICT use is related to engagement in diverse social milieus (some of
which exist online), which affords network diversity.
 Even if core networks are smaller, network diversity (weak ties) is a
stronger and more consistent predictor of engagement.
Keith N. Hampton

References
 Comparing Bonding and Bridging Ties for Democratic Engagement:
Everyday Use of Communication Technologies within Social Networks
for Civic and Civil Behaviors. Information, Communication & Society 14(4),
510-528. 2011.
 How New Media Affords Network Diversity: Direct and Mediated
Access to Social Capital through Participation in Local Social Settings.
New Media & Society 13(7). 1031-1049. 2011.
 Core Networks, Social Isolation, and New Media: Internet and Mobile
Phone Use, Network Size, and Diversity. Information, Communication &
Society 14(1), 130-155. 2011.
 Social Networking Sites and Our Lives: How People’s Trust, Personal
Relationships, and Civic and Political Involvement are Connected to
Their Use of Social Networking Sites and Other Technologies. Pew
Research Center. Washington, DC. 2011.
 Social Isolation and New Technology: How the Internet and Mobile
Phones Impact Americans’ Social Networks. Pew Research Center.
Washington, DC. 2009.

Keith N. Hampton

Hampton ASA 2012 Slides

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a Hampton ASA 2012 Slides

Semelhante a Hampton ASA 2012 Slides (20)

Mais de cyborgology

Mais de cyborgology (20)

Último

Último (20)

Hampton ASA 2012 Slides