Inyoung

Comm 633

[inyoung-shin]

Video game and Violence

By seeing and hearing some shocking tragedy such as shooting incidents in high schools or universities, people concerns on our young generation’s aggressive and violent behavior. People blame media contents, especially, game contents for youth’s aggressive, violent and impulsive behaviors .They argued that violent media lead our young generation to actual violent behaviors. It is true that a video game has unique affordances that are distinguishable from other media contents, such as books, Television and movies. A video game offers virtual reality in which all characters look like human beings who have the most powerful and beautiful. In this sense, it seems that video game implements a distorted world view to young generation. Many empirical studies supported this argument. However, it is too risky to argue that a video game makes people more violent.

First of all, we need to consider unique properties of the game. This week readings explain what kind of properties video game has. First of all, video game is addictive. The article from Bogost (2014) implies this property. Specifically, he talks about why business wants their products and services to be ‘gamified’.  But his criticized this trend because gamification makes it obscure original purpose of products and services. Games usually encourage to players to be competitive for getting reward.  Game has incentive systems that require people to input lots of amount of time. This systemically designs make youth to immerge in to a video game world.  

Secondly, video games portrays human beings an exaggerated ones. Specifically, Dill et al (2008) argued that a video game describes male characters as hyper masculine while as female characters is shown as sex symbols. Jenkin (xxxx) also explained that a video games provide virtual world that meaningful symbol is embedded. So, many researchers argued that distorted images of video game make people more aggressive and impulsive to crime. For example, Dill et al (2008) investigated the effect of exposures to sex-typed video game character and found that exposures to video game characters affect an increase of sexual harassment judgment. However, because they conducted experimental studies, they have lack of external validity. They simplified effects of video games just exposure to video characters. Moreover, their experiment did a serious manipulation error. They set up conditional groups as showing images of actual congressman. However, this image contains identification while video games characters do not represent any personal identification. Therefore, participants in condition groups would not accept sexual harassment toward image because of identification.        

Aderson & Dill (2000)’s study showed external and internal validity compared to the study of Dill et al (2008). Specifically, Aderson & Deill (2000) were interested in video game effect on aggressiveness. They conducted two different studies: one was a survey study among college students and the other was an experimental study. They argued that their findings confirmed that exposure to violent video game will increase aggressive behaviors in short term and in long term. Their argument looks reasonable. However, I wonder how size and power of video game effects in actual world. Specifically, Aderson & Dill measured participants’ aggressive behaviors during a playing game. This implies priming effects. Aggressive behaviors can be primed because of exposer to a video game. However, in a real world, priming effect would disappear. Aggressive behaviors are affected by many other factors.

Jenkin (xxxx) appointed out this weakness of empirical study. He criticized empirical studies of these simplifications He said “ most "media effects" researchers pull back from making any confident claims about the possible links between popular culture and youth violence, because decades of research on media violence still yields contradictory and confusing results”. He argued that our aggressive behavior occurs in specific contexts so that we need to be attentive to them. And then, how we can test those various contexts?  As Jenkin’s argument that empirical studies simplified video effect, can we ignore empirical results from empirical studies? Ultimately, how can we see video game effects? One thing that I’m sure is video games matters but other things also matter.

[inyoung-shin]

Small change?

Recently, social media such as Twitter and Facebook has been focused as new technology to encourage political engagement. Some cases such as wall-street occupation or Arab spring support this argument. On the other hands, some people argue that social media does not cause a big chance. For example, Gladwell (2014) claimed that past protests occurred even though social media did not exist in that time. He pointed out that highly committed and articulated goals and values and connection to other civil movement bring on protests not social media.  It is true that social media is not the only factor to initiate social collective action. However, social media provides infrastructure for ordinary people to participate in the actions.  Social media has unique affordance that previous media does not have. Thus, I’m pretty sure that although social media is not factor effect to cause political protests, it provides a new path of participating in political behaviors. Some articles in this week support my argument.

First of all, social media increase social influence of social networks. Simply using social media does not mean increasing political engagement. Social media is a platform operated from online social networks. Political effects of social media also are amplified through social network.  Bond et al (2012) showed how Facebook use increase online political expression and actual voting behaviors. They conducted natural experiment with a large random sampling and found out online political mobilization such as clicking “I vote” have a direct effect on online political expression, information seeking and offline voting behavior. Furthermore, their results showed that users’ political engagement were more encouraged when they know their online ties also participate in the same mobilization. I think this evidence contradicts with Gladwell(2014)’s argument. Social influence works in offline situation like previous protests did. However, social media enlarges social influence because social media make it visible connected users’ behaviors.    

Secondly, we need to consider diverse level of political engagement. Specifically, there was multilevel political engagement. Each engagement requires different efforts so that there might be a step of political engagement. For example, online political information practices that require less effort to engage precede actual offline political behaviors. Hargittai and Shaw(2013) empirically supported that although social media use does not predict direct political engagement, it promoted new pathways of participation. They empirically examined those overall effects of the internet uses on multi-level political engagement. As a result, they found out indirect of the internet use on voting engagement through online political information practices. Their findings imply that online media including social media have complex effects on political engagement. Thus, Rather than considering direct effects on the social media as Gladwell did, we need to consider multi-level engagement and relationship between social media and multi-level engagement.

Moreover, social media is flexible media, which means that its effect varies on who uses it and in which context it was used.  Kim et al (2013) focused on different uses pattern of the internet and found out that they had different impact on political engagement. Specifically, they divided internet news exposure as incidental consumption and relative entertainment use. Their results showed that incidental political news exposure has a positive effect on online and offline political engagement while as relative entertainment use decrease political engagement. Although they examined effects of online news consumption, I think that research should consider social media uses pattern. For example, on Facebook, lots of activities are afforded such as liking, messaging, commenting and broadcasting.  They have unique affordances as Bruke and Kraut (2014) argued. Therefore, it is necessary to consider diverse pattern of social media. Moreover, Tufeki & Wilson (2012) demonstrated how social media work as main factor to initiate Egypt’s protests. Specifically, they conducted survey among those who participated in the first day of protests and found out those who communicated through social media were more likely to participate in protest. Interestingly, they talked about other contextual factors such as restricted communication system, role of news media’ Aljazeera’. These kinds of contextual factors make it possible to diffuse information fast through social media rather than communication channel. Therefore, contextual factors can affect effects of social media.

In sum, effects of social media on political protests are not simple impact. We need to consider diverse factors. Specifically we consider social influence, multi-level engagement and contextual factors. Gladwell(2014) arguments ignore these complicated factors and simply compared the past cases and current cases. It looks social media itself is small change but it has the potential to bring out big change.  

[inyoung-shin]

Twitter and uniqe space

Twitter has unique affordances. Many researchers are interested in social phenomenon caused by Twitter. This week readings describe characteristics of Twitter and imply potential effects of Twitter on our society.

First of all, Twitter is the semi-public places. Twitter is based on social network but their networks are different from other social media. Specifically, users make a connection with other users but the connection is not based on the mutual relationship. Users can follow other users’ contents but others do not always follow them. So there are some differences between contents that I receive and send out. In this sense, Marwick & body (2011) suggested the concept of ‘imagined audience’. People communicate differently depending on targeted audience. Audiences on Twitter seem to be ambiguous but they are not always anonymous and faceless mass. Users have opportunities to monitor and imagine who their audiences are. Marwick & boyd (2011) argued that twitters’ audiences are between mass media and interpersonal conversation. Therefore, communication in twitter has both characteristics of mass media and interpersonal communication at the same time. Humphreys et al (2013) supported Marwick & boyd’s argument. They focused on comparing between historical diaries and twitter messages and found Twitter users posted commentary and accounting style narrative mostly. Rather than expressing individual thought and emotion simply, twitter users tend to post on something regarding everyday events. This finding contradicts on Ablow(2014)’s criticism, which argues that twitter is narcissism place.

Twitter also has unique technology called ‘retweet’.  Twitter users can engage in conversation without addressing directly specific topics because of retweet functions. It is the  kind of information diffusion but at the same time it is like participation. Boyd et al. (2010) describes this retweet functions on how people uses retweet function. Their finding support that twitter make it easier to participate in social issues even though they do not express or clear opinion on the issues. Without expressing, twitters users can act socially using retweet.

 Therefore, this semi-public space affords opportunities to interact with diverse people. However, there has been a controversy whether social media work as ideal public sphere or not. Himelboin et al (2013) assumed that social media plays a key role in political discussion. They focused on the possibility that people  engage in producing and sharing political messages actively. It affords people to interact with diverse political views. Specifically, Himelboim et al.(2013) examined exposure to cross-ideological political views on twitter using network analysis and contents analysis. Their finding showed that twitter users were more likely to be exposed selectively based on their political view. For example, while liberal views concentrated on some issues like health cares, conservative views focused more on tea party issues, which conforms that social media is homogenous places in terms of political discussion. However, this research has many limitation. First of all, they relied on twitter contents rather than users’ actual activities. In other words, they examined contents rather than self-reporting survey.  So it does not guarantee that Twitter users are exposed to one-sided view. Moreover, it does not examine following effect after exposure. We cannot be sure that selective exposure affects deliberate process negatively. By returning to a question, I’m wondering whether Twitter is homogenous places, which works chamber world.   With its unique affordances of twitter that this week reading suggests such as  imagine audience, narrative styles and retweet, examining social impact of twitter can be messy and trick work. However, I believe that Twitter motivates us to be connected more with others and the larger society. We need to exlpore its effects more deeply.   

[inyoung-shin]

Social media and Affordances

Social media affords uniqueness. Contents which each user creates aggregate in one place like ‘news feed’. Users not only create ego-centered contents but also enjoy watching or sometime responding others centered contents. Many researchers are interested in how this semi-public place affords new opportunities to establish and maintain social relationship. Findings of this topic research have been still controversy. This week readings argued that we should consider distinguishable characteristics of social media from other ICTs in order to capture social impact of Facebook properly.   

First of all, some researchers argued that social media have a negative impact on interpersonal relationship. However, I think that they fail to consider diverse aspects that social media has. For example, Ablow (2014) views that social media is individual centered media. He argued ignoring taking a point of view from others users are creating ego-centered contents. Korss et al.(2009) have similar tone with Ablow. They claimed that social media users stayed in passive status rather than actively engaging in actual world. Specifically, they examined that the more people used Facebook, the less they have psychological well-being. They discusses that this pattern occurs because Facebook users perceive social isolation more by passive communication with others. Their results look statistically robust. They used longitudinal data and found out that changing over the certain period decrease subjective well-being or status. But as I mentioned above, they made error in considering affordances of social media. Kross et al(2009) measured Facebook uses in term of time so that they ignored potential benefits that Facebook has.

  By contrast, other research showed watching other’s life through social media often lead to actual engaging in social life. For example, Hampton et al (2011) conducted the survey that represented American adults and found out that social media users were likely to be more open to others view, maintain close relationship with others and engage in actual social life. Furthermore, Steinfield et al.(2008) showed that Facebook uses increased individual social capital. Particularly, they view that Facebook affords the easy way to maintain weak ties. They also used longitudinal data and developed a new scale called ‘Facebook intensity scale' . This scales asked individual users’ attitude and perception toward Facebook usage. I agree with their point because individual perception toward Facebook is associated with social affordances more than amount of time spent on it. However, this study also is not free of measurement issue. Facebook intensity heavily relies on user’s perception and fails to measure actual activities. In other words, this measurement has lack of validity and reliability to capture social affordance of Facebook.      

Burke and Kraut (2014) supported this critique by focusing on actual activities in Facebook. They examined how different communication style influences relationship strength and found out that effects of Facebook vary across communication style. To be specific, they divided communication style as direct, broadcasting and passive communication based on activity log-data. So, Burke and Kraut (2014)‘s results are quite reliable and valid compared to other readings. They found out all communication styles except broadcasting increase strength of ties in non-friend relationship. Interestingly, in terms of broadcasting communication, it has no relationship with strength ties. If someone uses social media to create non-target message without considering others’ response and view, Facebook would not affect social life. Furthermore, they found out that passive communication also has positive impacts on strength ties, which contradicts arguments of Kraut et al (2009). This contradiction implies the importance of measurement and social affordances of Facebook.

  In sum, this week’s readings suggest how researchers consider social contexts of individual users and uniqueness of social media. Social media have created the new trend that pre-exist media do not offer. We need to consider social media from different perspective.

[inyoung-shin]

Communication Technology and Places Where We live

This week’s readings discuss the interaction between uses of communication technology and geographical characteristics. Early discussion on this topic argued that the internet liberate individuals beyond place based community. Many of them were worried that the internet would weaken the importance of place based community. However, later research shows that effects of communication technology are interacted with place-based contextual factors as well as individual contextual factors.  Therefore we need to consider place based factors in order to understand effects of communication technology on our society.  

Early research on effects of communication technology on social engagement had inconsistent results because they fail to consider contexts where technology is used. However, after early research, many researchers focused on contextual effects in local community in order to understand effects of communication technology. For example, the work of Hampton & Wellman (2001) showed how the internet increased participation in local community. They conducted the research in Toronto suburb called ‘Netville’ and found that wired household had strong neighboring than non-wired house.  Even though it was based on one case study, it emphasized contextual factors and how they were interacted with use of the internet.  

The work of Hampton & Wellman implies that as communication technology advanced, importance of places has also increased. The social affordance approach explains why geographical features play a significant role in constructing effects of communication technology.  The term of social affordance is originated from James Gibson (1986), who argued that an object like a rock could be used very differently by distinct animals because animals perceive a particular set of activities for which the rock would be useful.  Therefore, affordances can be different across places where we live because they construct or limit our individual behaviors.

In this sense, Hampton, Lee, & Her examined how communication technology affect social diversity. They found that communication technology affect social diversity indirectly by mediated via social participation in traditional setting. This finding suggests importance of places for organization of personal networks. Furthermore, Hampton(2010) conducted the study the investigate the effects of the internet considering place contextual factors. He focused on the concept of collective efficacy, which refers to perception among residents at neighborhood level. By applying the concept of collective efficacy, he showed that internet supports social engagement in disadvantage community as well as advantage community.   

Consequently, it seems that role places have still play an important role  as communication technology advanced. Network individualism  stresses on empowerment individuals rather than place based groups. However, this week readings imply how important place based networks is. I think this trend links to the social ecological view, which argues that geographic structures fragment individuals’ relationships and argued these fragmented individual lives could be united through communication. Even though we can communicate beyond places and spaces, our perceptions and behaviors are situated in place and time. Therefore, the use of communication technology is constructed within our traditional places.   

[inyoung-shin]

Mobile communication

People can communicate without limitation of space and time with advance of mobile devices. Wellman & Raine (2011) argued that this trend facilitate networked individualism and argued individuals are empowered as social networks are decentralized. However, some scholars are worried that mobile communication replaces authentic face to face communication with diverse people and ultimately and engagement in diverse social networks. Especially, this week readings focus on ‘privatism’ in public place. However, does mobile communication really reduce opportunity to communicate with diverse people and participate in public sphere? I think it is too risky to have this pessimistic conclusion. We need to investigate effects of mobile communication in public place empirically. It is true that mobile communication, especially communication with mobile phone, strengthens intimate relationships. Gergen(2010) argued that while communication through mobile phones reinforces a small and intimate relationship, it also reduces opportunities to be connected to the larger society. He called this phenomenon ‘new insularity’. The study of Sundsoy et al.(2012) also showed that how a mobile phone play a significant role in core ties. Using data of mobile phone logs, they found that people tend to reach out to most important contact firsts through mobile phone in the context of disaster. However, this finding of Sundsoy et al.(2012) does not imply ‘insularity’. Sundsoy also suggested that a mobile phone could work for maintaining weak ties. In fact, after the contact strong ties, people tried to call to weak ties. They suggested examining the calls to those who were not called frequently in the period after the disaster. Therefore, it is obvious that mobile phone reinforces density of core networks. However, we are not sure how it affects weak ties. I think more empirical evidences are need to support the argument that mobile phone discourage people to establish less diverse. Some of scholars have argued that a mobile phone have negative impact on our society because it facilitates privation of public spaces. For example, Turkle(2011) claimed that people were likely to be less attentive to their collocutors by connecting with people who is in distance. However, use of mobile phones in public spaces does not always lead to ‘alone together’. Humphreys(2005) conducted qualitative observational study and found that people show diverse interaction with their co-locaters even though they were using the phone. Even though his found has limitation to generalize, it implies that effects of mobile uses in public places vary according to contexts. Furthermore, Hampton & Goulet (2013) analyzed more generalizable data and found that the uses of mobiles in public places were not only rare activities. They conclude that people were less isolated with mobiles because it helped people connect to someone else rather than being alone in public space. Therefore, I don’t think the uses of mobile phone actually bring out privation in public places. As wireless internet is prevalent, the effects of wireless internet in public have been recently discussed. There are relatively few academic studies that confirm the effects of wireless internet. But we can easily see those who work on their lap-tops or smartphones in public places such as cafés, parks. Then, can we say the wireless internet promote privation in public places? Before answering this question, we need to think what public places looked like before communication technology comes out. Did they have chance to participate in deliberate talk with random people? I’ don’t think so. People were also hesitated to talk to random people and they were usually loitering by themselves in public places. However, the wireless internet suggests the potential to participate in social space at least rather than being loitering. For example, Hampton et al. (2010) observed the use of wireless internet in public places and found that even though people were less attentive to their surroundings, they were engaged in more public sphere through the internet. Mobile communication is embedded in our daily life. People now use smartphones which have the combined function of a mobile phone and the wireless internet. In order to discuss mobile communication properly, we need to think ‘affordance’ of the smartphone. Its affordance varies across contexts. People sometimes private bubble with smartphone but smartphones sometimes bridges people into larger society. People are active animals to adapt using technology responding to social contexts. I believe that human beings are ‘social animals’. I’m pretty optimistic toward human being. Human beings know how to manage distance between being public and private. It is too risky to conclude that mobile devices lead to less diverse and more private spaces without considering social contexts.

[inyoung-shin]

Communication techonlogy and sexual relationship

As the communication technology is embedded in our daily life, people communicate with their romantic partners through this technology. For example, some people start their romantic relationship and share their sexual contents online. Moreover, the industry of pornography has grown dramatically with advance of the internet. As the results, the youth were more likely to be exposure to pornography and risky sexual behaviors before they are matured. However, even though communication technology increases the risk for healthy romantic relationship, I don’t think that communication technology does not actually ruin romantic/sexual relationships.

It is true that communication technology encourages people to have risky sexual relationships. One of the main factors is pornography. The internet makes production and consumption of pornography much easier compared to the past. RothBart(2011) claimed that males form the distorted sexual concept via online pornography ,which have negative impact on real sexual relationships. Furthermore, the youth were more likely to be exposed to the pornography before they are socialized properly. We can easily watch or read the news about some teenagers who have trouble having texting. However, it is still questionable that the internet provides actual harms to romantic/sexual relationship.

First of all, the consumption of pornography does not increase dramatically. According to the wright(2013), consumption of pornography remain quite stables rather than changing. Specifically, GSSs showed that 26% of American males viewed pornography in 1970s. The percentage rose slightly but not much. In 2000s, 34% of American males reported to view pornography. Buhi et al. (2012) also found out that sex with partner whom they met online were not riskier than sex with partner whom they met offline. These studies supported empirically that the internet does not promote consumption of the pornography and actual risky sexual behaviors.  

Some of them are worried that internet put the youth in sexual danger. However, the problem that teenagers faced is not that much serious. Kimberly et al. (2012) showed the actual portion of teenagers who experience sexting or creating sexual images is smaller than people thought. Draper(2012) pointed out that media exaggerates teenagers’ sexual troubles. She argued that media contents were captured by technological determinism and preferred simple solutions such as surveillance.    

Communication technology has been blamed for challenging and destroying the current social morality.  The internet or mobile phone is no exception. It is true that the internet contributes to making risky environments for romantic/sexual relationship. However, it is still questionable that the internet actually provides harm to our romantic/sexual relationships. Livingston & Haddon (2009) argued that risk is the distinctive concept from ‘harm’. The industry of Pornography has a long history and teenagers’ sexual troubles have always occurred regardless of communication technology.  The current Discourses are captured by technological determinism. People assume that communication technology causes all sexual problems. However, the underline of the problem between romantic/sexual relationships is not on the use of technology but the nature of relationship. Technology cannot change our relationship dramatically. We need to diagnose how usage of communication technology evolves in romantic/sexual relationship and investigate in which social context healthier relationships can be formed and maintained.    

[inyoung-shin]

Social contexts where networks are established and maintained

Does people are really isolated compared to the past? McPherson et al.(2006)  conducted empirical study that shows that Americans’ intimate relationship have weakened over 20 years.  Specifically, they pointed out the size and diversity of core networks were reduced compared to the past. Some scholars argue that people are isolated more and blame communication technology for affecting core networks negatively. For example, Turkle(2011) argued that the mediated communication via technology has replaced the face to face communication among intimate relationships, which destroyed our authenticity and humanity. I think that it is too risky to conclude that communication technology causes people to be isolated. It is true that communication technology affects the way of communicating with our family, kin and friends.  However, we need to consider other social contexts in which people use communication technology. The readings of this week suggest diverse social contexts where we use communication technology. 

First of all, communication technology affords us the chance to establish healthy relationships. People usually have a prejudice that online relationship is fake and improper. However, according to Toma et al. (2008), online self-presentation is quite accurate. Based on accurate information, it is highly likely to meet real friends, date-mates, spouses or partners. Cacioppo et al.(2013) also found out that one-third of marriage in America begin on-line. Moreover, they showed that marriages that begin online were less likely to be divorced and more likely to feel more satisfaction to their marriage. People exposure themselves in online community and explore others who are very similar to them. In other words, communication technology allows people to form a new intimate relationship selectively. Although selective choice make core networks smaller and less diverse, people feel more satisfaction and comfortably  in individual private life. But this does not refute fully the argument that communication technology create social trend toward smaller and less diverse core networks.  

Secondly, we need to consider the effects of communication technology in terms of maintaining intimate relationship. Many studies show that the effects of communication technology can be neutral or positive. For example, Haythornthwaite(2005) argue that we need to consider types of relationship in order to diagnose the effects of communication technology. Specifically, she claimed that “the number of media used differs by tie strength, what is communicate does not differ by medium but the type of ties (p,130).”  Thus, people use multiple media to maintain strong ties (intimate relationship).The overall quality of communication is not be changed that much over 20 years. Furthermore, the article from NPR implies the potential of mobile communication in intimate relationship. However, this argument also does not rebut the finding of McPherson et al.(2006).  According to Haythornthwaite(2005), the size and diversity of core networks should not be changed because communication technology have a strong effect on weak ties. But McPherson et al.(2006) directly showed change of strong ties.

Cultural shift can influence the change of core networks more than communication technology. For example, Hampton et al.(2011)  argued that cultural shifts change the meaning of core networks over 20 years. Specifically, McPherson et al.(2006) asked people “Whom do you discuss the important matters” in order to measure core networks. However, Hampton et al. (2011) saw that those whom people discuss important matters dos not mean significant person of their life. Communication technology actually increase pervasive awareness among intimate relationships, people discuss many trivial things with private relationships rather than discussing important matter. In fact, when we face some problem, the thing we do first is ‘Googling’ or asking online. Technology can contribute to cultural shifts but it does not mean technology itself change intimate relationship.

Lastly, we need to think societal environment where we live. People make not only private relationships but public relationships with our community, institutions or government. When public relationship provides enough resources to us, our private networks naturally can be smaller and less diverse. Hampton & Ling (2013) showed difference of core networks in three different societies. According to them, people were less likely to have bigger and diverse private networks in society which have abundant public resources. This finding implies that we do not have to be worried about the fact core networks are smaller and less diverse.

Biologically, human beings tend to maintain smaller and less diverse private networks. Klofstad et al. (2010) argued that this tendency may bring out polarization of politics or life style. However, I think this tendency can be alleviated by formal supports from government and civic society. We need to consider our societal system such as Democratic process and infrastructure for civil society Rather than worrying about the change of core network. Social contexts where networks are established and maintained are more important for both individual and societal well-being.  

[inyoung-shin]

New technology, Affordnace and Networks

Historically, when new technology introduces, the dystopian discourses always come out.  The articles from Chicago Daily Tributes and The New York Times show that people were seriously worried about the collapses of morality and change of social norm caused by bicycles or electricity. Even though it seems very silly from the today perspectives, it is natural response. People have a tendency to react conservatively toward social change. However, as social scientists, we need to consider ‘affordance’ of new technology – “the possible actions a person can perform an object (Rainie & Wellman, 2012, p35)” –rather than the black and white expectation.

Our society is composed of multiple factors, which are connected and interact with each other. So, when new technology is embedded into our life, it does not change just a single factor. The interactions between diverse social factors often bring out unexpected outcomes. For example, PC and the internet allow us to establish and maintain personal relationship beyond sharing information. People use them beyond task-oriented work. This implies that we should see the context in which people use technology in order to analyze its effects. In this perspective, Putman’s argument did not consider social affordance of technology. He asserted that watching television decreased social capitals. As Norris(1996) showed, the effects of television vary according to what background people have and what contents they watch. But Putnam ignored the social affordance of the media by aggregating amount of time spent on it. On the other hand, Rheingold(1993) expected that online communities would create the utopian world. He said that like the case of ‘WELL’, online community would be an idle place where altruism and self-interests intersect. However, we also need to be cautious of this kind of utopian discourse because WELL was developed in a unique context (Turner, 2005). Specifically, WELL was developed by those who had a counter-culture spirit. They actually tried the same effort through a printed media and the internet allowed them to create their dream world in a much easier way. WELL show the possibility that internet is used for building new community. As the internet is embedded in our daily life, however, many people use it in different contexts with different purposes. we cannot expect another case of Well.  

In this sense, the framework, networked individualism, suggested by Rainie & Wellman(2012) implies how we see the effects of communication technology. Many scholars like Putnam and Rheingold made blank and white conclusions because they assumed that people belongs to the single group. Specifically, Putnam(1995) argued  that community solidarity had been reduced in today society. But He ignored the fact that people live among within overlapped networks and act differently according to their networks. As individuals are empowered in modern society, the single group solidarity seems to be decreased. However, individuals still live in “a combination of compartmentalizing their relationship and overlapping networks”(Rainie & Wellman, 2012 p,36). The work of Sampson(2012) also claimed that the networked characteristics still keep people engaging in urban community, even though strong ties does not exists among neighbors. With development of communication technology, the networked nature of our lives becomes more and more evident.  Therefore, effects of technology can be brings diverse outcome depending on position of individuals in networks. Beyond technological determinism, we should know that “individual do not cat independently but are in networks (Rainie & Wellman, 2012, p38)”.

In sum, the effects of technology give us more flexibility to be connected with diverse networks. Social outcome of communication technology depends on how people handle this flexibility rather than technology itself.  

References

Colleran on Bicycle Morals. (1899, May 16). Chicago Daily Tribune.

Wants the Electric Lights Put Out. (1888, Nov 25). The New York Times.

Rheingold, H. (1993). A slice of life in my virtual community. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.), Global Networks: Computers and International Communication (pp. 37-80). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Turner, F. (2005). “Where the counterculture met the new economy: The WELL and the Origins of Virtual Community.” Technology and Culture 46: 485-512.

Norris, P. (1996). Does Television Erode Social Capital? A Reply to Putnam. PS: Political Science and Politics 29:474-480.

Rainie, L. and Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The New Social Operating System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Ch2 & Ch3).  

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of democracy, 6(1), 65-78.

Sampson, R., J. (2012) Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago: The University Chicago Press.

[inyoung-shin]

Are people isolated because of technology?

The readings for this week have similar tones. All of them are worried that new technology such as the internet and mobile phones makes people socially isolated. However, do we become really isolated these days? Is use of communication technology really problematic? I don’t agree with this week readings’ arguments. The readings have fear on new technology because they do not know what it brings out to us. I think communication technology reinforces our nature as social animals. I’m going to criticize this week readings and discuss bright sides of communication technology.

First of all, all readings are based on technology determinism, which exaggerate negative effects of communication technology. For instance, Turkle(2012) said that “the little devices that most of carry around are so powerful that they change not only do but also who we are (p1)”.  She thinks that technology changes our lives dramatically. However, we don’t do totally new things with technology. Communication technology just facilitates and expands the way to communicate. It does not change contents that we communicate as Turkle argued. The work of Haythornthwaite(2005) shows that people tend to use multiple communication technology to reinforces their strong ties. Specifically, she found that people change contents depending on whom they communicate with rather what channel they choose. This finding cast doubts on Turkle’s argument that contents conveyed through technology are less authentic or humane. People interact with people through technology, not technology itself. Assumption that technology transforms our life dramatically ignores social contexts in which technology is used.

Secondly, the readings have errors measuring effects of communication technology. Most of the readings articualted effects of communication technology by measuring amount of time-spent. For example, Wallsten(2013) estimated amount of time spent for online leisure activities and aruged that it crowded out other activities such as watching TV, sleeping and so on. However, I don’t think that this finding implies that effects of technology are harmful to use. Indeed, effects of communication technology depend on how people use and perceive it. Even though people spend less time on other activities becase of comunication technology, they can get more satisfaction and social outcome from use of communication technology. Moreover, Kraut et al(1998) argued that use of the internet decreased social and psychological wellbeing. By using longitudinal data, they showed that time spent for the internet had negative associations with social and psychological factors. This study also has same error. They did not consider how people use technology but aggregated amount of time spent on the internet. However, the internet is multi-content media. It requires to consider measuring what people do with the internet. It is possibly that he or she is more socialized rather than isolated if someone spends most of time on internet to interact with other people or read news.  

Lastly, we need to establish a new framework to assess individual daily life. The readings only consider old ways to communicate and then conclude that people are more isolated than before.McPherson et al.(2006) compared GSS data in 1985 and in 2004, and argued that Americans are isolated because size, dense and diversity of core networks decreased. However, we need to think a different perspective of social relationships. GSS measured core networks by asking people whom they discuss important issues. But still does this measurement mean core networks? This measurement can be interpreted differently. To be specific, nowaday people discuss important matters with diverse people not just with specific people. For example, people ask their problems or issues with their online networks or communites such as Facebook or Twitter. The way to be measured in GSS does not consider the new trend that people communicate.  

As communication technology has blurred the line between offline and online space, other scholars recently suggest that possibility of new communication technology. Ellison et al.(2007) showed how use of Facebook increase social capital in placed-community. I think communication technology encourages people to be more socialized rather than before. Our relationship is not limited to place and time. Technology is not a problem. We stop fearing on communication technology. It’s time to look how we create new trend with technology.

  References

Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects.Information, Community & Society, 8(2), 125-147.

[inyoung-shin]

Starting

a test post