Social Networks: Growth, Isolation and Sucking the Time Away From Us

“As the internet has become ubiquitous, faster, and increasingly accessible to non-technical communities, social networking and collaborative services have grown rapidly, enabling people to communicate and share interests in many more ways” (boyd & Ellison, 2007). Social networking allows the use of: instant chat, uploading of photos and videos, blogging, interactive games and so on. However, all of these services consume our time, one way or another. Debate has risen that social networks are leading us to social isolation. Reports also have shown that users are spending more time online, leaving little time for other activities. This paper argues that while social networks are growing and becoming increasingly time intensive, social isolation however does not occur.

This paper presents studies to identify the growing trend in internet connections, the explosive growth in social networks within the past year, research into the time spent on social networks, research on social isolation and examples of events that encouraged people to participate online.

According to Internet World Stats (2009), near 25% or one quarter of the world’s population has internet access. More so in populated places, an internet connection is easily within reach. More noticeably, public services and/or family restaurants now offer internet access as a service. Places such as McDonald’s, Starbucks (Ziobro, 2009), public libraries, youth centres and small cafés offer free internet to its customers (“Public Internet Access,” 2010). “Indeed, internet access has become a common component of people’s experiences within many public spaces” (Hampton, Sessions, Her, & Rainie, 2009, p. 4). In Australia, 72% of Australian households contain access to the internet (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010). “Between 1998 and 2009, household access to the internet at home has more than quadrupled from 16% to 72%” (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010). With such a large percentage of Australians who are online, it is not hard to imagine that so many people are interacting with others from around the world. More importantly, the greater the number of people who use the internet, the greater the number of people who will communicate via the internet.

With more internet connections being established, an explosive growth in social networks has shadowed (marketingcharts.com, 2007); everyone has the power to have a voice. Not only can people upload photos and videos about their personal life, but also have the option of reaching a global audience. In 2009, time spent on social networking sites has tripled than what it did in 2008. Social networks and blogging sites accounted for 17% of total time spent on the internet in August 2009 (Lush, 2009). With our work and family demands increasing, we are finding it harder to prioritise our lives and the excessive demands with a fast paced and high demanding society (Voydanoff, 1988, p. 749). Having the option of communicating asynchronously has allowed users to communicate at a time that best suits them. Social networking services have given rise to a new form of leisure built around talking, sharing, and providing opinions and perspectives (marketingcharts.com, 2009).

More than 150 million people around the world use Facebook actively. “If Facebook were a country it would be the eighth most populated in the world, just ahead of Japan, Russia and Nigeria. Facebook is used in more than 35 different languages and 170 countries and territories” (Owyang, 2009). However, “the term ‘friends’ can be misleading because the connection does not necessarily mean friendship in the everyday vernacular sense, and the reasons why people connect to others are varied.” (boyd & Ellison, 2007) Facebook, among other social networking sites, can be quite addictive.

O’Murchu, Breslin and Decker (2004) stated that “[a] lot of these sites are extremely addictive and it is quite easy to spend valuable time searching through the sites out of curiosity or from a voyeuristic point of view … where there are galleries of persons to view and where the relationships are explicit” (2004, para. 90). Cha, Kwak, Rodriguez, Ahn and Moon (2007) noted that the average session time of YouTube users is currently 28 minutes (p. 10). “To some extent YouTube has been immensely successful, averaging 65,000 daily uploads and being visited by 20% of [i]nternet users every day” (Kruitbosch & Nack, 2008, p. 1). YouTube is just one example where users spend bountiful amounts of time at.

It is clear that individuals who devote more time to the internet, see less time for other events, may it be, family, television, sleep or socialising. According to the study by the Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society (SIQSS), 31% of the U.S population spend 70 minutes less daily interacting with family, 25 minutes less sleeping and 30 minutes less watching television (Dixon, 2005). Dixon (2005) mentions that new reports show that internet users spend at least three hours online every day; half of that time is spent on communication.

Not all communication is textual; communication can also be represented in the form of an online game. “On Facebook life is a game. Although participants can open chat windows or belong to special interest groups of a more serious nature, the daily drivers of Facebook exchanges are games and quizzes” (McClard, 2008, p. 12). Nazir (2008) found that over 60 days, a user’s time in playing multiplayer games on Facebook increased. His study included 3 games which tallied over 8 million users. It was recorded that users on average, spent at least 10 minutes a day using these Facebook applications. Towards the end of the 2 month period, an average increase of 6 minutes was recorded (p. 53). As Facebook’s total time continues to increase (Nielsen Wire, 2009), it is safe to say, so too will the time being spend on Facebook applications.

To further support that social networks, Facebook in particular, are consuming more of our time, a study by Adam Joinson (2008) suggests that applications used by users gains further gratification, therefore “…investment of time and effort in social applications within Facebook may be akin to messaging between friends” (p. 1034). It was also noted “…that applications tend to rely on existing contacts, rather than the accrual of new ‘friends’. As such, they may serve to strengthen social ties, rather than acting to increase the overall size of a social network” (Joinson, 2008, p. 1034). Robbie Hills (as cited in Sinclair, 2010), states that “Facebook is the second most popular site in the world after Google. And a lot of that growth is fuelled by people playing games online” (Sinclair, 2010). It also suggests that the more “…contacts an [i]nternet user has, the larger his social network tends to be and the more time he spends sociali[s]ing with others” (Franzen, 2000, p. 435). Youth and adolescents are also facing the same problems that social networks yield, that is, succumbing more of their time.

Although adolescents have some choice, parents are not helping in trying to reduce the time spent communicating on the internet. A study in the United Kingdom (U.K) found that 19% of 9-to-19 year-olds have internet access within their bedrooms (Livingstone & Bober, 2006, p. 93). In another study, “74% of parents believed that children without [i]nternet access are at a disadvantage” (Hughes, 2001, p. 778). This attitude may be a contribution to why teens already spend countless hours on the internet already.

However, while teens are being consumed by social networks, Orleans and Laney (as cited in Hughes, 2001) “…observed 32 children between the ages of 8 and 17 on three or more occasions for an hour more while they did computer work on their own or with others” (p. 781). Through this observation, they found “little social conversations between children and their parents while their children were using the computer” (p. 781). Nonetheless, teens have integrated network technology into their lives as a necessary tool in maintaining networking ties.

This integration changes how teens spend their ‘spare time’. Amanda Lenhart (2009) reports that 65% of teens spend their time using social networks. It is also reported that teens spend 97% of their time engaged in playing online video games. On a daily basis, 42% of teens send messages via a social networking site, such as MySpace or Facebook; a higher percentage than daily text messages (SMS) (p. 10). Since Lenhart’s (2009) last study, in 2006, social networks, as a form of communication, has been relatively stable amongst teens (p. 12). Predominantly, as mobile technology has heightened, mobile phones amongst teens have also increased.

However, it is safe to say that with 71% of teens and 88% of adults who own a mobile phone contribute to the ever growing trend of accessing social networks from a mobile device. Mobile phones could soon rival the PC as the world’s dominant internet platform. Internet access via the mobile phone actually outpaces wireless access from a notebook PC in many of areas of the world. Globally, just over one-fourth, 28%, of mobile phone owners worldwide have browsed the internet on a wireless handset (Wright, 2006). With phones now coming with rich internet experiences, users have “access anytime, anywhere” (Perry, 2001, p. 324). It is unclear how much time is spent accessing social networks from a mobile device. Therefore, it is fair to say, that the same time is spent on any platform (laptop, desktop PC or PDA) while accessing a social networking service.

With this large amount of time being spent online, Carlsen (2010) argues that “…while the social media boom is clearly on its upswing, real life social skills are ironically falling off in dramatic fashion” (Carlsen, 2010). This relates to isolating themselves from public interaction (Hardcastle, 2006). Norman Nie (2001) also argues that the more time spent on the internet, the more social isolation occurs.

However, a study done by Pew Internet Personal Networks and Community suggests that the internet does not contribute to social isolation (Reisinger, 2009). Pew’s studies found “…many internet technologies are used as much for local contact as they are for distant communication” (Hampton, et al., 2009, p. 5). On the contrary to what Carlsen (2010) and Nie (2001) dispute, Pew found:

Internet use does not pull people away from public places. Rather, it is associated with engagement in places such as parks, cafes, and restaurants, the kinds of locales where research shows that people are likely to encounter a wider array of people and diverse points of view (Hampton, et al., 2009, p. 4).

Americans are not as isolated as has been previously reported. We [Pew] find that the extent of social isolation has hardly changed since 1985, contrary to concerns that the prevalence of severe isolation has tripled since then. Only 6% of the adult population has no one with whom they can discuss important matters or who they consider to be ‘especially significant’ in their life. (Hampton, et al., 2009, p. 3)

Alex Franzen (2000) also concluded through his study “that the internet has no negative effects of people’s social networks” (p. 435).

This same conclusion was seen by Hampton and Wellman (as cited in Hughes, 2001) when they surveyed a neighbourhood which had access to free internet (p. 783). These residents recognised “…almost three times as many neigho[u]rs, talked with nearly twice as many, and been invited or had invited one and half times as many neighbor[u]rs into their homes as had residents of a nearby neighbo[u]rhood that did not offer free internet” (Hughes, 2001, p. 783). Hampton and Wellman (as cited in Hughes, 2001) suggested that “…rather than replacing face-to-face ties, computer-mediated ties supported and strengthened neighbo[u]rhood social ties” (p. 783). Pew’s studies conclude that “[i]n-person contact remains the dominant means of communication with core network members. On average, there is face-to-face contact with each tie on 210 out of 365 days per year” (Hampton, et al., 2009, p. 10). Amongst Facebook, Twitter has also been noted as one of the fastest growing social networks.

In 2009, Nielsen Wire (2009) posted a report showing how much time in total people spent in using social networks. Nielsen Wire (2009) collected and compared total minutes between 2008 and 2009 – and saw a 3712% growth in Twitter. A few events in the past year have seen Twitter’s name rise to fame. With an array of social networks at everyone’s disposal, along with an increase of time being spent online, it has never been easier to partake in humanitarian efforts.

Ashton Kutcher, in 2009, challenged CCN to a Twitter race to see who could get to one million followers first, promoting it as the ‘Ashton vs. CNN Twitter race.’ Rather than compete, both sides wanted more followers to help Malaria No More fight malaria in Africa. Kutcher won and signed a check for $100,000 dollars that day. The nets that have been sent out to Senegal will help save more than 89,724 lives (Garton, 2010). Malaria No More (2010) have stated that “[e]very individual can be a part of making sweeping, global change and having the best possible impact by saving lives. Twitter can help raise awareness and launch a movement to get millions involved in supporting malaria control efforts worldwide” (Malaria No More, 2010). Again, for a positive reason, Twitter has come to the aid and consumed more of people’s time.

January 12^th, 2010, saw a massive 7.0-magnitude earthquake that hit the Caribbean nation of Haiti (BBC, 2010). A web site with a Twitter stream integrated allowed “…anyone with an internet connection to help collect information from people on the ground, and distribute it to relief workers in Haiti… (Mills, 2010). “Visitors to the site read the Twitter news stream, and when they see an item that would be worth reporting to disaster workers they can check if it has already been reported on an interactive map and report it if it hasn’t” (Mills, 2010) . When a cargo plane filled with medical supplies was blocked from entering Port-au-Prince airport, “Twitter users began to bombard the U.S Air Force’s Twitter account with demands that the plane be let in” (Kennedy, 2010). Within a few hours the plane was allowed to land (Kennedy, 2010). After reading an article posted by Elinor Mills (2010), it seems that when a disaster like seen in Haiti happens, people spend copious amounts of time helping and following current happenings and events.

From the information presented in this paper, it is clear that social networking services are growing rapidly. It has become easier to communicate as 25% of our population are on the internet. The increase in social networks has brought everyone together, regardless of physical position in this world. This change in technology has clearly altered how we communicate with each other; it has also altered how we keep social ties with each other. There is evidence to suggest that social networks do not socially isolate people, they do however, extend one’s own network “…to include more ties with individuals who could provide cognitive and instrumental support” (Israel, 1985, p. 74).

With an increase in social networking, it was found that more users spend their time sharing interests with fellow “friends”. With so much time dedicated to social networks, it was found that other activities suffered as a result. Parents too, are contributing to the increase of time spent on the internet. While parents feel that do not want to deprive their offspring, negative consequences can be seen if children are allowed to have a computer in their room. A study saw little social conversation between child and parent while the child was occupied on the computer. It was argued by Carlsen (2010) and Nie (2001) that social networks contribute to social isolation. From the reports presented against this argument, it was established from multiple studies, that this was incorrect. Users have an array of services to interact with others from: multiplayer games, joining groups of their interest and partaking in humanitarian efforts.

While social networks have made communicating easier and keeping social ties stronger, they do however continue to consume more of our time.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2010). 8146.0 – Household Use of Information Technology, Australia, 2008-09 Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http://abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8146.0/

BBC (2010). Haiti devastated by massive earthquake Retrieved March 20, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8455629.stm

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11 Retrieved March 4, 2010, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

Carlsen, J. (2010). Social media breeds anti-social interactions Retrieved March 25, 2010, from http://dailytrojan.com/2010/02/02/social-media-breeds-anti-social-interactions/

Cha, M., Kwak, H., Rodriguez, P., Ahn, Y.-Y., & Moon, S. (2007). I tube, you tube, everybody tubes: analyzing the world’s largest user generated content video system

Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement – IMC 07 IMC 07 Retrieved April 24, 2010, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.119.1114&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Dixon, K. M. (2005). Researchers link use of Internet, social isolation. Stanford Report, February 23, 2005. Retrieved March 22, 2010, from http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/february23/internet-022305.html

Franzen, A. (2000). Does the Internet make us lonely? European Sociological Review Franzen 16 (4): 427 Retrieved March 22, 2010, from http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/16/4/427

Garton, C. (2010). Ashton Kutcher’s mosquito nets ensure ‘malaria no more’ Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http://content.usatoday.com/communities/kindness/post/2010/01/ashton-kutchers-twitter-nets-arriving-in-africa-to-save-lives-from-malaria/1

Hampton, K., Sessions, L., Her, E. J., & Rainie, L. (2009). Social Isolation and New Technology. How the internet and mobile phones impact Americans’ social networks. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/18–Social-Isolation-and-New-Technology/Part-1-Introduction.aspx?r=1

Hardcastle, J. (2006). The Anti-Social Mobile Effect Retrieved March 25, 2010, from http://www.articlesbase.com/advertising-articles/the-antisocial-mobile-effect-74005.html

Hughes, R. (2001). Computers, the Internet, and families: A review of the role new technology plays in family life. Journal of family issues, 22(6), 776.

internetworldstats.com (2009). World Internet Users and Population Stats Retrieved March 16, 2010, from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

Israel, B. A. (1985). Social networks and social support: implications for natural helper and community level interventions. Health education & behavior, 12(1), 65.

Joinson, A. N. (2008). Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people?: motives and use of facebook

Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual CHI conference on Human factors in computing systems – CHI 08 CHI 08.

Kennedy, H. (2010). Twitter used to help land plane with aid for Haiti earthquake victims Retrieved March 21, 2010, from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/01/18/2010-01-18_twitter_used_to_help_land_plane_with_aid_for_haiti_earthquake_victims.html

Kruitbosch, G., & Nack, F. (2008). Broadcast yourself on YouTube: really?

Proceeding of the 3rd ACM international workshop on Human-centered computing – HCC 08 HCC 08 Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://staff.science.uva.nl/~nack/papers/hcc02s-kruitbosch.pd

Lenhart, A. (2009). Teens and Social Media. New York Department of Health & Mental Hygiene. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic603902.files/Teens%20Social%20Media%20and%20Health%20-%20NYPH%20Dept%20Pew%20Internet.pdf

Livingstone, S., & Bober, M. (2006). Regulating the Internet at Home: Contrastung the Perspectives of Children and Parents. In D. Buckingham & R. Willett (Eds.), Digital Generations: Children, Young People and New Media (pp. 93 -114). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lush, J. (2009). Time spent on social networking sites triples Retrieved March 20, 2010, from http://www.editorsweblog.org/newsrooms_and_journalism/2009/09/time_spent_on_social_networking_sites_tr.php

Malaria No More (2010). Twitter Nets: Ready To Roll in January 2010 Retrieved March 21, 2010, from http://www.malarianomore.org/news/features/twitter_ashton_kutcher_beats_cnn_to_1m_followers/

marketingcharts.com (2007). Social Networking’s Explosive Growth to Plateau in Five Years Retrieved March 20, 2010, from http://www.marketingcharts.com/interactive/social-networkings-explosive-growth-to-plateau-in-five-years-2102/

marketingcharts.com (2009). Social Networking Grows 93%; Communication Becomes Entertainment Retrieved March 2010, 2010, from http://www.marketingcharts.com/interactive/social-networking-grows-93-communication-becomes-entertainment-8576/

McClard, A. (2008). Focus on Facebook: Who are we anyway. Anthropology newsletter, 49(3), 10.

Mills, E. (2010). Using Twitter to help Haiti Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10437866-245.html

Nazir, A. (2008). Unveiling facebook: a measurement study of social network based applications Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement conference – IMC 08 IMC 08.

Nie, N. H. (2001). Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the Internet: Reconciling conflicting findings. The American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 420.

Nielsen Wire (2009). Time Spent on Facebook up 700%, but MySpace Still Tops for Video Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/time-spent-on-facebook-up-700-but-myspace-still-tops-for-video/

O’Murchu, I., Breslin, J. G., & Decker, S. (2004). Online Social and Business Networking Communities, Proceedings of ECAI 2004 Workshop on Application of Semantic Web Technologies to Web Communities.  Retrieved April 24, 2010, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1.4901&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Owyang, J. (2009). A Collection of Social Network Stats for 2009 Retrieved March 20, 2010, from http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2009/01/11/a-collection-of-soical-network-stats-for-2009/

Perry, M. (2001). Dealing with mobility: understanding access anytime, anywhere. ACM transactions on computer-human interaction, 8(4), 323.

Public Internet Access (2010).  Retrieved March 2010, 2010, from http://www.internet-access.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=1

Reisinger, D. (2009). Study: Internet use won’t cause social isolation Retrieved March 22, 2010, from http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10391416-93.html

Sinclair, L. (2010). Facebook games eat up the hours Retrieved April 24, 2010, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/many-lost-hours-are-spent-playing-games/story-e6frg996-1225852470192

Voydanoff, P. (1988). Work Role Characteristics, Family Structure Demands, and Work / Family Conflict. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50(3), 749-761.

Wright, A. (2006). Mobile Phones Could Soon Rival the PC As World’s Dominant Internet Platform Retrieved March 24, 2010, from http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=3049

Ziobro, P. (2009). McDonald’s to Offer Free Wireless Internet Retrieved March 16, 2010, from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598412551817166.html

Social Networks: Growth, Isolation and Sucking the Time Away From Us by Craig Jenner is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.