Collaboration – Debating Communities and Networks IX

The reason behind why people play games and form communities in the online game MapleStory.

The Mass Multiplayer Online Game MapleStory Uses Rewards to Motivate Players to Collaborate and Form Communities.

Abstract
The reason behind why people play games and form communities in the online game MapleStory. Positive rewards are used by the game designers to motivate desirable behaviour and negative stimulus are used to reduces undesirable behaviours. MapleStory uses positive reward systems to incentives collaboration and the formation of communities.

Keywords
Behaviour, online gaming, MapleStory, communities, collaboration, reward systems, motivation, rules, game designs, play, development, MMOG

The purpose of this essay is to explore why people play games and how the Mass Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG’s) MapleStory motivates desirable behaviours, such as collaboration and forming communities. In this paper, I argue that rewards are used motivate desirable behaviours The following essay will begin by introducing why people engage in play. Then explore the essential motivational drivers behind collaboration and communities in MapleStory.

The reason behind why people engage play is due to the significance of free play for the human brain development according to Dr Panksepp and Dr David Van Nuys, who discovered the play circuit in mammals by examining neurobiological behaviours in rats, which strongly suggests the areas intralaminar nuclei and thalamus make up part of the play circuit. Their research begins by explaining how the human brain contains seven primary emotional processing systems, shared by mammals, which helps anticipate and respond to situations. [r/o] These shared areas are responsible for driving play, especially in children. Dr Panksepp and Dr David Van Nuys describe the importance of free play, as it is essential for the development of neural connections which have a critical role in regulating emotions planning and solving problems and helps to navigate complex social interactions. Panksepp findings suggest out of 1200 genes one-third were significantly changed by a half-hour of play (Panksepp, 1998). The significance of this is it proves play is not a social construction and the importance of play for the human development is an essential requirement. Without understanding the importance and its necessity of play to the human development, it is difficult to understand why so many people engage in games.

What constitutes a game is that it is governed by a set of rules. The Oxford dictionary defines games as “A form of competitive activity or sport played according to rules” (Oxford, n.d.). Thus the primary dividing point between play and games are rules. Once rules are applied to play, a game appears. For instance, a ball with actively engaging participants becomes a match of tennis, basketball etc. Hands can form the game of rock, paper and scissors.

Jesper Juul’s (2010) research paper “The game, the player, the world: Looking for a heart of gameness” explains how games provide a new context for action and meaning, and without a set of rules, participants could not win at chess or make checkmate, however within the rules, there are various options to play (Juul, 2010). In Roger Cailloise’s (2001,1961) paper “Man, Play and Games” noted that the process of play has a beginning middle and end. He suggests when one decides to play a game, it means they are prepared to play within the rules and be governed by them. He used the example of a boxing match to illustrate how it is a part of the restrictiveness which makes the game playable and the goal is not only winning but to enjoy the obstacles set up by the rules (Caillois, 2001,1961). Rules are the essential aspect which makes up a game. The rules provide a context which restricts all player similarly and rewards the players who play well within the rules. Due to the similarity each player experience throughout the game, rules provide a sense of common goal and interest this common interest fosters a sense of community. The Oxford dictionary defines Community as “The condition of sharing or having certain attitudes and interests in common”(Oxford, nd).

Furthermore, Games and play both require voluntary participation, but games also require active acceptance of the rules. Liebe (2016) uses an illustration of a magical circle to explain games and suggests the space within the magic circle is where the game occurs and the formation of a magic circle is dependent on the players’ participation (Liebe, 2016). The ungoverned space outside the circle may be everything else outside of the game but within the game by engaging the player is voluntary making an agreement to play by the rules. For example, playing the mass multiplayer online game Maple Story automatically requires the player to actively accept the rules by the action of participating. This Therefore suggests the game cannot force the individual to participate in the game or play by its rules, but once the individual has engaged in playing, the rules will govern the player’s actions.

By examining Maple Story’s rules the game indicates its complexity and sophistication. In simple games such as noughts and crosses the rules can be easily described however as Maple Story is an established MMOG, players are submerged in a highly regulated space where most users would not know or need to know all the rules. The players only need to follow the game and it will show the players the rules once it is necessary. It is difficult for players to do otherwise as the game does not allow for the player to do so (action rage is limited to the design of the game). Thus the game can be seen as a guide and the player as tourists learning what they can and cannot do as they progress through the game(Caillois, 2001,1961). The gamer only knows how to play within the rules because within rules are in a sense the only action rage. Whatever is possible within a game has already been predetermined before the game has begun. This restrictive and confined space leads the player where the game wants the player to progress to, allowing the game designer to pre-determine results, set up obstacles and manipulate/motivate behaviour. Behaviour such as building communities and collaboration is desirable to any MMOG as it is thought to keep players gaming for social factors, such as online friends and help the game build relationship ties between its players and strengthen the player’s relationship with the game (Brox, 2011).

The method Maple Story uses to promote these desirable behaviours is through a reward system. The gammers are rewarded when performing tasks the game deems desirable. In Maple Story these reward systems are can be seen when gamers are rewarded more when gaming together than alone. MapleStory is also designed to be played by collaborating this is shown in group quests, which are quests that rewards significantly more than personal quests (rewards in the game are in the form of experience, equipment, weapons, and other things with monetary value) Group quest can only be accessed after a group is forms.

Characters in maple story have different abilities depending on their job occupation, the strength of these abilities depend on the level of the character. This is important because when in the midst of solving a complex problem; such as solving a maze and hunting monsters, different skills are required. It becomes compulsory to find other players with those skills to form a team with to accomplish group quests. Collaboration within MapleStory’ becomes compulsory at certain points of the game because the game is designed so no character has all of the skills required to solve certain problems. By having these communal restrictions, motivations and rewards for working collaboratively and forming communities, the players are more likely to act in a manner which allows them to achieve the most from the game. By gaming in a manner to maximise rewards and minimise the risks the player will move forward within the game faster. The game is carefully calibrated to keep players on the edge of exploration and requires gamers to use problem-solving skills. MapleStory puts enthuses on learning to cooperate with other gamers this is thought to be good for creating communal ties which bond the player to each other and even deeper into the game. The obstacles set up within the game are complex to solve and require multiplayer collaboration to solve. Its the constant stimulus from different reward systems that encourage certain characteristics of player behaviour such as forming guilds.

A clear indication of the game developers desire to see communities within the game flourish is the infrastructure of the guild systems. Guild’s are a design within MapleStory which allows for hundreds of people to belong to one single guild. Guild system within MapleStory is seen as small communities within the big maple community.. They are thought to provide a sense of belonging and status within the group. Facilitating communication tools are designed to enhance the efficiency and speed of communication, functions such as one to one chat, one to many are accessible within the guild. This allows gamers to easily post notifications and ask for help. Some of the benefits of belonging/joining a guild is newbies (new players) can receive consultation from more experienced players. They often receive equipment and training from experienced players. Maple Story is designed to allow experienced players to train inexperienced players and give them experience (experience is the essential requirement to level up within the game and can be collected when monsters are defeated). This design which allows the experienced player to train inexperienced player is a clear indication of the game developers desire to see gamers collaborating.

By using Abraham Maslow’s “A Theory of Human Motivation” (1943) explains some of the motivations for the individual’s active participation in collaboration. The following is a brief outline of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. The first level and most basic is the physiological need for food, water and clothing. This is shown in MapleStory when newbies join communities such as guilds to receive benefits such as equipment, weapons and basic training. Maslow’s Second level safety needs such as a housing, savings. This is shown in the game as the game provides better monetary rewards for players when they accomplish group quests in comparison to individual quests. The third level affection needs such as family and friends are shown in MapleStory though online friendship/relationships, these are players who meet through the game and form a meaningful relationship. The fourth level self-esteem needs such as recognition and social status are shown through MapleStory when players commit a lot of time to achieve status in positions such as a Guild leader, a high-level player or use limited edition clothing/armour to express their status. The Fifth level self-actualisation needs such as goals and exploring interests. This level of need is shown in the game when players move from casual gaming to a competitive gaming state. Maslow theory suggests human behaviours is usually motivated by one or more of the following five levels of needs, by using Maslow’s Hierarchy of need with examples from Maples story, it shows how MapleStory motivates certain behaviours (Maslow, 1943).

Melis and Tomasello (2013) research paper “Chimpanzees’ (Pan troglodytes) strategic helping in a collaborative task” demonstrates how the correct motivation does not only drive humans to collaborate but also mammals. The author’s findings suggest animal cooperation is more motivational than cognitive. The research was conducted by giving Chimpanzee roles and tools which were not interchangeable by measuring the willingness to transfer a tool to see levels of collaboration to reach reward (food). Their findings demonstrated most subjects worked collaboratively and not only coordinated different roles but also understood which actions their partner needs to perform (Melis & Tomasello, 2013). In other words, Reward systems and motivations can incentivise great levels of participation. MapleStory was able to use the method of rewarding desirable behaviour with positivity stimulus and undesired behaviour with negative stimulus to craft an active collaborative environment which benefits the participants. Some of the negative stimulus used within MapleStory is when gamers attempt to tackle certain monsters without collaborating with other they die within the game. Death within the game has signification connotations, it reduces the players hard earned experience. This is a sign of the heavy hand the Maple Story game designer have regarding collaboration. This also shows how much they desire collaboration within the game. The traits Maple Story deems most desirable are thought to be collaboration, participation, communal efforts and daily active play.

In conclusion, the free Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game MapleStory has created an alternative world with meaning, social connections, community, monetary value and social status.
Why people play is due to the biological necessity of play, games provide a governed space to play within. When individuals actively engage by playing the online game MapleStory they are surrendering to its rules and participating within the parameters of the game’s design. The design of MapleStory encourages collaboration and the formation of communities. This is shown by group quests and guild’s. MapleStory uses reward systems such as experience, monetary items, obstacles and constraints to guide players to behave accordingly. The game makes it difficult to achieve the ultimate goal (reaching a high level) without the use of collaboration and the formation of communities. Maslow’s (1943) Theory of Human Motivation explains some of the motivation for certain behaviours within MapleStory. The use of positive stimulus to reward and negative stimulus to discourage what MapleStory deems desirable or undesirable behaviour, motivates players to willingly embrace the desirable behaviour. MapleStory pays significant attention to the facilitating tools necessary for collaboration which is communication. Various forms of communication tools are accessible to its gamers. This allows Maple Story’s gamers to easily communicate with each other to form communities and find other gamers to collaborate with. MapleStory is designed to have various options of play, but its also designed when players choose to collaborate and form communities it provides them with best results and fastest route to the ultimate goal of the game which is reaching the highest level.

References

Collaboration. (n.d.). Retrieved April 01, 2018, from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ collaboration?s=t

Caillois, R. (2001/1961). Man, Play and Games, (translated by Meyer Barash). Urbana: University

of Illinois Press

Game | Definition of play in English by Oxford Dictionaries. (n.d.). Retrieved March 30, 2018, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/game

Juul, J. (2010). The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness*. ^^The Game,

the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness*, 248-270. Retrieved March 25, 2018, from http://www.revistas.uneb.br/index.php/plurais/article/viewFile/880/624

Khambatti, M. S., Ryu, K. D., & Dasgupta, P. (2002). Efficient discovery of implicitly formed peer-to-peer communities. International Journal of Parallel and Distributed Systems and Networks, 5(4), 155-164.

Liebe, M. (2016). There is no magic circle: On the difference between computer games and tradi tional games. The Philosophy of Computer Games Conference Proceedings, 1-4. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=168vCw AAQBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=Tara Brabazon play up play around&source=bl&ots=EQ7- x8xrN7&sig=7Do5SlDHuwaPy95jXN9p b4N2IO8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQpbKO38zKAhVP02MKHXP2CZc Q6AEIKzAF#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Maslow, A. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), pp.370-396.

McIntyre, J., Palmer, D., & Franks, J. (2009). A Framework for Thinking about Collaboration within the Intelligence Community. Person Associates. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from http: www.pherson.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/09.-A-Framework-for- Thinking-about-Collaboration-within-the-Intelligence-Community_FINAL.pdf

Melis, A. P., & Tomasello, M. (2013). Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) strategic helping in a collaborative task. Biology Letters, 9(2), 20130009-20130009. doi:10.1098/rsbl. 2013.0009

Nuys, D. V. (2013). The Emotional Foundation of Mind- Dr Jaak Panksepp. The Neuropsychotherapist, 90-104. doi:10.12744/tnpt(2)090-104

Panksepp, J., Knutson, B., & Pruitt, D. L. (1998). Toward a Neuroscience of Emotion. What Develops in Emotional Development?, 53-84. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-1939-7_3

Play | Definition of play in English by Oxford Dictionaries. (n.d.). Retrieved March 30, 2018, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/play

Reeves, B. & Read, J.L. (2009). Total engagement: Using games and virtual worlds to change the way people work and businesses compete. Harvard Business Press: Boston.

Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.

Williams, D. (2013). A Brief Social History of Game Play. A Brief Social History of Game Play. Re trieved March 20, 2018, from https://is.muni.cz/el/1421/podzim2013/IM082/um/ WilliamsSocHist.pdf .

The Symbiotic Relationship Of Online Gaming and Community Building

Written by Callum Duffy, Curtin University

Abstract: This paper largely focuses on the relationship between Online Gaming and the various Communities formed because of it. Specifically analysing communities found by using ‘Overwatch’ as a prime example, the main argument presented is that various communities focused on a single, core aspect unifying them all are more or less interconnected individuals with similar general interests in regards to this core aspect, and thus have the potential for collaboration and dialogue between each other.

The relationship between communities and online gaming is, at its very core, a relationship that is symbiotic in nature. In relevance to this, this conference paper will focus primarily on the formation of communities in regards to online gaming, the variation of interests within formed communities and how these vary and diverge into different niche communities, the formation of friendships between members existing within the same community, and how these communities still relate to one another in regards to a singular, dynamic interest. For this conference paper, we will specifically be looking at the various communities that are brought together by the popular FPS game produced by Blizzard entertainment, ’Overwatch’.

A community, as defined by Gusfield (1975) focuses on two primary concepts when defining community, The first of these concepts focusing on the geographical sense of community, etc. neighbourhood, town, city. The second is relational, concerned with quality of character of human relationship, without reference to location (p. xvi). In regards to online gaming, the second definition of community provided by Gusfield is an accurate definition as to what an online gaming community is, as the relationships formed through online gaming isn’t limited by the boundaries of geographical location, as the online medium allows player to connect with each other and form relationships/communities with one another. In relation to this, Overwatch allows players from all over the world to play against one another as it isn’t limited by geographical restrictions, this allowing players to connect and as a result allowing the formations of communities, regardless of geographical location. Overwatch itself particular is a game with various communities that have been formed from it’s large, generalised community of those who play the game. I will focus on 3 different communities within the generalised player community, these being the casual, competitive and e-sport based Overwatch communities. It’s important to note that these 3 chosen communities do not accurately represent the different niche groups that exist with the generalised Overwatch player base community, rather, they represent the shift in community based priorities in relevance to Overwatch as a whole, and the interests that each group prioritises.

There are various communities within the game Overwatch that cater to the various players that play Overwatch. The casual Overwatch community represents the approximate majority of those who play Overwatch, and those involved within this community simply play the game for relaxation and enjoyment within their leisure time, and build friendships with the players that they meet in game, or through other communication mediums that allow members of this community to collaborate and share information. With this in mind, the primary methods of communication for those in this community are either the in-game voice chat, where individual players can speak to other players on their team, or Youtube comment sections, where they can leave comments under videos that appeal to them and their interests in relation to Overwatch. The ‘competitive’ Overwatch community focus primarily on the competitive game modes that Overwatch offers, where players get ranked based on their skill level. These players seek to improve their skills in playing a particular character, or acquire better game sense through more playtime and experience. More often than not, individuals that associate themselves with this community in particular diverge into different, niche communities that focus on the fundamental principles that the members of this community share. For example, if a player involved in the competitive community plays a particular character mores than others, he/she may also be involved in a sub-community that focuses on playing that particular character, certain exploits that players can use to better play that character, or a generalised appreciation community focusing on that character. The competitive Overwatch community uses a variety of ways to communicate, including the aforementioned methods that the casual community uses to communicate with. However, a difference in the communication side to this community in particular focuses on the application of the official Overwatch forums. These forums allow players to commentate on the state of the game overall, communicate with game developers and ask/answer questions, and communicate with like-minded players on specified topics. Finally, Overwatch’s e-sports community focuses on the ‘professional’ side of play, with professional Overwatch players receiving sponsorships, business deals in the form of contracting to an e-sports team, and being a general figurehead/role model for all Overwatch players. This community represents a minority within the Overwatch community, as the majority of Overwatch players do not associate themselves with the professional side of the game.

E-sports in particular, is arguably the most niche of communities that Overwatch offers. E-sports in itself is defined as “an area of sport activities in which people develop and train mental or physical abilities in the use of information and communication technologies” (Wagner, 2006). Individuals can be associated with E-sports as a competitor or more often than not, simply an observer. This is where the divergence of communities within the game Overwatch begin to reassemble into an amalgamate of individuals with similar interests. Namely, the aforementioned competitive community begins to shift towards a larger involvement in the e-sports community, be it as a spectator or an actual competitor. Overwatch itself has its very own e-sports tournament labelled ‘Overwatch League’, this league hosts various international teams, and has a central presence within the game itself. Overwatch allows player to purchase cosmetic items that represent these teams in game, in a fashion similar to that of a football jersey. With this in mind, this further strengthens the idea of merging different communities within Overwatch, as casual players have access to e-sports related cosmetics, and resources allowing them to further explore the professional Overwatch league.

The casual community found within Overwatch however, is the broadest of these communities that the vast majority of the player base fits into. Where casual players might play the competitive modes that Overwatch offers, they still see it as just a game, and don’t necessarily focus on the same aspects the the competitive communities of Overwatch may focus on. The formation of online friendships between individuals within this community are genuine and are capable to exist in an offline setting also. As said by Domahidi, Festl and Quandt (2014), “ Players with a pronounced motive to gain social capital and to play in a team had the highest probability to transform their social relations from online to offline context. We found that social online gamers are well integrated and use the game to spend time with old friends—and to recruit new ones”. With this in mind, the idea that communities are capable of bringing likeminded individuals together is solidified and proven. This is regardless of how niche a community may be, as for example, a casual player may be persuaded to become a part of a competitive community via friendships made online, or a simply change in opinion towards the game as a whole.

With the aforementioned in mind, the various communities that are found within Overwatch are capable of interacting with each other through various different means. Specifically mentioned before were the official Overwatch forums as a large medium used by those involved within the competitive Overwatch community. Youtube however, is the biggest way for the general Overwatch community members to gather information. Be it through the official PlayOverwatch account that posts official trailers, development updates and short animated films, or fan accounts that post game commentaries, professional game analysis or funny meme montages; Youtube is a medium that allows the vast majority of the generalised Overwatch community to interact with one another. Specifically, Youtube is a medium that connects well with younger audiences that have grown up in a digital era, specifically teenagers, which in itself can be considered a sub-community of Overwatch. Youtube content creators can be seen as social influencers that shape the foundation of the decision making process of their audiences, and there is no better example of this than the relationship between these social influencers and their teenage audience. As put by Chua & Banerjee (2015) “personal opinions and experiences have become one of the most valuable sources of information to assist users in their purchase decision-making process”. When the opinions of a professional Overwatch player is shared through Youtube, and reaches the screen of a fan of said influencer, there is a great chance that said fan will copy and follow the personal opinion and review of the influencer in question. Once again we see the merge between communities found within the general Overwatch community, in this case we see the casual, teenage audience form their own opinions and ideas on a particular idea based on the influence of a social influencer, more often than not in this case a competitive, celebrity figure that belongs to a niche community of Overwatch entertainers.

Thus, we are presented with a correlation between the various niche communities that belong to the generalised Overwatch community as a whole. This correlation is that the various niche communities influence one another, to the point where the divergence of these communities merge back together into a singular entity. This singular community is characterised and stereotyped to have specific traits shared amongst the members of this community, and with Overwatch in particular this generalised trait would be toxic gameplay that certain players bring to the table. This is recognised even by the developers of the game in question. In a video posted to the PlayOverwatch Youtube account, lead developer Jeff Kaplan addressed the audience about the increased negative social interactions that occur between player of the game, and the steps that the team are taking to rid toxicity from the game. In the video, Kaplan states, “We have taken disciplinary action against over 480,000 accounts, and 340,000 of those were a direct result of players using the reporting system. So you can see, the vast majority of actions we take are because players have said hey, there’s another player here doing something very bad and I want to see some action” (PlayOverwatch, 2017). In regards to this video, we can see that the Overwatch community are characterised by being toxic in game. However, we can also see that this is a big problem that many individuals both inside and outside of this community want to see be dealt with.

We can see that Youtube is the primary medium being used to address the various Overwatch communities in question. The social influencer of the video being lead developer Jeff Kaplan is a figurehead that the majority of the player base look up to, and hearing him say that reporting toxic behaviour in Overwatch is a good step to ridding the toxicity problem in Overwatch makes the communities in question listen to this, and thus form their own opinions and ideas behind this. This in turn changes the overall attitude and behaviour within the various communities found in Overwatch into an attitude that is committed to neutralising and reducing bad player behaviours within the game. This video and the reactions of the individuals within the specific Overwatch communities that this video targets is a clear cut example of how various, niche communities still relate to one another via a singular purpose, and how the power of social influence has the ability to change specific attitudes and form opinions within communities.

Overall, there is a distinct correlation between online gaming, and the formation of communities and the individuals that associate themselves with online games. The various opinions, thoughts and values that are shared between members of online game communities are generally shared, with a few principle outlying values creating certain niche communities within a generalised community focusing on an online game. These opinions, thoughts and values are subject to change with the input of social influencers altering these already existing opinions, thoughts and values, and thus influence which type of community an individual may choose to associate themselves with. However, the already underlying thoughts, values and opinions that represent the entire, generalised community still exist between various niche groups, and thus allow collaboration and unity between these groups whilst retaining a sense of uniqueness present in the various niche groups found within a community.

Chua, A. Y., & Banerjee, S. (2015). Understanding Review Helpfulness as a Function of Reviewer Reputation, Review Rating, and Review Depth. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 66(2), 354-362.
Domahidi, Emese & Festl, Ruth & Quandt, Thorsten. (2014). To dwell among gamers: Investigating the relationship between social online game use and gaming-related friendships. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 107–115. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.023
Gusfield, J. R. (1975). The community: A critical response. New York: Harper Colophon.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e5fb/8ece108aec36714ee413876e61b0510e7c80.pdf
PlayOverwatch (Official Game Development Youtube Account). (2017, September 13). Developer Update | Play Nice, Play Fair | Overwatch [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnfzzz8pIBE
Wagner, Michael. (2006). On the Scientific Relevance of eSports. 437-442. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220968200_On_the_Scientific_Relevance_of_eSports
Warmelink, H., & Siitonen, M. (2011). Player Communities in Multiplayer Online Games: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research. Proceedings of the 2011 DiGRA International Conference: Think Design Play, 6, 1-21. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3acd/d7a7402cf8c517350f9f6041c29e4b0f34ed.pdf

Living Longer Online: Seniors, Online Communities and Web 2.0

Living Longer Online. Seniors, Online Communities and Web 2.0 McNally Ciara

Abstract

This paper explores published articles that have researched the effects of senior citizens participating on Web 2.0 and joining online communities. The paper refers to public participation on Web 2.0 platforms, namely the obstacles and the health benefits associated with senior citizens joining online communities. The articles referenced in this paper show evidence of extended mortality rates among those who utilise online platforms for communication later in life, helping to combat loneliness and social ailments (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010). Monbiot (2018) discusses a town in the UK, which claims that participation in communities is curing its senior town residence from ailments, subsequently lowering the town’s hospital admissions. Others back the findings in this article with numerous case studies recording positive results from seniors aged 55 and over participating in online communities. Medical case studies show a connection between social behaviour and feelings with inflammation and illnesses, thus linking social communication to physical wellbeing (Eisenberger, Moieni, Inagaki, Muscatell, & Irwin, 2017). This paper investigates the importance of community connection in adult life, highlighting that the usability and diversity associated with Web 2.0 platforms and social network sites ‘SNS’ (boyd & Ellison, 2007) encourage online participation. This paper acknowledges “The Digital divide” (Peacock & Künemund, 2007) and “Technophobia” (Hogan, 2009) as barriers which senior citizens come up against when attempting to utilise the internet and Web 2.0 platforms. This paper argues that senior citizens can overcome Technophobia and actively participate in online communities to encourage greater mental health and wellbeing, therefore influencing positive social connections regardless of physical ability, age or locations.

Living Longer Online: The Benefits of Joining Online Communities.

Traditional communities can be defined as groups of participants, from a similar demographic or geographic location physically meeting to contribute to a common interest or goal, also known as a Common good (Katz James E, Rice Ronald e, Acord Sophia, Dasgupta Kiki, & David, 2004). Online communities have developed with the same principles as traditional communities that relied on a common geographical location and a physical presence for connection (Katz James E et al., 2004). However, thanks to advances in digitization and convergence (Jenkins, 2004), community connection is now accessible via the internet and Web 2.0 platforms, which broaden community reach by diminishing the need for co-location of members.

Web 2.0 is a term used to describe an evolved version of the World Wide Web for companies that had survived the dot com crash, the term originated by Tim O’Reilly in a 2005 conference (Allen, 2009). Web 2.0 is an efficient and collaborative platform made for “human connection” (Fuchs, 2010, p. 764), allowing participants to contribute and participate from multiple geographical locations. The term Web 2.0 relates to the World Wide Web becoming a faster, more efficient, and adaptable version of itself (Allen, 2009). Web 2.0 is a platform that enables us the capability to present one’s self through online connections, participation and collaboration.

Social Network Sites or SNS’s are platforms with multiple technological affordances used for connection and participation on Web 2.0 (boyd & Ellison, 2007). Social network sites attract people to interact through shared interests, common friends or to follow blog posts on particular topics (Blood, 2000). Utilising SNS’s such as Facebook has been seen to strengthen existing family ties and friendships, combat loneliness and complement existing arrangements such as phone calls, particularly valid in the case of senior citizens (Cornejo, Tentori, & Favela, 2013). Lai and Turban (2008) explain that one of the largest differences between the traditional World Wide Web and Web 2.0 is that its content is user generated with a large emphasis on social network sites, encouraging greater collaboration and participation from internet users.

Social media platforms can be utilised for communication as a Web 2.0 tool, and accessed at little cost with almost full user control for sharing posts, pictures, videos and experiences. Social Network Sites may comprise of thousands sometimes millions of members, or in the case of Facebook have over 2 billion active users (Statista, 2018). Within these social network sites online communities and groups can form. These groups are niece to a specific topic, interest or common attribute, and links users such as senior citizens (Facebook, 2018) together in a sub-topic on a large social networking site (Lai & Turban, 2008). The expanding reach available for online communities increases their member numbers and further solidifies their common purpose.

When a traditional community becomes disconnected, contact between individuals and the community is lost due to physical dispersal (Katz James E et al., 2004). Utilizing the advances of the internet and the participatory nature of Web 2.0 (Jenkins, 2004), online community members can reconnect, expand and retain their connections regardless of the members geographical locations or physical abilities. Virtual communities are “communities without the physical limitations” (Katz James E et al., 2004, p. 326), broadening the sense of belonging and connection individuals feel within an online community. Utilising these Web 2.0 elements allows a sense of community to flourish for online participants.

Discussion

Communities and Web 2.0 have evolved in our everyday lives, providing numerous modes of communication and community participation available for all age groups. An article published by The Guardian (Monbiot, 2018), has associated community groups with a cure for illness and isolation. The article states that when senior citizens become active members in communities emergency hospital admissions fall dramatically. The article reports that social contact for senior citizens should be “on prescription” (Monbiot, 2018). The link between body inflammation and social connections has been described in a case study by Eisenberger et al. (2017), which found that the human immune system is in fact a regulator of social behaviour, and that social environments influence the human immune system. When we are sick, we are sensitive to social situations and communication, knowing when social engagement is required from certain individuals to help us feel better. This study explains that for humans as social animals, having online connections and relationships may help influence our recovery in times of sickness and help to improve mortality rates, “Social disconnection severely compromises survival” (Eisenberger et al., 2017, p. 243). This links the importance of participation in online communities with mental and physical wellbeing (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010).

Online communities along with SNS’s allow participation and communication online, influencing characteristics of community through participation. A “sense of community” (Gruzd, Wellman, & Takheteyev, 2011, p. 1313) can be obtained through participants using Web 2.0 platforms for organizing to meet others, hold discussions in online forums and create events thus, retaining the traditional sense of community while expanding social circles, relationships and sharing a common cause. Creating “Civic communities” online encourages members to address public issues collectively, as opposed to individually which utilises the power in numbers (Borgida et al., 2002).

National seniors Australia Facebook page claims a “Collective voice of over 200,000 members, National Seniors is the largest, independent organisation lobbying government and business at all levels to get a better deal for the over 50s” (Facebook, 2018). Online communities such as this are proving to be valuable community platforms with its members lobbying for a “Common good” (Katz James E et al., 2004), which in this case is for positive change for a demographic of Australians aged 50 and over. Multiple contributions to a shared goal or topic have been recognized to produce a richer quality of work as opposed to the quality of work produced by individual contribution, heightening the need for numerous members and contributors within online communities (Arazay Ofer, Morgan Wayne, & Raymond, 2006). The further the reach gained by online communities increases their quality of work and further advertises their common goal along with increasing the number of community members.

Concerns have been raised in relation to the use of online communication platforms for developing youths, with research showing its growing use is a cause for social issues such as aggression, substance abuse, academic difficulties and disordered eating (Strasburger, Jordan, & Donnerstein, 2010). Effects from the use of online communication are not always positive, with the internet and Web 2.0 affordances often used as platforms for cyber bullying and aggression (Melissa & Park, 2010). This raises concerns for professionals regarding the impact technology is having on the developing brain. However, the impact that the same communication and social engagement is having for those aged 55 and over, or those who have fully developed as adults finds that communicating online has beneficial effects on their health and wellbeing, contributing to “successful ageing” (Nimrod, 2011, p. 227).

People are increasingly using SNS’s to stay in contact and share important aspects of their life with family and friends, older adults will miss opportunities to keep updated with friends and family members who now spend a large amount of time using these platforms (Cornejo et al., 2013). The ability to utilise Web 2.0 tools such a blogs, wikis, messaging, video calling and online forums are moreover, encouraging senior citizens to overcome “technophobia” , a fear of technology (Hogan, 2009) and to retain high levels of social engagement and relationships with family members and friends online. Data from over 308,849 individuals was gathered and measured over seven and a half years, the results found that people who maintain strong social relationships had a 50% greater likelihood of survival compared to those lacking sufficient social relationships (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010). This indicates that online community ties and relationship creation and retention can influence the health outcomes of adults (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010, p. 14).

The Digital age gap or “Digital divide” (Nimrod, 2010) is caused by younger generations adopting digital and technological developments quicker than older generations, this can occur for a number of cultural and technological reasons. Studies done on decisions for older people to remain offline found results to be based on private access possibilities, motivational indifference and deficient knowledge (Peacock & Künemund, 2007). Remaining offline at a time when digital technology and online participation is advancing (Jenkins, 2004), and billions of users are choosing to participate through online platforms means that senior citizens who remain offline will be “disadvantaged from a socio-ecological point of view” (Peacock & Künemund, 2007). Nimrod (2010) discusses how online communities for senior citizens offer emotional support, increasing communication, companionship and an opportunity for growth and retaining friendships, these online communities also offer an opportunity to have fun and create new friendships (Nimrod, 2011). It is important that that senior citizens still feel like active members of society, this may be threatened by retirement or ill health, however contributing to online forums and SNS’s leads to companionship and discussions on a broad number of subjects from death to politics, serving a sense of connectedness for those who participate (Nimrod, 2010).

A study on technophobia conducted on senior citizens and undergraduate students in Ireland found significant levels of technophobia and computer anxiety in older citizens namely women, as opposed to younger undergraduate students, the case study was measured on computer anxiety and attitudes towards technology (Hogan, 2009). Computer anxiety results in computer avoidance, and has been linked with the ageing population, as older adults become less mobile, continual aspects of daily life are becoming increasingly reliant on information technology and It is therfore becoming more important for senior citizens to learn how to utilise online technologies (Hogan, 2009). Social isolation and decreased face-to-face interaction are worrying trends among the ageing population (Borgida et al., 2002) using the internet and Web 2.0 platforms may be considered a strategy for combating this. According to studies (Borgida et al., 2002; Cornejo et al., 2013; Hogan, 2009; Nimrod, 2010; Peacock & Künemund, 2007) for senior citizens to advance from technophobia and eliminate a Digital divide new methods of internet communication participation must be introduced to encourage this demographic to participate and communicate online.

Conclusions and Future studies

In conclusion, technological advances and developments in the Internet and Web 2.0 have made for a relatively seamless, useful and efficient World Wide Web, its platforms etched in our everyday lives to enable online communication, productivity and usability of numerous platforms (Allen, 2009). For younger generations growing up using digital technology these platforms have a sense of ease of use, with many people now choosing to retain social connections and share important elements of their lives on SNS’s (boyd & Ellison, 2007). Senior citizens aged 55 plus are a generation who did not grow up proficiently educated in using these technologies (Hogan, 2009). This among other cultural factors has resulted in a Digital divide between younger and older generations (Peacock & Künemund, 2007). The case studies used in this paper strongly suggest that utilizing online communities is increasing mortality rates, combatting ailments and tackling loneliness in senior citizens (Eisenberger et al., 2017; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010; Monbiot, 2018). The mentioned health benefits for senior citizens joining online communities such as companionship, social engagement, increased mortality and positive mental wellbeing outweigh the difficulties and obstacles initiated by the Digital divide, such as computer anxiety and technophobia. Much of the research findings suggest that highlighting and advertising these benefits while putting sufficient programs in place to promote internet communication and participation will educate the ageing population on how to better utilise the internet and Web 2.0 (Borgida et al., 2002; Hogan, 2009; Peacock & Künemund, 2007). Introducing sufficent technoligical educational programs will ensure that senior citizens do not become socially disadvantaged, thus increasing connectivity and participation rates of this demographic and influencing a better quality of life for senior citizens through community participation and the use of Web 2.0. This will also encourge topics for future study in this area.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

Allen, M. (2009). Tim O’Reilly and Web 2.0: The Economics of Memetic Liberty

and control Communication, Politics & Culture, 42(2), 6-23.

Arazay Ofer, Morgan Wayne, & Raymond, P. (2006). Wisdom of the Crowds: Decentralized Knowledge Construction in Wikipedia. 16th Annual Workshop on Information Technologies & Systems (WITS) Paper.

Blood, R. (2000). Weblogs: a History and a perspective. Rebecca’s pocket. Retrieved from http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/weblog_history.html

Borgida, E., Sullivan, J. L., Oxendine, A., Jackson, M. S., Riedel, E., & Gangl, A. (2002). Civic Culture Meets the Digital Divide: The Role of Community Electronic Networks. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 125-141. doi:doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00252

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

Cornejo, R., Tentori, M., & Favela, J. (2013). Enriching in-person encounters through social media: A study on family connectedness for the elderly. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(9), 889-899. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.04.001

Eisenberger, N. I., Moieni, M., Inagaki, T. K., Muscatell, K. A., & Irwin, M. R. (2017). In Sickness and in Health: The Co-Regulation of Inflammation and Social Behavior. Neuropsychopharmacology, 42(1), 242-253. doi:10.1038/npp.2016.141

Facebook. (2018). National Seniors Australia Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/nationalseniors/

Fuchs, C. (2010). Social software and web 2.0: their sociological foundations and implications. . Handbook of research on web 2.0, 3.0, and X.0: technologies, business, and social applications, II, 764-789.

Gruzd, A., Wellman, B., & Takheteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an Imagined Community. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10), 1294-1318. doi:10.1177/0002764211409378

Hogan, M. (2009). Age Differences in Technophobia: An Irish Study. In W. Wojtkowski, G. Wojtkowski, M. Lang, K. Conboy, & C. Barry (Eds.), Information Systems Development: Challenges in Practice, Theory, and Education Volume 1 (pp. 117-130). Boston, MA: Springer US.

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review. PLOS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316

Jenkins, H. (2004). The Cultural Logic of media convergence. Of Cultural studies, 7(1), 33-43. doi:10.1177/1367877904040603

Katz James E, Rice Ronald e, Acord Sophia, Dasgupta Kiki, & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. Communication and Community: Communication Yearbook 28, 28, 315-371.

Allen, M. (2009). Tim O’Reilly and Web 2.0: The Economics of Memetic Liberty and control Communication, Politics & Culture, 42(2), 6-23.

Arazay Ofer, Morgan Wayne, & Raymond, P. (2006). Wisdom of the Crowds: Decentralized Knowledge Construction in Wikipedia. 16th Annual Workshop on Information Technologies & Systems (WITS) Paper.

Blood, R. (2000). Weblogs: a History and a perspective. Rebecca’s pocket. Retrieved from http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/weblog_history.html

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

Facebook. (2018). National Seniors Australia Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/nationalseniors/

Gruzd, A., Wellman, B., & Takheteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an Imagined Community. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10), 1294-1318. doi:10.1177/0002764211409378

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review. PLOS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316

Jenkins, H. (2004). The Cultural Logic of media convergence. Of Cultural studies, 7(1), 33-43. doi:10.1177/1367877904040603

Lai, L. S. L., & Turban, E. (2008). Groups Formation and Operations in the Web 2.0 Environment and Social Networks. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(5), 387-402. doi:10.1007/s10726-008-9113-2

Melissa, P.-Z., & Park, M. J. (2010). To Tweet, or Not to Tweet: Gender Differences and Potential Positive and Negative Health Outcomes of Adolescents’ Social Internet Use. American Journal of Men’s Health, 4(1), 77-85. doi:10.1177/1557988309360819

Monbiot, G. (2018). The town that’s found a potent cure for illness – community Retrieved from The Guardian website: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/21/town-cure-illness-community-frome-somerset-isolation?utm_source=nextdraft&utm_medium=email

Nimrod, G. (2010). Seniors’ Online Communities: A Quantitative Content Analysis. The Gerontologist, 50(3), 382-392. doi:10.1093/geront/gnp141

Nimrod, G. (2011). The Fun Culture in Seniors’ Online Communities. The Gerontologist, 51(2), 226-237. doi:10.1093/geront/gnq084

Peacock, S. E., & Künemund, H. (2007). Senior citizens and Internet technology. European Journal of Ageing, 4(4), 191-200. doi:10.1007/s10433-007-0067-z

Statista. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/

Strasburger, V. C., Jordan, A. B., & Donnerstein, E. (2010). Health Effects of Media on Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics, 125(4), 756.