Bridging and bonding in social network sites - investigating family-based capital

This study explores the relationship between three distinct dimensions of social capital (bridging, peer-bonding and family-bonding capital) in social network sites (SNSs). We ask what kinds of social relations are sought by SNS users and whether the usage of new SNSs contributes to family bonding. A representative sample of the Norwegian internet population shows that 25% use SNSs to communicate with family members once a week or more often, but peer bonding is significantly more frequent (53%). Further, male users are significantly less interested in future family contacts in SNSs than females. Both online bridging and family bonding differ significantly between age groups. Answers to an open-ended question demonstrate a wish to strengthen relationships with friends and acquaintances in SNSs. Contact with family is not reported as a main motivation for using SNSs (1%), while other social relations account for 74% of the motivations. However, the results of the study indicate that the majority of the respondents experience SNSs as a part of their daily communication routines, both to bridge new online contacts and to strengthen bonds with their existing offline ties.

[1]  Judith Donath,et al.  Public Displays of Connection , 2004 .

[2]  Marika Lüders,et al.  eCitizen2.0. The ordinary citizen as a supplier of public-sector information , 2008 .

[3]  Virginia Morrow.  Conceituando o capital social em relação a crianças e jovens: é diferente para meninas? , 2007 .

[4]  Nancy A. Jennings,et al.  TECHNOLOGY AND THE FAMILY , 2003 .

[5]  Cliff Lampe,et al.  The Benefits of Facebook "Friends: " Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[6]  D. Boyd.  Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life , 2007 .

[7]  S. Parker.  Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities , 1970 .

[8]  R. Putnam.  Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital , 1995, The City Reader.

[9]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Internet Paradox Revisited , 2002 .

[10]  M. Bantilan,et al.  Gender and Social Capital Mediated Technology Adoption , 2006 .

[11]  D. R. Shaffer.  Social and personality development, 4th ed. , 2000 .

[12]  D. Tapscott.  Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation , 1984 .

[13]  Peggy S. Meszaros,et al.  The Wired Family , 2004 .

[14]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[15]  Francis Fukuyama,et al.  Social Capital and Civil Society , 2000 .

[16]  A. Giddens.  The Transformation of Intimacy , 1992 .

[17]  D. R. Shaffer.  Social and personality development , 1979 .

[18]  R. Rice,et al.  Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement, and Interaction , 2002 .

[19]  R. Hughes,et al.  Computers, the Internet, and Families , 2001 .

[20]  J. Coleman.  Foundations of Social Theory , 1990 .

[21]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  The quality of online social relationships , 2002, CACM.

[22]  A. Weatherall,et al.  NEW COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES AND FAMILY LIFE , 2006 .

[23]  Mark S. Granovetter.  T H E S T R E N G T H O F WEAK TIES: A NETWORK THEORY REVISITED , 1983 .

[24]  Dimitrina S. Dimitrova,et al.  Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and Virtual Community , 1996 .

[25]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[26]  Keith N. Hampton,et al.  Capitalizing on the Net: Social Contact, Civic Engagement, and Sense of Community , 2008 .

[27]  J. Preece.  SUPPORTING COMMUNITY AND BUILDING SOCIAL CAPITAL , 2002 .

[28]  Keith N. Hampton,et al.  Does the Internet Increase, Decrease, or Supplement Social Capital? , 2001 .

[29]  R. Rice,et al.  Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement, and Interaction , 2002 .

[30]  Katelyn Y. A. McKenna,et al.  The internet and social life. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[31]  Ronda M. Scantlin,et al.  Children and Interactive Media: A Compendium of Current Research and Directions for the Future , 2000 .

[32]  D. Rushkoff.  Playing the Future: What We Can Learn from Digital Kids , 1996 .

[33]  O. Holsti.  Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities , 1969 .

[34]  Jennifer Preece,et al.  Supporting community and building social capital - Introduction. , 2002 .

[35]  Matthew C. Makel,et al.  Growing up digital , 2020, Transformative Digital Humanities.

[36]  J. Knote.  Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community , 2004 .

[37]  Petter Bae Brandtzæg,et al.  In the borderland between family orientation and peer culture: the use of communication technologies among Norwegian tweens , 2007, New Media Soc..

[38]  Carole Haber,et al.  How Old are You? Age Consciousness in American Culture. , 1990 .

[39]  V. Morrow.  Conceptualising social capital in relation to children and young people: is it different for girls? , 2006 .

[40]  Petter Bae Brandtzæg,et al.  User loyalty and online communities: why members of online communities are not faithful , 2008, INTETAIN '08.