{"id":431,"date":"2019-05-06T10:34:45","date_gmt":"2019-05-06T02:34:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/?p=431"},"modified":"2019-05-06T10:34:45","modified_gmt":"2019-05-06T02:34:45","slug":"how-social-networks-have-changed-the-way-people-connect-and-establish-relationships","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/2019\/05\/06\/how-social-networks-have-changed-the-way-people-connect-and-establish-relationships\/","title":{"rendered":"How Social Networks have Changed the Way People Connect and Establish Relationships"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Social networking sites (SNSs) are significantly gaining the attention\nof academic and scholarly researchers, fascinated by participants widespread\nconsumption practices and the technological affordances that facilitate these.\nThe social media stream within the Debates of Social Media and Online\nCommunities<\/em>, convenes together literature and empirical studies on this\nemerging phenomenon. In the introduction, we provide contextual background\ninformation on SNSs and define overarching key concepts. We present the leading\nargument through the thesis; the proliferation of social networks, including\nFacebook has profoundly changed the way people connect and generate\nrelationships in the digital public sphere. Drawing upon pre-existing bodies of\nacademic research and literature in relation to SNSs, findings indicate that\nthis transformative shift is facilitated through three distinct segments\nincluding; the social affordances of \u2018friending\u2019 online, the performative\nbehaviours afforded by technology, and constructing one\u2019s virtual identity.\nCounter arguments presented will further explore contrasting perspectives and\nissues raised, concluding with an outcome of the research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since the early 1990\u2019s, social networks have arisen exponentially\nthrough communication technologies and permeated the realm of the digital\npublic sphere. More specifically, in the Western context, a popular\ncontemporary digital networking platform Facebook, has facilitated a multitude\nof new practices and behaviours in the process of social development and\nforming relationships. Firstly, Boyd and Ellison articulate that social\nnetworks sites are web-located services that permit individual users to design\nand construct a public profile, display a list of users that they share\nconnections with, and view other\u2019s networks enacted within the platform (Boyd\nand Ellison, 2007). Moreover, according to Habermas in 1992, the conceptual\nframework of the new public sphere is based on the notion that communication\ncontexts, through discursive opinion and the public will of inter-generational\ncitizens, perpetuate the new public sphere (Haines, 2013). Prior to\ncommunication technologies and social networks, the public sphere was\nrecognised in spatial and dialogical terms, meaning participants would meet and\nengage in face-to-face interactions in a common, physical location. Now in the\ncontext of the 21st<\/sup> century, the new public sphere is asymmetrical\nand fragmented, by contrast it is not located to any specific spatial-temporal\nlocations, non-dialogical, open and visible, whereby there is unequal participation\nand symbolic mediated forms can be disseminated and received by a greater\namount of other non-present individuals on a global scale (Haines, 2013). In\nthe discipline Debates within Social Media and Online Communities<\/em>,\nwithin the parameters of the Social Media stream, this paper will critically\nanalyse, examine and argue the thesis; the proliferation of social networks,\nsuch as Facebook has profoundly changed the way people connect and establish\nrelationships in the digital public sphere. This will be explored through\ncritical discussion of collated clusters of key emerging trends, drawing upon\npre-existing empirical bodies of academic literature and scholarly journal\narticles. These will be segmented into three distinct components. 1. The social\naffordances of \u2018friending\u2019 online and the notion of a new meaning of the\nmultifaceted term \u2018friend\u2019. 2. Performative behaviours afforded by technology\nsuch as the public display of connections, and constructing one\u2019s virtual\nidentity. 3. Counter arguments that will explore in contrast, the social\ncognitive and behavioural sides of social networks, privacy concerns raised,\nidentity deception, and the potential for online disconnection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Social Affordances Perspective<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proliferation of Social Networks, such as Facebook has radically\nchanged the way people connect and form relationships in the digital public\nsphere. Firstly, Facebook is an American online social networking site where\nparticipants can post comments, like, upload and share photographs and videos,\nprovide status updates, check-in geographical locations, repost links, engage\nin dialogue through text messaging and connect with friends upon accepting\nfriend requests (Nadkarni and Hofmann, 2012). Key emerging trends within the\ndigital public sphere and research studies conducted using Facebook, indicates\nthere is a shift in relation to the multifaceted meaning of friendship and what\nconstitutes a \u2018friend\u2019 \u201cFacebook is known for challenging conventional\nconnotations of \u2018friendship\u2019 by lumping all of ones\u2019 social connections,\nincluding remote acquaintances, into one uniform \u2018friend\u2019 category\u201d (Vallor,\n2012. p.186). This can be interpreted as the social affordance approach,\nwhereby the social network interfaces both allow and encourage homogeneity,\nwith no distinct relationship boundaries or categories. The term social\naffordance was first referred to by psychologists as \u201cthe human ability of\nunderstanding how the intrinsic properties of objects allow them to be used for\na variety of purposes\u201d (Boase, 2008. p.1). Moreover, in a technological\ncontext, this term can also be denoted as \u201cto describe what material artifacts\nsuch as media technologies allow people to do\u201d (Bucher and Helmond, 2017. p.3).\nSecondly, prior to the rapid expansion of social networks, the term \u2018friend\u2019\nwas previously considered as a mutually exclusive bond between two individuals,\nwho provided emotional support, shared common interests and connected in the\nphysical realm. Now in post-modern society, according to Boyd, utilising\nmundane vernacular refers to a friend as \u201ca relationship that involves some\ndegree of mutual love or admiration\u201d (Boyd, 2006. p.1). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, sociologists denote this as \u201cfriendship is an informal\ncategory without clear boundaries (like \u201cco-workers\u201d) or mutual responsibilities\n(like \u201cfamily\u201d) (Boyd, 2006. p.1). Boyd further ascertains that the discourse\nsurrounding the term \u2018friend\u2019 has different connotations and meaning online, in\ncomparison to the physical realm \u201cWhen people articulate their relations on social\nnetwork sites, they are not simply projecting their internal model of tie\nstrength. The public nature of these sites requires participants to perform\ntheir relationship to others, not unlike the examples given above. Based on an\ninternal understanding of the audience, participants override the term \u201cFriend\u201d\nto make room for a variety of different relationships so that they may properly\nshow face<\/em>. Their choice in how to do this is deeply influenced by the\ntechnological affordances of a given system and their perception of who might\nbe looking\u201d (Boyd, 2006. p.1). This demonstrates an example of how technology\nand social networks provide social affordance, meaning their structural\nelements and interfaces allow users to recalibrate the meaning of a \u2018friend\u2019 and\nremoves the heterogenic nature of friendships within the physical realm. This\ncan further be interpreted as online \u2018friends\u2019 are egocentrically driven and\nperformative, due to the underlying social hierarchies afforded by technology,\nand the desire to establish perceived status by increasing the number of\nfriends and followers, in order to construct influential, individual identities\nonline. For instance, by rejecting a \u2018friend request\u2019 on Facebook, users face\npotential social consequences from both the rejected individual, and other\nusers online, as this limits growth of one\u2019s number of friends and\/or following\n(Boyd, 2006). Moreover, in academic research, Boase argues that social network\nsites present a new regulating mechanism for developing context \u201cInstead of\nslicing interest first and people second, the Friending process allows people\nto choose people first and interests second. People define their community\negocentrically. Their list of Friends defines the context and this, in turn,\ndefines the audience that they believe they are addressing whenever they modify\ntheir Profile or post a bulletin\u201d (Boase, 2006. p.1). Therefore, this can be\ninterpreted as the re-structuring of social clusters within friendship and\npersonal networks, allowing for a new method to build social context and\ndevelop relationships online, that was not previously a possibility in the\nphysical public sphere (Boyd, 2006). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In conjunction with the notion of \u2018friending\u2019, Boyd articulates that\n\u201cFriends on Social Networks are not the same as \u201cfriends\u201d in the everyday\nsense; instead, Friends provide context by offering users an imagined audience\nto guide behavioral norms\u201d (Boyd, 2006. p.1). According to Huberman, Romero and\nWu attention is scarce within social networks, thus people only engage with\nonline members that provide reciprocal attention \u201ca recent study of Facebook\nshowed that users only poke and message a small number of people while they\nhave a large number of declared friends\u201d (Huberman, Romero and Wu, 2009. p.1).\nTherefore, this indicates that the notion of reciprocity plays a central role\nin individual determinants of who to engage with and \u2018follow\u2019 online \u201cOn\nFacebook, for example, reciprocity comes in many forms: the initial exchange\ninvolving a \u2018friend request\u2019 and the corresponding acceptance of this\ninvitation, the giving and receiving of comments or simple indications of\n\u2018liking\u2019 in response to friends\u2019 posts, the ability to share photos and videos\nand electronically \u2018tag\u2019 the friends who appear in them, and in the opportunity\nto use third-party applications to engage in a wide range of other reciprocal\nactivities, from having a virtual food fight with a friend to giving\npersonalized virtual gifts\u201d (Vallor, 2012. p.189). This suggests reciprocal\nattention and engagement are social processes afforded by technology, such as\nFacebook, whereby participants are more inclined to interact and communicate\nwith virtual \u2018friends\u2019 who demonstrate a certain degree of engagement with\ntheir online consumption practices and activity, rather than based on the\npremise of their level of friendship, both online or offline. For these\nreasons, social network sites, such as Facebook have profoundly transformed the\nway people connect and establish relationships in the mediated public sphere. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Performative Aspects<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In conjunction with the notion of the shifted meaning of the term\n\u2018friend\u2019, the expansion of social network sites, specifically Facebook, has\nchanged the way people connect and develop relationships in the digital public\nrealm. In particular, there is an increasing recalibration towards visibility\nof perceived online identity that correlates with performative behaviours. Boyd\nargues that social network interfaces afford the construction and\nself-presentation of virtual identities, whereby signify meaningful\nrelationships with others. Boyd contends that social network sites are\ndifferentiated from other digital communication sites, through the network\u2019s\nfeature that enables participants to publicly display their connections to\nothers within the system. This allows users to browse others\u2019 profiles, send a\nfriendship request, and accept or decline requests from others. The friends\nlist often exhibits a list of photos with links to that individuals’ profile.\nThis can be interpreted as participants are afforded the ability to surf social\nnetwork sites and multiple profiles of \u2018friendship\u2019 through a chain of links\n(Boyd, 2006). Thus, the visible chain of friendship suggests that social\nnetworking sites promote people to select friends based on the premise of what\nthey want visible or public \u201cWhile Friending is a social act, the actual\ncollection of Friends and the display of Top Friends provides space for people\nto engage in identity performance\u201d (Boyd, 2006. p.1). This idea is also\nreferred to as the Public Display of Connections. For instance, Facebook users\ncan project an online identity by \u201cwriting themselves into being\u201d (Boyd, 2006.\np.1) through not only the display of their friend\u2019s list, but through their\nprofile images, comments and likes, engagement with other users, instant\nmessaging and by tagging individuals in other forms of media within the social\nnetwork (Nadkarni and Hofmann, 2012). Furthermore, Boyd and Ellison argue that\nsocial network sites help strangers to connect online, who share common\ninterests and views \u201cSites like MySpace allow users to choose whether they want\ntheir profile to be public or \u201cFriends only.\u201d Facebook takes a different\napproach\u2014by default, users who are part of the same \u201cnetwork\u201d can view each\nother\u2019s profiles, unless a profile owner has decided to deny permission to\nthose in their network\u201d (Boyd and Ellison, 2007. p.1). Therefore, this\nreinforces the notion that social networks have transformed the ways people\nestablish friendships, due to increased visibility of one\u2019s profile and digital\nmedia consumption practices. However, this also raises ethical concerns\nsurrounding privacy issues, as increased visibility leads to a reduction in\nprivacy. Nonetheless, it can be seen that the way people connect and establish\nrelationships through the digital public sphere has changed, due to the\nproliferation of social networks. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Counter Arguments<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast, the counter-arguments will explore the social cognitive and\nbehavioural sides of social networks, the issues of privacy, identity\ndeception, and online disconnection. In particular, Boase articulates the\nsocial dimensions of cognitive and behaviour are the driving factors in\nestablishing and maintaining relationships online, rather than determined by\nthe assumption of technological affordance \u201cSocial ties have two important\ndimensions: cognition and behaviour. The cognitive dimension includes the\nbelief that a social tie exists, as well as feelings of closeness, memory of\npast interaction and knowledge about that tie\u201d (Boase, 2008. p.1). Boase\nfurther ascertains that \u201cThe behavioural dimension is interaction that\ntypically occurs by way of mediated and unmediated communication. When thinking\nof ties in this way it is clear that the social significance of communication\ntechnology lies not in how it alters ties as an external force, but rather in\nthe fact that it is embedded in behaviour that is essential to the existence of\nties\u201d (Boase, 2008. p.1). Moreover, Boyd similarly argues that there is an\ninter-connected link between mediated social network spaces and physical spaces\n\u201cSocial network sites are not digital spaces disconnected from other social\nvenues \u2014 it is a modeling of one aspect of participants\u2019 social worlds and that\nmodel is evaluated in other social contexts\u201d (Boyd, 2006. p.1). These ideas can\nbe interpreted as social exchanges and behaviours that potentially already\nexisted in the physical realm, and are now being mirrored through a mediated\nspace. This suggests that micro social norms, behaviours and relationships in\nthe physical realm, have not necessarily changed, but rather create and sustain\nthe foundations in which people engage and interact online. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition to the notion of social cognitive and behavioural aspects,\nincreasing visibility of oneself online has potentially adverse consequences.\nAccording to Boyd and Ellison \u201cSNSs are also challenging legal conceptions of\nprivacy. For example, do police officers have the right to access content\nposted to Facebook without a warrant? The legality of this hinges on users\u2019\nexpectation of privacy and whether or not Facebook profiles are considered\npublic or private\u201d (Boyd and Ellison, 2007. P.1). The duo further expressed\nconcerns about the digital privacy paradox, as research reported that students\nusing Facebook, there is a disconnect between the desire to protect privacy and\ntheir online behaviours (Boyd and Ellison, 2007. p.1). According to Donath and\nBoyd, the pair similarly express concern articulating that \u201cBy making all of\none\u2019s connections visible to all the others, social networking sites remove the\nprivacy barriers that people keep between different aspects of their lives\u201d (Donath\nand Boyd, 2004. p.7). Although raising ethical and safety concerns for social\nnetwork users, is this perhaps plausible for a participant to create a fake\nprofile and remain anonymous online? Donath and Boyd provide insightful\nanalysis into this issue \u201cIt is possible that the connections listed are not\nreal people. There is often little or no verification of people when they sign\nup to join most networking sites. It is easy to create a false persona; the\ncosts lie in building the network. The determined deceiver can create a series\nof false profiles and have them link to each other, creating the illusion of a\nnetwork of well-connected participants\u201d (Donath and Boyd, 2004. p.5) therefore,\nfalsified profiles and identity deception on the one hand, perhaps might solve\nthe issue of privacy, however, produces another ethical issue debate. Moreover,\nMolz argues within the context of flashpackers, that technologies afford a\n\u2018disconnect\u2019 from both localised experiences, and online (Molz, 2013). Molz\nexpressed that \u201cconstant Internet access as an obstacle to \u2018real\u2019 connections.\u201d\n(Molz, 2013. p.1), therefore this notion can be interpreted as technologies and\nsocial networks designed to connect people, perhaps may have the opposite of\nthe intended effect, resulting in decreased social connections and isolation.\nFor these reasons, there are several counter-arguments that debate and\nchallenge the dominant argument that the growth of social networks, such as\nFacebook has profoundly transformed the way people connect and build\nrelationships in the digital public sphere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consequently, the proliferation of social networks, including Facebook,\nhas changed the way people connect and establish relationships in the digital\npublic sphere through the dominant notions of a new meaning and understanding\nof the multifaceted term \u2018friend\u2019 and performative aspects afforded by\ntechnology such as the public display of connections and constructing one\u2019s\nvirtual identity. In contrast, the counter arguments examined the social cognitive\nand behavioural sides of social networks, privacy issues, identity deception,\nand concerns of disconnection. It can be seen that mediated spaces and social\nnetworks have to some extent transformed the behaviours, methodology and\ndiscourses surrounding social connectivity and establishing relationships.\nHowever, it is not without its limitations and concerns, as this remains a\ntopical issue of debate within academic research. Thus, poses the question how\nwill social networks and communication technologies impact users\u2019 relationships\nin the future? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This work is Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<a rel=”license”\nhref=”http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc\/4.0\/”><img\nalt=”Creative Commons Licence” style=”border-width:0″\nsrc=”https:\/\/i.creativecommons.org\/l\/by-nc\/4.0\/88×31.png” \/><\/a><br\n\/>This work is licensed under a <a rel=”license”\nhref=”http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc\/4.0\/”>Creative\nCommons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Boase, J. (2008). Personal Networks and the\nPersonal Communication System. Information, Communication & Society<\/em>,\n11<\/em>(4): 490-508. https:\/\/doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/10.1080\/13691180801999001.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Boyd, d. (2006). Friends, Friendsters and Top\n8: Writing Community into Being on Social Network Sites. First Monday<\/em>, 12<\/em>(4).\nRetrieved from https:\/\/firstmonday.org\/article\/view\/1418\/1336.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Boyd, d., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social\nNetwork Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of\nComputer-Mediated Communication<\/em>, 13<\/em>(1).
\nhttp:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1111\/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x\/full.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bucher, T., & Helmond, A. (2017). The\nAffordances of Social Media Platforms<\/em> (1st ed., Vol. 2). London and New\nYork: SAGE Publications. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.annehelmond.nl\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/\/2016\/07\/BucherHelmond_SocialMediaAffordances-preprint.pdf.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Donath, J., & boyd, d. (2004). Public\nDisplays of Connection. BT Technology Journal<\/em>, 22<\/em>(4), 71-82. DRAFT\nhttp:\/\/smg.media.mit.edu\/papers\/Donath\/socialnetdisplay.draft.pdf.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Haines, R. (2013). Organisation in\nContemporary Public Sphere. The USV Annals of Economics and Public\nAdministration,<\/em> 13<\/em>(2), 265-273. Retrieved from http:\/\/annals.seap.usv.ro\/index.php\/annals\/article\/view\/568\/606.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Huberman, B. A., Romero, D. M., & Wu, F.\n(2009). Social Networks that Matter: Twitter Under the Microscope. First\nMonday,<\/em> 14<\/em>(1). Retrieved from https:\/\/firstmonday.org\/article\/view\/2317\/2063.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Molz, J. G. (2013). The social affordances of\nflashpacking: Exploring the mobility nexus of travel and communication. Mobilities<\/em>,\nDOI: 10.1080\/17450101.2013.848605.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nadkarni, A., & G. Hofmann, S. (2012).\nWhy do people use Facebook? Personality and Individual Differences,<\/em> 52<\/em>(3),\n243-249. doi: https:\/\/doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/10.1016\/j.paid.2011.11.007.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vallor, S. (2012). Flourishing on facebook:\nVirtue friendship & new social media.Ethics and Information Technology,\n14<\/em>(3), 185-199.\ndoi:http:\/\/dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/10.1007\/s10676-010-9262-2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Abstract Social networking sites (SNSs) are significantly gaining the attention of academic and scholarly researchers, fascinated by participants widespread consumption practices and the technological affordances that facilitate these. The social media stream within the Debates of Social Media and Online Communities, convenes together literature and empirical studies on this emerging phenomenon. In the introduction, we… Continue reading How Social Networks have Changed the Way People Connect and Establish Relationships<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":60,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-431","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-social"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/431","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/60"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=431"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/431\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":434,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/431\/revisions\/434"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=431"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=431"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=431"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}