Social+Migration

=Social Migration:= Researched by John Zhang

//Page Navigation://
 * 1) History of Communication
 * 2) Mass Communication Theory
 * 3) Telecommunications: Internet
 * 4) Social Networking
 * 5) Social Relations Online
 * 6) Facebook - Social Site

 //History of Communication//
 * **en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_communication**
 * Dates back to earliest signs of life
 * Can be from subtle processes of exchange, to full conversations and mass communication (speech to paper to electronic)
 * Human speech was 200,000 years ago with symbols developing 30,000 years ago and writing about 7,000
 * Recent centuries: telecommunication revolution
 * Speech:
 * Evolution of brain separated humans from animals
 * Mutation of FOXP2 gene (homo sapiens) responsible
 * Improved transmission of knowledge + information for future generations + ability to adapt to environment (change themselves or environment much more quickly)
 * Results: colonization, abstract concepts, technology, coordination, top of food chain
 * Voice can only travel to certain distances + relied on human memory (can become lost & corrupt)
 * Symbols:
 * Speech generated other forms of communication through ideas + invention (e.g. symbol)
 * Improved range and time it could communicate
 * Symbol is a conventional representation of concept
 * Cave paintings: rock art dating to Upper Paleolithic
 * Oldest painting: Chauvet Cave (30,000 BC)
 * Cro-Magnon may have created first calendar (around 15,000 years ago)
 * Connection between drawing + writing were one of the same in Ancient Egypt and Greece
 * Petroglyphs: carvings into rock surface (10,000 BC)
 * Possible humans used other forms of communication for mnemonic purposes (arranged stones, symbols carved into wood and earth, quipu-like ropes, tattoos)
 * Little has survived until modern times
 * Pictograms: represent concept, object, activity, place or event by illustration (proto-writing)
 * Ideas transmitted through drawing
 * Difference from petroglyphs: it is telling a story about even rather than showing event
 * Used since 9,000 BC by many cultures
 * Label basic farm produce around 6000 to 5000 BC
 * Basis of cuneiform + hieroglyphs and began to develop into logographic writing systems around 5000 BC
 * Ideograms: graphic symbols that represent an idea
 * Pictograms were more literal as opposed to abstractness of ideograms (concepts meaning more than 1 thing)
 * Many cultures had similar ideograms with ideas being universal (e.g. eye with tear mean sadness in Native American ideograms in California & in Aztecs, early Chinese + Egyptians
 * It was precursor to logographic writing system such as hieroglyphs and Chinese characters
 * Early forms of ideographical proto writing: Vinca script and Indus Script
 * Writing: divided into three categories – logographic, syllabic, and alphabet
 * But all three can be found in any given writing system
 * Invention of first writing system was roughly at beginning of Bronze Age in late Neolithic of 4th millennium BC
 * First writing system believed to be during prehistoric Summer + developed by late 3rd millennium into cuneiform
 * Hieroglyphs, proto-Elamite + Indus Valley script date to era
 * Original Sumerian system derived from system of clay to represent commodities but evolved into method of keeping accounts by end of 4th millennium BC
 * Used round-shaped stylus impressed into soft clay at different angles to record numbers (on top of pictograph to indicate what was being counted)
 * Replaced by wedge-shaped stylus about 2700-2000 BC (cuneiform)
 * First used logograms but evolved to include phonetic elements by 2800 BC
 * 2600 BC: cuneiform represent syllables of Sumerian language then became general purpose writing system for logograms, syllables and numbers
 * By 26th century BC: script adopted by another Mesopotamian language (Akkadian) and to others such as Hurrian and Hittite
 * Old Persian + Ugaritic also represented similar writing system appearances
 * Chinese script originated independently around 16th century BC with Chinese system of prototyping dating back to 6,000 BC
 * Pre-Columbian writing systems of Americas (also Olmec and Mayan) also believed to have independent origins
 * Alphabet: first pure alphabets emerged around 2000 BC in Ancient Egypt
 * By then, alphabetic principles has been incorporated into hieroglyphs for millennium
 * 2700 BC – Egyptians had set of 22 hieroglyphs represent syllables that begin with single consonant of language + vowels/no vowels supplied by native speaker
 * Used as pronunciation guides for logograms, to write grammatical inflections and to give loan words + names
 * But it was never a system and was not used to encode Egyptian speech (it was speculated alphabet was developed later in 1700 BC but nature open to interpretation)
 * Over next 5 centuries, this alphabet spread north and inspired world with exception of Korean Hangul
 * History of telecommunications:
 * Telecommunication: transmission of signals over a distance for the purposes of communication began with smoke signals + drums in Africa + parts of Asia
 * 1790s: first fixed semaphore systems emerged in Europe but was not until 1830s that electrical telecommunications started to appear
 * Visual signals (non-electronic):
 * Prehistoric – fires, beacons, smoke signals
 * 6th century BC – mail
 * 5th century BC – pigeon post
 * 4th century BC – hydraulic semaphores
 * 490 BC – heliographs
 * 15 century AD – maritime flags
 * 1790 AD – semaphore lines
 * 19th century AD – signal Lamps
 * Audio signals:
 * Prehistoric - communication drums, horns
 * 1838 AD – electrical telegraph
 * 1876 – telephone
 * 1880 – photophone
 * 1896 – radio
 * Advanced electrical/electronic signals:
 * 1927 –television
 * 1930 – videophone
 * 1964 – fiber optical communications
 * 1969 – computer networking
 * 1981 – analog cellular mobile phones
 * 1982 – SMTP email
 * 1983 - Internet
 * 1998 - satellite phones


 * 1)** []


 * 2)** [|http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Religious_syms.svg]


 * 3)** http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Haljesta.jpg


 * 4)** http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Piktograf1.png


 * 5)** http://ginam.lookingforwhitman.org/files/2009/09/Hieroglyphs11.jpg


 * 6)** http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Caslon-schriftmusterblatt.jpeg


 * 7)** http://www.medievalwarfare.info/pics/firebeacon.jpg


 * 8)** http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Wj1Rt3Yxk08/RkoKPEiIi3I/AAAAAAAAAAU/rSo0nDV8kGA/s320/01fig02.png


 * 9)** http://www.respitenorthandwest.org.au/links/items/2004/01/155314-upload-00001.jpg


 * 10)** http://www.yourpersonalcomputerexpert.com/images/global%20computer%20network.jpg

 //Mass Communication Theory//
 * **Essentials of Mass Communication Theory – Berger, Authur Asa (ISBN: 0585251320)**
 * 5 focal points of mass communication and media
 * Artwork: popular art
 * Audience: selective
 * Medium: print + digital mediums
 * Society: culture
 * Artist: creators of media
 * Arguments about mass media + communication has been going on for 50 years
 * Also need to take consideration of time period
 * Mass communication: information is disseminated to large numbers of people
 * Mass media: carrying or communicating material to these people
 * Mass: heterogeneous (many ethnic groups), do not know each other, separated and cannot interact with each other, no leadership + very loose organization
 * But notions challenged – e.g. word of mouth is interaction
 * Opinion leader theory: small groups exposed to opinions of group leaders
 * Mass has negative connotations in American society: suggest crowd easily manipulated by demagogues (group of people who are alienated from one another and can be dangerous in certain situations)
 * America: only has content from medium in common
 * Individualism could become excessive and lead to state of anarchy but also pointed out that Americans are inveterate joiners, members of many voluntary associations
 * Narrowcasting: catering to variety of tastes
 * Another meaning: matter of communication itself transmitted to large numbers of people by one or another medium
 * Focus on communication rather than audience
 * If television broadcast is watched by one person, is that mass media?
 * Communication: communities held together by communication
 * Cultures passed from generation to generation (information transfer)
 * Communications refers to both process + message
 * Quality of communication process understood higher among participants who have certain things in common (experience, values, beliefs)
 * Process of communication, mass or otherwise require encoding (by sender) and decoding (by receiver) – sharing of codes/language
 * Intrapersonal communication: internal/intrapsychic dialogue that takes place in head
 * Content is thoughts while medium is neurological/chemical apparatus
 * Interpersonal communication: takes place between person and someone else or some others in relatively small collection of people
 * Medium is airwaves while text is what is said + how it is said
 * Also communicated through non-verbal means – body language, facial expression, clothes, etc.
 * Small Group Communication: involves considerable number of people (e.g. lecture)
 * Also use various kinds of nonverbal communication
 * Mass communication: use of print or electronic media such as newspapers, magazines, film, radio or television to communication to large numbers of people located in various places (may be in groups or alone)
 * Elements: images, spoken language, printed language, sound effects, music, color, lighting, etc.
 * Lasswell’s Communication model:
 * Who? Says what? In which channel? To Whom? With what effect?
 * Focus on audience + society in general (takes effects into consideration)
 * Flaw: takes for granted that communicator has some intention of influencing receiver (persuasive process)
 * Did not consider feedback (model is unidirectional)
 * Gerbner’s Model of Communication:
 * Someone perceives an event and reacts in a situation through some means to make available materials in some form and context conveying content with some consequence
 * Focus on perception and reaction by perceiver and consequences
 * Jakobson’s Model of Communication Process
 * Sender or speaker sends message to receiver -> message delivered by code (language) via a contact (medium) such as speech
 * Context in which message is found help us find meaning
 * Meaning affected by context + contact
 * Process of communication complicated – message is not the meaning
 * Messages have number of functions – referential (relates to surroundings in which speaker finds him/herself), emotive (expressing feelings), and poetic (involve use of literary devices such as metaphors, similes, etc.) to give tone and distinctive qualities
 * Messages include signs (non-verbal) – always sending
 * Osgood-Schramm Circular Model:
 * Deals with feedback – focuses on individuals involved in communication process (message senders are also message receivers)
 * Encoding to be understood to mean putting information into form that can be understood and sending a message
 * Decoding means receiving encoded message and interpreting it
 * The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis:
 * Words used affect messages sent + shape responses people give to messages as well as people’s perceptions of their society/world
 * Language as prism used to make sense of world (always has distortion)
 * Tied to language habits of group we find ourselves
 * Media plays major role in shaping message they convey
 * The Play Theory of Mass Communication:
 * Most significant function of mass communication is to facilitate subjective play
 * Give people pleasure, an interlude from pressing matters that concern them most of the time
 * 2 functions of mass communication:
 * Provide play – influence customs, normalize manners, give people something to talk about
 * Shake up society – short circuit beliefs and substitute new values
 * Social controls + convergent selective conditions:
 * Social controls tied to deeply internalized beliefs (difficult to change)
 * Convergent conditions is about trivial matters
 * Mass communication is good at changing convergent desires but bad at changing basic beliefs


 * 1)** []


 * 2)** []


 * 3)** []


 * 4)** []


 * 5)** []


 * 6)** []

**7)** http://khalilbahad.efoliomn.com/Uploads/1459055735_3480b4050e_float.jpg


 * 8)** http://halfdone.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/thinker.jpg


 * 9)** http://www.kenston.k12.oh.us/khs/academics/social-studies/img/hand-world.jpg


 * 10)** http://www.liberatemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/personalcircuits1.jpg

 //Telecommunications: Internet’s impact on users//
 * **The Internet and the Mass Media – Kung, Lucy (ISBN – 9781412947350)**
 * Users, technology and technological determinism
 * Technologies are used in social context and have to fulfill existing needs (many technologies become failures)
 * Internet affected way people work, study and look for information or communicate with others
 * Users also affect way people around world interact with media, content and other users
 * Internet only took 7 years to reach 50 million users as opposed to 50 years of telephone or 20 years for television
 * 2006: 1 billion users
 * The concept of users
 * Internet users are active (looking for content)
 * Internet must be used, played, searched, surfed, navigated (engagement is almost an obligation)
 * Building of personal medium (no 2 same experience)
 * Acts as medium for information, entertainment, personal communication and social platform
 * Interactivity: variable characteristic of communication setting
 * Message is shaped + formed real time
 * The time hypothesis
 * Expect people to have access to Internet on regular basis and most of all groups have broadband access to medium have grown up with it
 * Differ from groups without this relation to Internet
 * Spend more time with this medium than others
 * Thesis is that established media are not replaced but changed and used in different ways
 * The media-use hypothesis
 * Incorporate medium to social practice – sheer amount of information and entertainment material
 * Communication medium + interactive medium
 * People relating to existing mediums will change due to Internet
 * Related technologies
 * Mapping penetration and use, focuses on ownership and use of computers
 * Use of phones, game computers, satellite TV, mobile music players, digital cameras, etc. is related to Internet use
 * E.g. MP3 player – iPod’s appeal is downloaded music
 * Network benefits: as new gadgets improve optimization of previous ones (Internet, PC), they are welcomed by users
 * User’s behavior confirms that there are needs that must be addressed in different ways depending on situation
 * E.g. work requires small screens while home requires big
 * Research shows young people are adopting digital media faster than rest of population (age factor is important)
 * Adoption, penetration and consumption
 * What extent people in different countries are connected to the Internet?
 * Penetration
 * 2003: Luxemburg, UK, Netherlands + Nordic countries had Internet penetration of 50% or more with Germany, Belgium, Italy and Austria having penetration level of more than 40%
 * 2005: 70% of European homes connected while 80% in Netherlands
 * US 2004: 63% used internet while 81% of teenagers go online
 * 2005: 71% of teens go online with access from home
 * Leaders in broadband in Europe are Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain
 * More information on page 92 (chart)
 * Growth in broadband explained by competitive market
 * Invest in technologies beyond cable + DSL – experiment with WiFi and wimax technologies, offer satellite internet and explore 3G
 * Mobile internet responsible for growth of mobile services in general during 2004 and 2005
 * Penetration and age/gender divides
 * UK Children Go Online – reported that 75% of children between 9-19 years of age have access to internet at home
 * 1/3 have broadband while school access is universal
 * 88% of middle class children have internet access but only 61% of working class children do
 * Children use the Internet more than their parents
 * Modest gender difference: boys use it more than girls
 * Portugal: 34 years or younger use internet
 * Spain: 10-18 prefer interactive medium
 * Gender + age divides are slowly narrowing
 * Education + wealth are strong predictors for Internet use
 * Cost of computers = main obstacles for getting online
 * Internet penetration lower in rural + remote areas
 * Internet Use
 * 2004-2005: 17% growth in time spent on Internet
 * France has 13 hours average (lead)
 * Internet is Europe’s preferred medium – using e-mail, getting news, checking whether, etc.
 * Political + social participation, development of new online communities and new forms of online activism is not flourishing
 * No overwhelming proof that globalization or cultural change is taking place (use internet for information source/communication only)
 * Consequences for other media
 * First order effects concern time spent on Internet that is not spent on other media (e.g. TV)
 * Second order effects deal with use of other media (new expectations)
 * First order effects
 * Net-generation – younger generation’s use of traditional media (e.g. newspaper) has dropped
 * There may be other reasons but Internet is a huge factor
 * Waldvogel: concluded that there is a clear evidence of substitution between the Internet and broadcast TV/newspapers
 * Internet time rose while reading time dropped
 * Multitasking with Internet users (hard to collect data)
 * “The Internet has a competitive displacement effect on traditional media in the daily news domain with the largest displacements occurring for television and newspapers” – Dimmick, Chen and Li 2004
 * World Press Trends (2006): total amount of time devoted to internet is rising, television is dropping in four cases and rising slightly in Canada and Taiwan
 * Newspaper time is more or less stable in 4 of countries but drop in China and Switzerland
 * Overall, time spent on media has increased
 * General conclusion: time spent online partly comes from other media but all countries some media suffer from new competition
 * Music industry is also suffering (CD sales dropping)
 * Downloaded music exceeds CD (use is not affected)
 * Second order effects
 * Interactive nature did not contaminate other media apart from convenience
 * Little proof other media became more interactive due to Internet
 * News on Internet is free (become more universal in many countries)
 * Notion that news is free is becoming a reality (effect on paid newspapers and other news media)
 * Conclusion
 * Data on Internet differ but trend is clear – many developed countries already in situation where majority of population uses internet on daily basis
 * There is still a substantial group who do not use internet
 * There is a time-shift but not a functional shift from other media
 * General knowledge level – trust on the Internet is low while other media is trusted more


 * 1)** []


 * 2)** []


 * 3)** []


 * 4)** []


 * 5)** []


 * 6)** http://opinae.com/img/Music-industry.jpg


 * 7)** http://www.ctpost.com/mediaManager/?controllerName=image&action=get&id=210467&width=628&height=471


 * 8)** http://dianhasan.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/ipod-series.jpg


 * 9)** http://www.digitaldigressions.net/photos/uncategorized/23152951_ef6f88fe2d_1.jpg


 * 10)** http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/13482-workaholic.jpg

 //Social Networking//
 * **Being Virtual, Who You Really Are Online – Winder, Davey (ISBN: 9780470723623)**
 * Immersive 3D words are highly addictive places to be (some people live in virtual world to escape problem of real world)
 * Find fame + fortune online
 * 2-D environments are also absorbing
 * As technology improves, nature of community building moves with it
 * Apparent in Web 2.0-driven ideal of social networking sites
 * Blogging to podcasts to YouTube and social networking sites fall under Web 2.0 umbrella
 * Social networking: allow people to create networks of friends, reach out to friends of those friends and keep everyone updated on their lives
 * MySpace, LinkedIn, Facebook
 * 1 billion minutes spent online at Facebook by its 60 million members
 * Friend of friend concept = attractive appeal (desire to know and be known)
 * Hard to do in reality – would not call everyone on contact list to meet
 * Many people treat social networking as some kind of game (collecting)
 * Dr Will Reader at Sheffield Hallam University suggests while people claim to have more friends, it is not a guarantee you will have more friends
 * Close friends will remain constant
 * Company behind Second Life seem to agree (Catherine Smith)
 * Online communities exist to share interests + experiences
 * Distance no longer an issue (brought together people who would not normally have connected)
 * Notion of collective shared experience = key to success of Web 2.0
 * But psychologists insisted that certain social rules are part + parcel of genetic make-up and little can be done to change that
 * Stanford graduate Nick Yee claims social interactions online are governed by same social norms as social interactions in physical world
 * E.g. females stand closer in conversations but males tend to move away directly from eye contact (applies to avatars)
 * But many other factors come into play (E.g. programming)
 * Some people using social network to promote attention (lonelygirl15 – on the run)
 * The videos was a soap opera composed by California group
 * Also contained commercial product placement advertising
 * Bebo is another social networking site with 35 million members (like Facebook)
 * Hard to differentiate fantasy with reality (blur lines between media + real life)


 * 1)** []


 * 2)** []


 * 3)** []


 * 4)** http://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/bebotimeline020309-1.png


 * 5)** <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: 100% 50%; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; cursor: pointer; padding-right: 10px;">[]


 * 6)** <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: 100% 50%; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; cursor: pointer; padding-right: 10px;">[]


 * 7)** http://blog.hostbaby.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/social-networking-sites.jpg

XSKS5yFyl69JejMnKqYvZ8S*THDP9eUW195ykLqeU/feb09_socialnetworking_375_turn.jpg
 * 8)** http://api.ning.com/files/hEZfhJxUA4dM0bYhLez9sa3dnmrqffil4pwlBjgaQgxj-mC1bynZ0Fz


 * 9)** http://www.glasbergen.com/wp-content/gallery/social-networking/socnet-10.gif


 * 10)** http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/rro/lowres/rron346l.jpg

 //Social Relations Online://
 * **Computers, phones, and the Internet [electronic resource]: domesticating information technology – Robert Kraut (ISBN: 9780195346275)**
 * Effects of digital interaction for individual, work, social relationships, society not clear
 * Research is infancy (around 20 years) and difficult to conclude in broad terms
 * Internet interact with goals, motivations, and personal characteristics of individual
 * Produce psychological + interpersonal outcomes – have reasons and motivations to use Internet
 * Uses and Gratification Theory (Blumler & Katz, 1974) – particular purposes within communication setting solely determine outcome of interaction regardless of features
 * Can predict outcome reliably for those with similar goals
 * But other research (Hiltz & Turoff – engineering) saw electronic communication has having effect on user interaction (e.g. anonymity + lack of physical presence)
 * Reduce visual cues model – deindividuating effect (allow other behavior such as flaming and more self-centered with all status levels to contribute equally)
 * Limited bandwidth model – assume that Internet communication are same for all users and across all contexts
 * Third approach (recent) focuses on interaction between features of Internet communication setting and particular goals and needs of communicators as well as social context of interaction setting
 * Agree Internet has an impact on social interaction but argue effect can be quite different depending on individual differences and social context
 * 3 Individual difference variables: loneliness and social anxiety, aspects or versions of self expressed, and motivations for using Internet
 * There are many other factors but these 3 are studied most
 * Loneliness & Social Anxiety:
 * Socially anxious + shy individuals have difficulty forming social bonds (social anxiety + loneliness correlation)
 * Those suffering from social anxiety feel less likeable + accepted and actually tend to be that way
 * Experiment involving NYUniversity students (anxious + nonanxious) – reinforced view of reduced anxiety online
 * Will online increase distance in real world and become dissatisfied?
 * Pittsburgh study – both introverts + extroverts increase local + distant social circles with increase amount of face contact with family and friends but introverts still become more lonely (reduced involvement)
 * Also be able to express their true selves online than non-electronic interactions with family + friends (development of meaningful relationships that could be brought to reality)
 * Study after 2 years: both introvert + extrovert feel less lonely
 * But not everyone use Internet for the same way – used for research, e-mail, online chatting, shipping, games, surfing, etc.
 * Non-social activity may increase loneliness and vice versa
 * No simple, clear-cut answer – outcomes depend on use of Internet, quality of relationship and kind of self-expression engaged online
 * Aspects of Self Expressed Online:
 * 2 features that facilitate self-expression: ability to be relatively anonymous and provides people the opportunity to readily find others who are similar
 * Sense of freedom free constraints + expectations placed on person and reduce risk of social sanctions (e.g. express beliefs)
 * Avoid being left out of group – does not have to conform
 * Theory that people possess multiple sense of self (inside personality versus public personality)
 * Allow self to be fully accepted with similar others and feel socially validated online (powerful effects on one’s identity + self concept)
 * Meet social + psychological needs not met in real life
 * Internet relationships also can foster into real identities (transform public face)
 * Can apply to both introverts + extroverts
 * Self-disclosure = important in development of closeness + intimacy
 * Studies show those who use chat rooms would develop closer relationships than those who meet face to face (same partners)
 * Significant correlation between degree of liking, conversational quality and closeness online but none offline
 * Attributed to fact there is no ‘facial features’ to judge likeness
 * These studies apply only to cross-sex studies
 * Content related to the participant’ true self was more accessible following Internet interaction than face-to-face and vice versa
 * Online: true self | offline: actual self
 * Although these are positive results, it depends on individual use of Internet
 * True self more accessible + active online
 * Motivation and Goals:
 * All behavior is motivated in some way and one engages in particular behaviors to further a desired end (enduring + pan-situational)
 * Find express through situationally appropriate goals
 * Different motives + goals may underlie same surface behavior
 * Goals of individual group member can interact online to produce social + psychological effects and affect processes and function of group as whole
 * The Group x Internet Interaction:
 * Many cases – group functioning + social interact online follow same rules as physical interaction (part of identity)
 * Women likely to find relationship-related activities in both domains to be more gratifying in general than do men and to maintain relationships with family + friends in distant locales
 * Group norms also emerge in same way as face-to-face
 * Self-completion theory, social identity theory and self-categorization theory was tested and shown to apply to online groups
 * Anonymity and the Salience of the Group Identity:
 * Difference in online group: ability of members to be anonymous in interactions
 * Leads to sense of depersonalization by group members
 * Feel absence of personal accountability + identity – group-level identity becomes more important (may be stronger than real life)
 * Degree of salience – affect effects of anonymity on group norm
 * Anonymity creates more conformity due to lack of intimacy
 * Self-presentational motivations can drive identifiable participants to engage in increased group-normative behavior
 * Behavior in online groups shaped by positive + negative feedback but to extent of importance of identity
 * Anonymity and Group Status:
 * Online abolishes racial, gender and age-related features and allow equal treatment of group members
 * But although opinions can be expressed, it is less influential within group
 * Anonymity can make status in online groups more/less important on type of status differences and whether those differences are easily observed
 * The Character and Purpose of the Group:
 * Kinds of effects on members that are produced online depend on large extent on characteristics and type of group
 * Workplace: more aggressive behavior exaggerated due to over-reporting
 * Online/offline communication affect negotiations
 * Expect people to immediately read e-mail and associate delays with stalling, power-plays or disrespect
 * Work groups also make more poor group decisions despite exchanging 50% more vital information
 * Also hard to maintain mutual knowledge to reach a decision
 * But this does not apply to all workplaces (mature workplaces can coordinate well online)
 * Common Bond Versus Common Identity Groups:
 * Common bond – group of friends: individual’s attachment based o bonds that exist between group members
 * Common identity group: based on one’s identification with group as a whole (purpose + goals)
 * Greater adherence to group norms in common identity groups
 * Apply to online as well
 * Socially Stigmatized Groups:
 * Important aspects for one’s identity for which there is no equivalent offline group (e.g. homosexual)
 * Incorporate virtual group membership into self-concepts and becomes new and important self-aspect
 * Allow motivation to reveal self to family + friends and result in being less isolated + more accepted
 * Can be positive or negative depending on degree of harm (e.g. pedophilia + racism)
 * Online Support:
 * Online support groups help those who are suffering from illnesses with comfort and information (e.g. embarrassed to talk about, physically impaired or lack of mobility/real life support)
 * But replacing real life support can lead to negative results


 * 1)** []


 * 2)** []


 * 3)** []


 * 4)** []


 * 5)** []

 <span style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">//Facebook - Social Site://
 * **Fac(book)ing a crowd?: an exploration of audience, context, privacy, and self-presentation on Facebook – Jeremy C. Elder-Jubelin (ISBN: 9780494516249)**
 * People carry out impression management by creating profile (info + interest)
 * FB profile structured into different sections – customizable
 * Interactions also linked to self-presentation (source of cues/information about self)
 * “It is through social interaction and socially embedded public or semi-public action that we affirm our relations, construct our status and ultimately produce the social me in he sense proposed by Mead (1934)”
 * Self-presentation + communication blend into and overlap one another
 * FB’s public news feed presents self-image to world/friends/family
 * Profiles largely made up of expressions given – goal and purpose present self
 * Interactions include both text + subtext in self-presentation
 * Identity is not fixed or wholly self-defined – created by what one does, who does it with and how it is done (flux)
 * FB require little or no maintenance other than interacting with friends
 * Identity-making is more collective – low-maintenance, automatically generated, interaction-based content creation and is affected by one’s own activities and those of one’s friends
 * Profile page – activities and events happening within person’s network
 * Profile is locus of social interaction that evolves and changes to reflect various dynamics within social networks + communities
 * Messages can also be misinterpreted due to lack of physical reaction
 * Boyd – imagine their audience and speak according to norms that they perceive to be generally accepted
 * Due to it being an anchored identity, environment places constraints on freedom of identity claims (content match expectations)
 * Lead to superficiality – restriction of certain information and limiting content to general background information
 * Also limit who can view what (disclosure)
 * Can be compared to one-way mirror (either acknowledge or ignore imagined audience)
 * If windows are rendered transparent, it might disrupt conceptions and encourage more self-conscious attitude than already exist
 * Profile is central locus for self-presentation – first impression of user and second impression after offline interaction
 * Create sense of presence on social networking sites
 * Communication and interaction:
 * Audience awareness emerge while discussing interaction – limiting disclosure
 * Choosing what to say and what not to say
 * Filtering system – what content is appropriate for all the see before post
 * Lowest common denominator approach – things willing to say to any of friends
 * Private messages are sent through messaging or e-mail
 * Avoiding personal material – not anonymous


 * 1)** []


 * 2)** []

<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
 * 3)** []


 * 4)** []


 * 5)** http://palegurl.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/facebook.jpg