Integrating Social Networks into Research on Youth and Media

1
Integrating Social Networks into Research on
Youth and Media

• J. Alison Bryant
• IU Dept. of Telecommunications
• 10 November 2005
• Rob Kling Center for Social Informatics

2
Research AgendaSIT networks and youth

• Integrating network and
• multitheoretical multilevel (MTML) perspectives
  into research on
• kids, families, and media
• (esp. socially interactive technologies SITs)

3
Todays youth have
4
Youth Interactive Media Internet use
Source Hanway, S. (May 6, 2003) What are teen
Webheads doing online? Gallup Poll Briefing.
5
Youth Interactive Media Internet use
Source Hanway, S. (May 6, 2003) What are teen
Webheads doing online? Gallup Poll Briefing.
6
Youth and Interactive Media Internet use and
social networks

• 48 use the Internet to improve their
  relationships with friends
• 32 use the Internet to make new friends
• 67 feel that the Internet only helps a little
  or not at all when trying to make new friends

7
Youth and Interactive Media IM use
Pew Internet American Life Project. (2004).
Latest trends Online activities. Washington, DC.
8
Youth and Interactive Media IM use

• 74 of online teens have ever used IM (compared
  with 44 of online adults)
• Almost 70 of teen IMers use IM at least several
  times a week
• More that 1/3 of teen users use IM every day
• Most teens use IM most regularly to maintain
  relationships, either with friends or family
  members, especially those that do not live nearby
  
• Girls use IM as a venue for socializing more than
  boys

9
Where the research is lacking

• Research on IM has been relatively limited and
  focused on either
• in-depth ethnographic data, but relatively small
  sample sizes (Eldridge Grinter, 2001),or
• basic user data with larger samples (Lenhart,
  2003 Lenhart, Rainey, Lewis, 2001)
• Text messaging has not been an area of focus for
  research in the U.S. (and only marginally abroad)
• Research on pre-teens

10
Theoretical perspectives

• Social Exchange Theory
• Social Support
• Media Richness
• Electronic Proximity
• Diffusion Theory
• Homophily
• Network (Co)evolution

11
The Preliminary Research Project

• Are adolescents creating more, but weaker ties
  using SITs?
• To what extent do adolescent SIT-facilitated
  networks overlap with friendship networks?
• Are SIT relationships important for adolescents
  who have fewer offline peer ties?
• Midwest college town 7th grade
• Media/SIT usage and network data questionnaires
• 40 respondents (16 response rate)

12
What technology is at home
13
Computer use
14
Their friends and how they communicate with them
15
Email Use
16
IMing
17
IMing
18
IMing
19
Txt msgN
20
Txt msgN
21
Are adolescents creating more, but weaker ties
using SITs?

• Significantly more friends than IM or txtmsg
  partners, but no difference in relationship
  intensity.
• No significant difference between number of IM
  txtmsg partners or their relationship intensity.

22
To what extent do adolescent SIT-facilitated
networks overlap with friendship networks?

• Little significant correlation between the
  friendship and SIT networks
• 39 Friend/IM (78 negatively correlated)
• 0 Friend/txt
• 13 IM/txt
• Very little significant correlation between the
  values in the friendship and SIT networks
• 13 Friend/IM
• 0 Friend/txt
• 25 IM/txt
• Therefore, the networks do not seem to overlap,
  whether measured by who they are communicating
  with or how much.

23
Are SIT relationships important for adolescents
who have fewer offline peer ties?

• IM use
• Participants with 10 or fewer friends 36
• People with more than 10 friends 72
• TxtMsg use
• Participants with 10 or fewer friends 27
• People with more than 10 friends 24
• None of the adolescents who responded that they
  have few or no close friends used instant
  messaging or text messaging.

24
What may all of this mean?

• Youth are not communicating with the same people
  offline that they are online.
• They have both strong and weak ties on- and
  offline, but they are with different people.
• Offline relationships are still more important
  for adolescents, esp. those with fewer friends

25
Complexities/Limitations

• Working with preteens/teens
• Participant response
• Use of IM handles
• Ego-centered data

Possible Solutions

• Going online (and into school computer classes)
• Using smaller, constrained networks

26
Future Directions

• Complete network data
• p analysis
• Overtime data (looking at the coevolution of
  social and technology networks)
• Multi-site and intl data
• Diverse populations
• Family systems