AN INVESTIGATION OF #FRIENDS INTERNET RELAY CHAT 
AS A COMMUNITY

by 

DAVID ALAN COON 

B.A., Southeastern Louisiana University, 1996 

--------------------------------- 

A THESIS 
submitted in partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for the degree 
MASTER OF ARTS 
 

Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work 
College of Arts and Sciences 

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY 
Manhattan, Kansas 

1998 

Approved by:
Major Professor
Dr. W. Richard Goe

===============================================================================================
ABSTRACT
A large number of publications have referred to the Internet as a  "community" 
without elaborating on this point. Few studies have attempted  to take a sociological 
conception of community and applied it to the  Internet, and those that have, have given 
only a cursory treatment of the  classical community literature at best. The purpose of 
this thesis,  therefore, was to apply a sociological conception of  "community" to a part 
of the Internet. This thesis examines the presence of elements which typically indicate 
the presence of community in a  sociological sense, through survey research of  
participants of the #friends IRC Internet "chat room."  The survey was used to 
determine the nature  and extent of social network formation in the context of how this 
relates  to a sociological definition of community. Three principal areas were 
investigated by the survey: communal social relations, geographic proximity, and 
community sentiment. This thesis also classified  various forms of Computer Mediated 
Communication (CMC) found on the Internet and framed how each of these types of 
interaction fits into a  scheme of community.

Findings indicated that the majority of the social relationships which exist in 
#friends met the characteristics needed for communal social relations.  It was found that 
the majority of the social networks formed in #friends were large in geographic scope.  
There was found to be a fair amount of community sentiment in #friends, and a high 
degree of attachment among those with close friendship ties in #friends.  Based on the 
findings, it can be concluded that the #friends chatroom on IRC has many of the 
characteristics of a community and can be considered a Avirtual community.@


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. W. Richard Goe for serving as  my major advisor.  Also, 
thanks to  Dr. Michael Timberlake and Dr. Paul Ciccantel, for agreeing to serve as 
committee members.  I would like to acknowledge the late Dr. Robert L. Hale of 
Southeastern Louisiana University for encouraging me to continue on to graduate 
school, and Dr. David P. Shepherd of Southeastern Louisiana University for providing 
me with continued inspiration.  Finally, I would like to extend special thanks to fellow 
graduate student Alpha O. Sheriff  who helped provide me with theoretical guidance in 
the beginning of the project.

	Chapter I
	Introduction
Whether or not people realize it, computers are playing an increasingly important role in 
their daily lives.  In particular, the computer network known as the Internet has 
experienced exponential growth.  By one account, a new homepage on the World Wide 
Web (WWW), a part of the Internet, crops up every thirty seconds.  The use of computers 
in varying capacities is replacing face-to-face social interaction between people.  In some 
offices, co-workers will send e-mail messages to someone in the next cubicle rather than 
interact with that person face-to-face.  Computer mediated communication (CMC) has 
become increasingly widespread.  The extent to which face-to-face social interaction is 
being replaced by CMC should be an important topic of concern among sociologists.  
By far, the largest forum for CMC to occur is the Internet.  The Internet is a 
computer network that links computers all over the world.  Started as the ARPANET 
during the Cold War by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the U.S. 
Department of Defense, it has grown into an international network which now includes 
academic institutions, governments, commercial establishments, and millions of private 
individuals from all around the world.

The Internet is a term which is sometimes misused and abused.  Esther Dyson 
(1997:1-2) makes a distinction between the Net and the Internet.  Dyson sees the Net as a 
linking of both formal and informal computer networks as well as commercial networks 
such as America On Line (AOL) that are linked to the Internet.  The Internet for Dyson 
(1997:1-2) is strictly those computers hooked together using the Internet Protocol (IP).  
This distinction is probably a false one, however.  Almost everyone uses the two terms, 
Net and Internet, interchangeably.  While services like AOL may have services and 
features of their own which are separate and apart from those of  the Internet, AOL itself 
is still connected to the Internet.  For the purposes of this study, however, the Internet will 
be defined as any computer which has access to the forms of CMC that this study will 
examine.  
The Internet allows people sitting behind computer screens, literally at different 
ends of the earth, to communicate with one another and interact socially in a way that is 
unparalleled throughout all of human history.  One might argue that the telephone also 
allowed for such communication, but unlike the Internet, telephones require users to 
know the person they are contacting or at least the specific location, phone number, or 
name of the person they wish to contact.  Someone can simply join a discussion of a 
particular topic of interest on the Internet without even knowing any of the others who are 
involved in the discussion.  These persons can form interest groups, relationships, and 
even have digital romances over the Internet.  It is in this manner that the technology 
mediates and facilitates the formation of social networks.  Persons using various forms of 
CMC over the Internet can form networks of social interaction.

 	The forms of CMC that make up the Internet exist first and foremost to facilitate 
some form of communication between people.  It is for this reason that these forms of 
CMC can serve to facilitate social interaction between people.  The social interaction 
which takes place through the various forms of CMC can involve the formation of social 
ties and social networks, like those which form the basis of  a real world, bounded, 
geographical community.  
Both the popular press and even some of the academic literature has used the term 
"Virtual Community" to refer to the Internet ever since the publication of Howard 
Rhinegold's book in 1993.  Rhinegold, also famous for his book,  Virtual Reality, is the 
person who first coined the term "Virtual Community."  Most of the research which has 
been done in this area, however, takes the usage of the term "Virtual Community" as a 
given, and does not evaluate this concept empirically in any critical fashion.  
For this reason, the Internet has been frequently referred to as a "community"  or a 
"virtual community" with little elaboration on how and why this is the case.  Few studies 
have attempted to assess the ways in which the social interaction that takes place over the 
Internet represents a community in a sociological sense.  Studies that have addressed this 
topic have given only a cursory treatment to the classical community literature.  The few 
existing studies that have attempted to do this have been qualitatively-oriented and 
anecdotal.  There is a lack of empirical, quantitatively-oriented research in this area.  The 
purpose of this study, therefore, will be to assess the ways in which the networks of social 
interaction formed over the Internet meet a sociological definition of the concept of  
"community."  An empirical examination of this issue will be accomplished through the 
use of a survey of  social actors that interact through one of the various forms of CMC on 
the Internet.  

A literature review of some of the classical community literature and some 
community/Internet research is presented in chapter two.  Chapter two will first present 
some of the traditional sociological literature about community such as Tönnies [1887] 
and Hillery (1955), then it will move to a discussion of more recent work about 
traditional communities by Gusfield (1975), Wellman (1979, 1988), Goudy (1982, 1990) 
and others. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of some more recent research 
specifically about the Internet, some of which relates to the idea of "community."
Chapter three will discuss and attempt to classify some of the wide variety of 
various forms of  CMC found on the Internet.  There are many forms of CMC which 
allow social interaction to occur over the Internet.  Real time forms of CMC are most like 
face-to-face communication which occurs in real world, geographical communities.  
While non real-time communication does occur in traditional, real world, 
geographical communities, the mainstay of communication in these communities consists 
of real-time face-to-face interaction.  Use of the term 'community' minimally implies 
some sort of social interaction among groups of people.  The main form of  "real time" 
communication between large groups of people over the Internet is comprised of various 
"chat rooms."  The many types of on-line chat rooms will be discussed in chapter three.  
 Chapter four gives an overview of  the research issues that were examined by this study.  
Chapter five discusses the research methods that were used.  The findings are presented in 
chapter six.  Finally, a discussion of the findings and conclusions about the findings are 
presented in chapter seven.

	Chapter II
	Review of Literature
Statement of the Problem
Popular press accounts of the "Internet Community" or the "Virtual Community" 
raise several questions which sociologists should investigate. What is the nature of the 
social relationships established by persons over the Internet?  Is the Internet really a 
community in a sociological sense?  There is a substantial body of previous research with 
applicability to understanding these questions.
Sociological Definitions of  the Concept of  "Community"

Ferdinand Tönnies ([1887] 1959) was among the first to address the issue of what 
is meant by community.  Tönnies argued that  the notion of community, termed 
Gemeinschaft, represented an ideal type of a collective will governing social relationships 
among humans (Tönnies, [1887] 1959).   Communal social relationships were based on 
emotional attachment, sentiment, and familiarity.  In opposition to Gemeinschaft, or 
community, is a different form of collective will based on rational calculation, 
indifference and self-interest.  This was termed Gesellschaft.  Tönnies contended that 
societies were undergoing a  shift from social relations based on community, to those 
based on Gesellschaft, as industrial capitalism developed within the nation states of 
Western Europe.  Tönnies implicitly gave the concept of community a spatial form by 
contending that the prototypical form of community social organization could be found in 
the rural agrarian village.   Tönnies set the stage for nearly all sociological conceptions of 
community which came later.  Tönnies's view of what represented community has had 
major influence on the use of the concept of community in American Sociology. 
Since Tönnies,  there has been substantial debate about how to define the concept 
of "community" in sociology (Hillery, 1955; Jonassen, 1959; Gusfield, 1975) To date, 
there remains a lack of consensus over a precise definition of the concept. George Hillery 
(1955) argues that this problem exists with concepts in all disciplines.  Hillery (1955) 
examined 94 different definitions of community that were presented in the literature in an 
effort to identify consensual definitions.  Hillery found three areas of agreement, or 
factors, that most of the 94 definitions of community had in common.  The first of these 
three factors which Hillery cited was that most definitions of community include in some 
way, people who are involved in social interaction.  The second factor was that 
community  involves a geographic area.  And finally, the third factor found by Hillery 
was that community involves people who have common ties of some kind.  The notion of 
common ties encompassed a broad array of phenomena including shared lifestyles, 
norms, and values, psychological identification with a community, and the use of shared 
institutions.  Nearly all definitions of community in sociology can be classified in terms 
of the three areas of agreement which Hillery (1955) found: Social interaction, geographic 
area, and common ties.  This research will attempt to frame the Internet in terms of these 
three concepts.  

 	Jonassen, however, argues that Hillery found "agreement on only two points: 
namely no author denied that area "could,"  be an element of community, and all the 
definitions dealt with people (Jonassen, 1959:18)."  By area, Jonassen is referring to 
physical geographic propinquity.  Jonassen's emphasis on the word could most likely 
indicates that Hillery does not see area as a requirement for community, but merely 
something which might serve as a factor to indicate the presence of community.  Some 
sociologists have referred to this as a "loose" conception of community because no limits 
are placed on the size of the geographic area and the concept of common ties 
encompasses such a broad array of phenomena, many of which do not precisely 
correspond to the  Gemeinschaft social relations conceived by Tönnies (e.g. shared 
institutions as being sufficient for community).  
Most sociological research of "community" fits into one or more of these three 
areas of agreement cited by Hillery (1955).  These "three areas of agreement," as Hillery 
calls them, illustrate three different ways in which the concept of community has been 
defined in sociology. Frequently, these concepts have been used separately or in 
combination to define communities. 

Joseph Gusfield (1975) describes two different usages of the term "community" in 
sociology.  The first usage described by Gusfield is the territorial, physical, bounded 
geographical community.  Here, the emphasis is on locality.  Hillery never indicated that 
there were limits to the geographic area of community. This is an additional stipulation 
imposed by Gusfield.  The second of the two uses of the term "community" which 
Gusfield observed was the relational aspect of community, where he argued that the 
emphasis "points to the quality or character of human relationships, without reference to 
location"  (Gusfield; 1975:xvi).  In this usage, a "communal" relationship represents an 
intimate, primary relationship involving emotional attachment as specified by Tönnies.
Flora et al. (1992:14) also outline three ways in which sociologists use the term 
community. But again, all of these involve people interacting in some way.  Flora et al. 
indicate that the first usage of the term community Arefers to a place, a location in which a 
group of people interact with one another@ (Flora et al. 1992:14).  The second  use of the 
term they look at involves a look at the social systems which are said to make up 
communities and the organizations and organizational mechanisms in place which 
facilitate the interaction among people characteristic of communities (Flora et al. 1992).  
The third way which Flora et al. say that sociologists use the term community describes a 
Ashared sense of identity held by a group of people@ (Flora et al. 1992).  
Communal Social Relations

Hillery indicated that social interaction underlies nearly all sociological 
definitions of community.  Hillery's ideas of "social interaction" and "common ties" have 
been addressed by Mark Granovetter (1973), Claude Fischer (1977), Barry Wellman 
(1979), Willis Goudy (1982, 1990), and others.  Wellman (1979; 1988) sees communities 
as social networks and has used a technique known as social network analysis  to 
investigate this idea of how common social ties influence community.  Claude Fischer 
(1977) examined social relations in urban settings and argued that social relations 
themselves comprised "community."
Wellman (1979; Wellman, Carrington, and Hall, 1988), discusses three arguments 
found in the sociological literature concerning change in community: The "Community 
Lost" argument; the "Community Saved" argument; and the "Community Liberated" 
argument.  The "Community Lost" argument postulated that "community" in the 
Gemeinschaft sense would not survive in an era of urbanization as predicted by Tönnies 
(Wellman, 1979:1204; Wellman, Carrington, and Hall, 1988:133). The community saved 
argument used empirical evidence to show that proximate neighborhood and kinship 
groups (Gemeinschaft) "continued to be abundant and strong" in urban settings 
(Wellman, 1979:1205; Wellman, Carrington, and Hall, 1988:134). Wellman, Carrington, 
and Hall indicate that both the "Lost" and "Saved" arguments "define community as a 
solidarity, local, kinshiplike group" that is restricted to small geographic areas (Wellman, 
Carrington, and Hall, 1988:134).

The "Liberated" community argument is perhaps most useful in attempting to 
explain the Internet as a community. Wellman, Carrington, and Hall state that in this 
argument, community consists of individuals with  "membership in multiple, 
interest-based communities, predominately composed of long distance friendship ties" 
(Wellman, 1979:1206; Wellman, Carrington, and Hall, 1988:133).  In the liberated 
community, geographic proximity is no longer necessary for communal relations as 
technology permits primary ties to be developed and maintained over broader geographic 
spaces.  The Internet would certainly meet these criteria. Internet users often participate in 
several interest groups, chatrooms, LISTSERVs, etc. (these are described in more detail 
in Chapter 3).  Also, Internet relationships are "predominately composed" of long 
distance, friendship ties.
Mark Granovetter studied the notion of social ties.  Communal ties are a form of 
social ties that are defined as a strong primary relationship between two persons 
(Gusfield, 1975).  Granovetter's aim was to conceptually define and measure the strength 
of social ties.  Granovetter (1973) ultimately determined that the strength of such ties 
could be determined by four factors: duration of the tie, emotional attachment involved, 
the level of intimacy, and extent of  reciprocity  i.e. the reciprocal exchange of services.
The first of  Granovetter's (1973) four dimensions is duration.  Granovetter sees 
duration as simply the length of time the social tie  has existed.  The second of  
Granovetter's (1973) four dimensions is emotional intensity.  Granovetter defines this as 
the level of commitment between the participants of the social tie. Participants in the 
social tie experience an emotional bond to one another.  Parties involved in the  
relationship have an emotional investment in the relationship.  The third of Granovetter's 
four dimensions is intimacy. Intimacy involves a strong level of commitment between 
participants of the relationship.  According to Granovetter, intimacy means that 
participants of the relationship feel free to talk about personal matters with one another.  
Granovetter's fourth and final dimension is reciprocity. This dimension involves the 
reciprocal exchange of services between participants in the relationship.  To Granovetter, 
reciprocity means that all parties in the relationship mutually benefit from the relationship 
and gain from it.

Granovetter (1973:1361) suggests that a combination of these four factors should 
be used to define the strength of a social tie.  Granovetter (1973:1361) says that these four 
factors can operate independently of one another, although they are "obviously highly 
intercorrelated." Using Granovetter's scheme, a "communal" tie would be a social 
relationships that involves: Extensive contact over a period of time, emotional 
attachment, intimacy, and a reciprocal exchange of services.
Communal Attachment and Common Ties
The concept of "communal attachment" would fall under Hillery's (1955) idea of 
people with common ties, because individuals who experience strong feelings of  
attachment to the community share this in common with one another.  Willis Goudy 
(1982) addressed the concept of  "communal attachment" as a facet of community. 
Communal attachment refers to an individual feeling psychologically attached to a 
community group, or feeling like a vital part of the community.  Communal attachment is 
also referred to in the literature as communal sentiment (Gusfield, 1975; Fischer, 1977).  
Gusfield (1975) and Fischer (1977) equate communal attachment with Geertz's (1963) 
concept of primordial attachment.  This involves an added dimension that the needs and 
the will of the individual must be subordinate to the needs and collective will of the 
group. But, the addition of this dimension results in a more restrictive view of communal 
attachment. 

Charles Tilly (1973) and Albert Hunter (1978) took the idea of communal 
attachment one step further by introducing the concept of communal solidarity.  Tilly and 
Hunter argue that this involves a group state when the vast majority of members 
psychologically identify themselves as members of a group with a collective interest.  
They see this as a measure of the extent of communal attachment among group members.
Tilly (1973) used community solidarity as a means of explaining collective action 
by communities.  Tilly (1973) sees two conceptions of community solidarity.  Tilly 
(1973:214) first conceptualizes solidarity as "the average strength of existing ties among 
members of the [community]."  He defines strength (1973:214) in this case as the claims 
that any pair of individuals have to one another.  Tilly's (1973:214) "alternative 
conception of solidarity" involves the extent to which individuals are willing to make 
commitments to other members of the group based solely on their common group 
membership alone.
Hunter posits (1978) "A Dynamic Model of Emergent Community Sentiments," in 
which he describes four stages of communities.  The model describes a progression 
through four stages of community sentiment.  The fourth stage becomes important in 
discussing this idea of community solidarity because Hunter describes this stage as 
vicarious or symbolic communities.  Hunter (1978:150) says that vicarious communities 
are communities which are  "consciously constructed."  The symbolic attachment which 
community members share helps lead to communal solidarity.  Scales for measuring the 
degree of community attachment have been developed by Kasarda and Janowitz (1974) 
and Goudy (1982).

Now that some of the basic sociological research on community has been 
discussed, the next section will try to present some of the research that has been done 
about  information technologies  in the context of how it relates to a discussion of 
community.
Information Technology and Community
Much has been written about the use of Information Technology (IT) which 
includes the Internet, as it relates to the concept of community. During the past twenty 
years or so, a great deal of literature has been developed about how to employ IT in the 
workplace.  Some of this literature speaks of the "development" of "communities." 
Hiltz and Turoff (1978) were among the first authors to systematically  reference  
the idea of IT as it relates to the development of community  in their 1978 book The 
Network Nation: Human Communication via Computer.  Hiltz and Turoff draw on the 
notion of community as a social network and chronicle an early computer conferencing 
system known as EIES.  However, their work primarily explores  the behavior of workers 
by computer-mediation of work-related tasks.  They argued, however, that eventually 
such forms of computer mediated communication would become widespread in their use 
and expand far beyond a few thousand users (xix).  
Of the forms of communication noted by Hiltz and Turoff, Jones (1995) brings up 
the notion that face-to-face communication may not necessarily be more real than other 
media communication, despite the tendency to believe that it is.  He states, "face-to-face 
interaction does not necessarily break down boundaries, and to adopt it as an ideal will 
likewise not necessarily facilitate communication, community building, or understanding 
among people" (Jones, 1995:29).

Hiltz and Turoff (1978) discuss models and forms in which telecommunication is 
substituted for travel.  They discuss four distinct types of organizational dispersion 
patterns: The centralized organization  has a single large headquarters to which everyone 
must commute.  In the fragmentation pattern, "a few 'coherent subunits' in the 
organization break off and are located elsewhere" (Hiltz and Turoff, 1978:475).  Usually 
communication to the main company is done via terminals.  In dispersion, a number of 
work centers are located around one area, reporting to the nearest one, using computers 
and telecommunications.  In diffusion, small, multicompany, neighborhood work centers, 
and work at home are utilized.  Individuals walk or bicycle to work in this pattern (Hiltz 
and Turoff, 1978:475).  
In discussing its impact on the various patterns of work, Hiltz and Turoff (1978) 
cite many problems with decreased face-to-face communication.  They state, for example, 
 "another problem is that employee morale and work-group cohesion may depend on the 
duration and number of face-to-face contacts, which decrease the further we go along the 
continuum from single centralized large offices to work at home.  Whether 'electronic 
socializing' or substitution of socialization with friends and neighbors, rather than with 
co-workers, will occur, and whether they will be adequate substitutes to maintain the 
interpersonal supports that people need, is an unanswered question" (1978: 479).  

Hiltz and Turoff (1978) add that "because of the factors of geographic mobility 
and commutation to work, there has been less overlapping of social ties among the 
various groups a person belongs to."  Hiltz and Turoff (1978:481), state,  "We believe 
that computerized conferencing can serve to substitute electronic mobility for physical 
mobility, and permit a person to exchange communications on a fairly deep and 
meaningful level with mainly different interest-oriented groups.  At the same time, there 
is likely to be considerable connectedness among the various groups, with many 
overlapping memberships (481)." 
Hiltz and Turoff (1978) go so far as to  suggest the emergence of a new "tribal" 
form of economic organization involving groups of individuals in which members supply 
talents to the collective.  Rhinegold (1993) also uses the tribal analogy in his description 
of  IRC (the Internet Relay Chat) by using the term  "real time tribes"  Hiltz and Turoff 
(1978) see a rich diversity of communities growing out of computer-based 
communication systems.  It is clear that Hiltz and Turoff anticipated the arrival of 
computer-based communication as community.  In a slightly more recent work entitled 
Online Communities, Hiltz (1984) indicates that individual behaviors can be influenced 
by IT such as EIES, the system chronicled in her case study. 
Barry Wellman et al. (1996:213) indicated that information technologies facilitate 
the development of computer-supported social networks which "are becoming important 
bases of virtual communities." Wellman et al. (1996) cite some of the limitations of using 
information technologies in the workplace, indicating that on-line communications are 
often more blunt and impersonal.  This might seem to imply that the development of 
virtual communities is not likely.
Now that some of the basic sociological research on information technologies has 
been discussed, the next section will try to present some of the research that has been 
done about the Internet in the context of how it relates to a discussion of community.

Research on the Internet as a Community 
The Internet has been termed everything from a "virtual community," to an 
"electronic community," to "online community," "computer community," to "cyber 
community."  Much of the literature that examines this topic however, is from disciplines 
other than sociology, including  psychology, computer science, and mass 
communications. A more limited amount of research on this topic  has been conducted by 
sociologists.  Some studies have been conducted about how different forms of 
Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) relate to communities or can be considered 
communities.  
Clifford Stoll, who was one of the founding members of the Internet when it was 
still known as the ARPANET, asserts in his 1995 Book, Silicon Snake Oil, that claims 
about the Internet as a community are false and that the Internet can only provide the 
illusion of community (Parks and Floyd, 1996:80, Young, 1998:88). Kimberly S. Young 
quotes Stoll, "Computer networks isolate us from one another, rather than bringing us 
together" (Quoted in Young, 1998:88).  This quote would certainly seem to imply that 
computer networks do not allow for the formation of social ties, but that such networks 
prevent the formation of social ties, like the kind that characterize community.  Parks and 
Floyd indicate that other analysts have also questioned claims about the Internet as a 
community and have similarly argued that "only the illusion of as community can be 
created by Cyberspace" (Parks and Floyd, 1996:80).

 Heather Bromberg, (1996:146-149) argues that MUDs (Multiple User 
Dungeons/Dimensions) provide a sense of community for individuals who are isolated or 
needy (Bromberg, 1996:318).  Perhaps this can be seen as some form of communal 
attachment, but Bromberg fails to clarify what she means by "a sense of community."  
She does not use accepted measures of communal attachment found in previous research 
(such as those used by Goudy, 1982, 1990;  Buttel et al., 1979; and Kasarda and Janowitz, 
1974) to determine this, but instead uses anecdotal evidence.  Bromberg states that  
"MUDs...offer an antidote to loneliness and malaise, allow the exploration of alternate 
identities and personae, offer the promise of connectivity and community and allow users 
to experience the feeling of mastery over their environments" (Bromberg, 1996:146).  
However, Bromberg offers no empirical evidence that this conclusion can be generalized  
to a larger population of some type.  
In reviewing community literature as it relates to the Internet, Steven Jones, 
(1995) uses Effrat's notion of community, which has three principal components: (1) 
community as solidarity institutions; (2) community as primary interaction; (3) 
community as institutionally distinct groups.  Jones (1995) suggests that the third of 
these, community as institutionally distinct groups, makes the most sense in the context 
of CMC. Jones says that all three of these features appear in CMC.
Jones goes on to argue that there is a need to conceptualize community as a 
complex of social relationships, which has not been sufficiently explored.  He argues that 
CMC is socially produced space, in which spatiality is distinguished from physical space. 
 Jones is saying that this is, in effect, a new kind of space that is not physical space, but 
instead is a kind of socially created space.  Since CMC  decenters place, it challenges the 
traditional framework as community being based on proximate geographic space.

Jones addresses this issue when he states that "Communities formed by CMC 
have been called 'virtual communities' and defined as incontrovertibly social spaces in 
which people still meet face-to-face, but under new definitions of both 'meet' and 'face'" 
(Jones, 1995:19).  Therefore, for Jones, community is predicated on the common beliefs, 
interests, knowledge, and information apart from physical space.  Community consists of 
social networks and social interaction.  Community is no longer a "where."
 	Jones reviews such early work as Licklider and Taylor who discuss what 
interactive communities on-line would not be-- communities with the same geographical 
area.  These communities would be  people with common interests and goals.  This view 
of community differs from the traditional view of community sociology as that of 
"locality-based action" which emphasizes geographic area.  
Jones (1995:24) uses Bender's (1978) definition of community, which views 
communities as social networks, not as places.  This is similar to Wellman's (1979) 
notion of  the "Liberated Community."  Jones cites two reasons for  using social networks 
as a definition useful for the study of community  over the Internet and other forms of 
CMC.  First, Jones argues that such a definition of community, is based on social 
interaction, which creates communities.  Second, this definition shifts the focus away 
from place.  Jones argues that in studying CMC, it is necessary to put less emphasis on 
(but not eliminate completely) the consideration of  bounded geographical territory 
(Jones, 1995:24).  

Jones goes on to discuss the literature related to pseudo-community and the 
decentering of place.  Jones uses Beniger's definition of pseudo-community -- "reversal of 
a centuries old trend from organic community based on personal relationships--to 
impersonal associated integrated by mass means" (Beniger, 1987:369).  Jones discussion 
takes us from the traditional communal relationships (Gemeinschaft) to highly impersonal 
associations (Gesellschaft), moving from face-to-face dialogue as community to symbolic 
or indirect group relationships.  Jones borrowed the notion of Gemeinschaft and 
Gesellschaft  from the work of Ferdinand Tönnies.  Jones is unclear about what he means 
by the decentering of place, but obviously, the Internet removes the emphasis on  place 
found in a traditional Gemeinschaft-type community.  Jones suggests that the actual role 
of computer-mediated communication as community still has not been fully settled.  
While not specifically investigating the Internet in the context of a sociological 
conception of community, Parks and Floyd (1996) examined the nature of relationships 
on the USENET part of the Internet.  Recall that community typically involves social 
relationships of some kind.  Parks and Floyd used a survey and came up with some 
empirical findings about the nature of relationships on USENET. They found for example 
that women were significantly more likely to have formed on-line relationships, and 
greater numbers of such relationships, than men. 

Ludlow (1996) examines the social change brought about by the introduction of 
computer technology as it relates to the idea of community.  He states that "With that 
change has come a sense of alienation and loss of community.  Increasingly, though, it 
becomes possible to recreate that lost community in cyberspace, by forming communities 
of interest that are not bound by the accidents of geography."  He continues by asking if  
they are really communities (Ludlow, 1996:xv).  Ludlow addresses the issue of whether 
you can Areally call someone a 'neighbor' if you can't see her face or hear her voice@ 
(Ludlow, 1996:xv).   He questions the idea of  'the virtual community.'  He also asks that 
AIf we give our allegiances to virtual communities, are we abandoning our geographic 
communities in a sort of 'urban flight'?@ (Ludlow, 1996:xv).  Ludlow also asks Ato what 
extent should other communities, and the legal system itself, acknowledge and respect 
virtual communities?@ (Ludlow, 1996:xv).
Rhinegold (1993) gives an in-depth discussion of community and CMC on the 
Internet Relay Chat (IRC).  Communication on IRC is stripped to the bare essentials 
...text on a computer screen (Rhinegold, 1993).  His experiences as a member of the 
Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link (WELL) on-line community is the basis for much of his 
view of computer culture.  He states that there is something real about the on-line 
community: "There's always another mind there.  It's like having the corner bar, complete 
with old buddies and delightful newcomers ...  and fresh graffiti and letters, except 
instead of putting on my coat, shutting down the computer and walking down to the 
corner, I just invoke my telecom program and there they are.  It's a place" (Rhinegold, 
1993:24).
Baym (1995:152) states "Like the smiley face dictionaries, list of nicknames are 
often compiled and posted to the group or e-mailed to confused newcomers.  Again the 
synchronous collection and codification of the group's expressive forms demonstrates the 
self-reflexivity of [the] computer-mediated community."

Baym indicates that these factors are "the most salient preexisting forces on the 
development of computer-mediated community (Baym, 1995:161).  Baym sees 
computer-mediated communication as a community.  Many researchers discuss 
communication on the computer as being either synchronistic or asynchronistic.  Baym 
defines these communication styles: 
"With synchronistic communication, all participants are on-line simultaneously 
and read and respond to one another immediately ...With asynchronistic 
communication, participants need not be on-line simultaneously and can read and 
respond at different times" (142).  

If  community can be defined as "group interest", then it could be concluded that 
community could involve Internet communication using both these types of 
communication.  
In her dissertation, Clara Surratt (1996:1), examined if Internet communication 
allowed for interaction which was "as meaningful as face-to-face interaction" as it relates 
to the type of face-to-face interaction in what she has termed "real communit[ies]."  
Surratt argued that face-to-face communications have just as much potential to be 
anonymous as Internet communications.  Surratt (1996:568) found that:
Every CMC system [she] analyzed in [her research] has evolved from a piece of 
communications software into a complex social system, complete with belief 
systems, sets of values, cultural norms, and systems of socialization, social 
control, and stratification requisite  for any collection of individuals to be defined 
as a human community.
Surratt is unclear about how the presence of these criteria serves to form a "community."

 Elizabeth Reid (1991) argues that chat-rooms are communities.  As she attempts 
to construct communities, Reid (1991:32-33) quotes Geertz's (1963) understanding of 
culture as a "system of meanings that give significance to shared behaviours which must 
be interpreted from the perspective of those engaged in them."   She continues quoting 
Geertz, who says that culture  is "a set of control mechanisms -- plans, recipes, rules, 
instructions -- for the governing of behavior" (1991:33).  Based on this definition, Geertz 
might see the Internet as a community since users have symbolic systems and textual 
significance to communicate as well as "netiquette," to punish those who abuse the rules 
(1991:33).  Reid goes on to state that community does exist on the IRC.  It is created 
through collective beliefs and symbolic strategies.  
Sherry Turkle (1995:88) refers to MUDs (Multiple-User Dungeons/Dimensions) 
as "online communities." Just as can be found in physically bounded geographical 
communities, MUDs have rules and regulations according to Turkle.
Esther Dyson (1997), a technology analyst, refers to the Internet as a "community" 
throughout her book.  She argues that there are many communities on-line.  Dyson 
(1997:31) states that "Most individuals live in several communities online, just as they do 
in the physical world."  She argues that the Internet can even be used to foster community 
development:
Used right, the Internet can be a powerful enabling technology fostering the 
development of communities because it supports the very thing that creates a 
community--human interaction.  One benefit of the Internet is that it allows the 
formation of communities independent of geography (Dyson, 1997:32).


Psychological Internet Research 	

Psychologists have conducted some research on the nature of Internet 
Relationships.  Sociologist/Psychologist Sherry Turkle, in a 1984 book, first investigated 
the nature of person-computer relationships.  In this work, Turkle (1984) argued that 
computers affect the development of self, and alter one's self concept.  Most notably, 
Turkle (1984) measured the intensity of the relationship between computers and their 
users.  While probably not developed to the level of intensity of relationships which 
characterize communal relationships, this was a preliminary attempt to examine 
computer-mediated relationships, even if they are one way relationships between a user 
and a computer.
In a more recent book, Turkle (1995) investigated how computer mediated social 
relationships/interactions influence individual identity.  Turkle describes the virtual 
nature of MUDs.  She discusses how the human interaction in MUDs is considered safer 
than real-world interaction, and she discusses the "unreal" or fantasy nature of the social 
interaction which takes place in MUDs.  Turkle (1995:9) showed how the psychology of 
computer mediated human interaction suggested that it involves how users view their 
reflections in "the mirror of the machine (quoted in Allen; 1996:11)."  Turkle's (1995) 
focuses mainly on the relationships that individuals have to their computers and how 
these relationships influence individuals' conceptions of self.  This is only important in 
the context of community in that individuals' views of how others see them might 
influence the kinds of social relations which are needed for community to exist.  
Christina Allen (1996) wrote a thesis which examined "Virtual Identities: The 
Social Construction of Cybered Selves."  This is somewhat similar to Turkle's (1984) 
book in that it examines the role of computers in the construction of one's sense of self.  
Allen's thesis examined MOOs (discussed in Chapter 3).  It  drew from several disciplines 
including psychology and sociology. The next section addresses Hillery's three areas of 
agreement as they relate specifically to the Internet.   

Social Relationships & Common Ties On-Line
Two of Hillery's three areas of agreement, people involved in social interaction 
and people with common ties,  are addressed by Wellman et al. (1996) when they indicate 
that the Internet and other computer based communications technologies encourage the 
formation of specialized relationships, and they go on to say that many on-line ties do 
meet the criteria for strong ties. Wellman et al (1996) also indicate that the very nature of 
the Internet and other computer based technologies encourage the development of weak 
on-line ties.  Wellman et. al (1996) do suggest that on-line ties tend to be segmentalized 
because users can easily participate in different chat rooms.  Parks and Floyd (1996) also 
examined on-line relationships and appear to have similar findings.
Geography and the Internet
The second of Hillery's three areas of agreement, geographic area, obviously is not 
as important as the other two in the case of the Internet. The Internet does indeed meet 
both of the two criteria which Jonassen (1959) says Hillery found were the only two 
points of agreement in defining a community.  Benedikt (1991) argues that the Internet 
does indeed have physical and geographical aspects, and one might be able to stretch this 
to meet the area requirement of community. Benedikt is referring to the physical wiring 
and hardware aspects of the Internet as well as the people involved while sitting at their 
Internet connected computers.  John Barlow (1995) tries to address the question of "Is 
there a there in cyberspace?" He seems to conclude that there really is no geographic 
concomitant to the Internet and that "virtual communities" are not really communities at 
all.

The areas of agreement cited by Hillery (1955) will be used as the guiding 
framework of this research. The first area of agreement cited by Hillery, social 
relationships, will be examined in terms of Granovetter=s (1973) four dimensions of the 
strength of a social tie, i.e. emotional attachment, intimacy, reciprocity, and duration.
Emotional attachment was also cited by Tönnies ([1887]1959) in his discussion of 
Gemeinschaft.  The second of Hillery=s areas of agreement that this research will examine 
is the role of geographic territory.  The third of Hillery=s areas of agreement which this 
study will examine is psychological identification with the community group.  This 
dimension will be examined in terms of community attachment.

	Chapter III
	Types of  Computer Mediated Communication
There are a number of different forms of computer mediated communication 
(CMC) by which people can communicate over the Internet.  The purpose of this chapter 
will be to classify the major types of Internet communication into categories based on 
similar characteristics and determine which types might permit social interaction 
necessary for the formation of community.
A primary interest of this study in examining the types of CMC is that they can 
lead to the formation of  Computer Mediated Interaction Networks (CMINs); that is, the 
formation of a social interaction network among persons that is mediated by computers.  
The formation of CMINs is possible through many of the synchronous types of CMC, but 
is not possible to the same extent using asynchronous types of CMC which will be 
discussed later because the nature of communication is fundamentally different.  This 
distinction is necessary because CMC can be limited to one-way communication in the 
case of  asynchronous types of communication.  In synchronous types of CMC, there is 
multi-way communication in which two, three, four, or four-hundred people can interact 
simultaneously in real time.  The ability to interact in this fashion is an important 
foundation of community.

One category of Internet communication is what I have termed synchronous or 
real-time communication.  This type of Internet communication involves interaction 
which occurs live between participants who are logged on to different computers 
simultaneously.  I call this "synchronous" because it requires immediate activity and 
immediate active response and involvement between the participants.  It is probably this 
type of Internet communication which is most analogous to the type of face-to-face 
communication which takes place in bounded geographical communities.  Examples of 
this type of communication include the various types of Internet Chatting.
The term "chatting" is used in this thesis as a general term to refer to any type of 
synchronous Internet communication which occurs between social actors.  It is a real-time 
form of communication.  The term "chat room" is used in this thesis as a general term to 
refer to any place or channel where synchronous communication is occurring in real time 
between social actors.  

Another category of Internet communication is what I have termed asynchronous 
communication.  Examples of this type of communication are e-mail, LISTSERVs, 
Usenet newsgroups, Gopher, the WWW, and even some of the advertisements found on 
the web.  I call these asynchronous forms of Internet communication because they are 
passively read, and response time is typically much slower than in synchronous 
communication.  This type of communication is synchronous in the sense that the user 
must actively read or seek out the information, but it does not have the same dynamic as 
real-time communication, because the nature and type of communication is somewhat 
different.  While individuals can write in response to something else, they cannot get the 
same kind of immediate clarification of unclear thoughts or ideas, and participants are 
more likely to ask for clarification of unclear thoughts or ideas which occur in 
synchronous forms of Internet communication.  In comparison, synchronous 
communication is written in real-time as a response to something that has just been 
written by someone else in real time.  Also, asynchronous communication allows the user 
to spend more time in constructing a response because of its less immediate, delayed 
nature.
One type of "synchronous" Internet communication is IRC or mIRC .  IRC, or 
Internet Relay Chat, was first formed in 1988 by a Researcher in Finland as a text-based 
way of chatting. This is strictly a text-based means of CMC which is designed primarily 
to enable people from around the world to communicate on topics of specific interest.  
Discussions of varying topics are organized into different "Channels." Each channel hosts 
a discussion on a specific topic with different users which participate in real-time, live 
conversations.  It is possible for users to join several "channels" at once.  Users in 
IRC/mIRC must choose a nickname, sometimes referred to as a "nick," which enables 
them to communicate with one another.  

IRC/mIRC is probably the most widespread means of real-time Internet 
Communication in terms of the total number of users.  Other proprietary services such as 
CompuServe or AOL have their own forms of CMC which are more widespread on the 
services themselves, but not across the Internet. While no one knows the exact number of 
IRC users, the number is undoubtedly quite large. Unlike MUDs (Multiple User 
Dungeons/Dimensions, discussed later), which generally exist on only one Internet site, 
the same IRC channels may exist on hundreds of different Internet sites, called servers.  
Each of these servers has a large number of users.  Each IRC channel or chatroom may 
have several hundred users on each IRC server, while other forms of  synchronous CMC 
are generally limited to one site.
  The type of social interaction which occurs in IRC/mIRC channels could be 
conducive to the formation of intimate social ties and social relationships that 
characterize a community.  A high number of IRC/mIRC channels are specifically 
dedicated to allowing users to interact and form social relationships of some kind.  A fair 
number of these channels which are organized around the formation of social 
relationships are even dedicated to the formation of romantic relationships.  Anecdotal 
evidence suggests that people who initially met on IRC/mIRC have moved across the 
country to be with those whom they have met, and some have even gotten married.  If any 
form of CMC has the potential for the formation of  primary relationships,   it would 
certainly be IRC/mIRC.

The total number of users of IRC is virtually unlimited, unlike some other types of 
synchronous CMC on the Internet.  While specific channels may limit the number of 
users, these limits are generally quite high.  IRC is less anarchistic than some other forms 
of CMC because the channel operator has the power to terminate undesired users at any 
time.  This feature also exists on some other forms of CMC, but is far more common on 
IRC.  IRC is typically accessed by means of a special program which resides either on an 
Internet  connected Mainframe, or in the case of mIRC, on a PC or Mac that has a modem 
or a direct Internet connection.
The closest thing to emotions on IRC are emoticons, or textual representations of 
faces. Emoticons, are a "system of symbols which, when combined, yield pictures 
intended to convey body language and facial expressions" (Surratt, 1996:76). These are 
things like smiley faces. One of the more common examples of this is expressed as :).  
The colon represents the two eyes and the parenthesis represents the mouth (of a smiley 
that has been turned sideways). However, in IRC communication, there is simply no way 
to verify who is chatting with whom.  
Many IRC channels or chatrooms, such as the #friends channel, have strictly 
enforced norms of kindness and generosity make people feel comfortable regardless of 
what they discuss.  Users who violate the norms of kindness and generosity are simply 
temporarily Akicked off@ or temporarily "banned."  These norms might also account for 
the high levels of community sentiment among  #friends users.  

A recently developed part of the Internet known as the WorldWide Web (Web or 
WWW for short), has lately become a home for chatting to occur over the Internet.  
Initially, the web was designed as a place for one-way communication and dissemination 
of  information. The WWW is similar to GOPHER, which was an earlier text-based 
information retrieval system developed by the University of Minnesota which could be 
used to navigate the Internet.  While this type of communication still makes up the bulk 
of web traffic by far, recent innovations have allowed the formation of various ways in 
which people can chat in real time over the web.  This type of CMC is what is referred to 
hereafter as Web chatting.
Web chatting is a type of  CMC which is conducted over a part of the Internet 
known as the WorldWide Web (WWW).  This type of chatting is usually text-based 
because of the nature of webpages, but sometimes, as mentioned above, an icon or photo 
can be associated with the on-line nickname of the chat participants.  This type of 
chatting requires, at a minimum, a special piece of software called a web browser or 
Internet Browser (such as Netscape Navigator or Microsoft Internet Explorer), and 
generally requires other software programs or sub-programs which work with the 
browser.  These programs are sometimes referred to as "plugins." One type of Web 
chatting is called ICQ (computer shorthand for "I seek you").  While the web itself does 
contain a fair amount of graphics, images, sounds, and even videos, this form of chatting, 
like IRC/mIRC, is also text-based.

    	Another type of synchronous CMC  is MUDs .   In this thesis, I use the term 
MUDs as a general category which includes MUDs, MOOs , MUSHs , and MUCKs .  
All of these are different types of  MUDs which are basically on-line interactive role 
playing games which are based on MUD technology.  Unlike IRC, interaction is 
constrained within the rules of a game.  The types of interaction which occur in 
MUDs/MOOs fall within the confines of an overall objective of winning a game of some 
kind.  This may involve things such as capturing a dragon for example.  MUDs/MOOs 
are typically described as imaginary worlds in which people interact, but this interaction 
takes place only in the context of people's adopted roles in the framework of a game.  In 
the context of MUDs, participants can create buildings, cities, etc.  which remain after the 
participant leaves.  MUD characters live and die.  MUD cities are built and destroyed.  
MUDs are typically accessed through Telnet, a computer program/protocol which links 
Internet connected computers together and allows different types of Internet computers to 
communicate with one another.  These types of relationships would clearly not be 
considered standard social relationships because the interaction is fantasy oriented and 
confined within the rules of the game.  As a result, MUDs would probably not facilitate 
formation of the kind of real world social relationships which are found in other forms of 
CMC.

Talkers, as the name implies, are places on the Internet where users go to simply 
"talk."  Really, participants aren't "talking" at all, but as in the case of IRC/mIRC and 
MUDs/MOOs, they are exchanging text-based messages in real time.  Talkers are based 
on the same technology as MUDs.  Like MUDs/MOOs, talkers are also accessed through 
Telnet.  Essentially, they are MUDs that have simply de-emphasized the game aspect.  
The environment on talkers seems to be a bit more friendly than MUDs, and talkers 
typically have a much smaller number of users.  One might argue that this smaller number 
of participants allows for on-line relationships to more easily develop.  Due to the nature 
of talkers, it seems that these could indeed facilitate the formation of intimate social 
relationships like those found in IRC.  While there is somewhat of a game aspect to 
talkers, it has been de-emphasized to such an extreme that it is not likely to interfere in 
the formation of relationships as it would in MUDs.  
Up to this point, most of the types of "chatting" which have been discussed have 
been text-based.  Most Internet chatting is text-based.  Text-based chatting has far fewer 
computer hardware requirements and is generally easier to access than other types of  
Internet chatting.  For this reason, text-based chatting also seems to be far more common 
than non-text-based mediums of chatting.
Generally speaking, non-text-based methods of chatting are essentially text-based 
chatting which is accompanied by pictures, photos, avatars, or icons.  Some forms of 
non-text-based chatting are strictly cartoon-like graphical depictions of the chat 
participants.  These cartoon-like characters are what are referred to as avatars.  Some 
forms of web chatting allow for chat participants to include a photo, an icon, or any type 
of image desired.  A few users include a photo of themselves or even have digital cameras 
on their computers which continuously update with live photos, but most include photos 
of inanimate objects or celebrities, and an even greater proportion include icons or 
non-photographic images of one sort or another.  

This thesis will focus primarily on text-based forms of chatting because they are 
more common.  The less widespread non-text-based modes of chatting will be 
de-emphasized because they are less common, are more demanding of computer 
hardware, and usually they still have many of the characteristics of text-based forms of 
Internet Chatting.
Some mainframe computer terminals which are connected to the Internet have 
support for the TALK command.  This allows users who are simultaneously logged on to 
different computers to "TALK" or type text-based messages to one another on a split 
screen in real-time.  This was devised in the 1970s as a way for computer engineers to 
communicate with one another.  A similar feature is found on some VAX/VMS 
mainframe machines, the PHONE feature. The PHONE feature allows up to 6 users 
networked to a VAX/VMS machine to talk to one another simultaneously.  

Electronic mail (e-mail) is one form of what I have termed 'asynchronous' Internet 
communication.  By far, e-mail is undoubtedly the most ubiquitous form of Internet 
Communication.  E-mail consists of text-based electronic messages which are sent out 
over the Internet, usually from one individual to another, or from one individual to a 
small number of other individuals.  Sometimes these messages may have a photo, sound 
clip, video clip, computer file, or computer program attached, but generally, these are 
text-based messages.  Again, these are asynchronous because they have a delayed reaction 
time and are generally not considered to be a form of real-time communication.  E-mail 
messages are often exchanged in an effort to maintain social relationships with others but 
probably would not result in the formation of new primary social relations because the 
person initiating the contact must know the name or the e-mail address of the person to 
whom they are sending the message.  While e-mail generally does place an emphasis on 
communication between individuals or small groups of individuals, it is probably not the 
ideal place for the formation of primary social relations that characterize a community.  
However, e-mail can be very useful to maintain or supplement such social relations.  
E-mail can indeed be used to supplement the interaction which has taken place over some 
other form of CMC such as IRC/mIRC or to supplement face-to-face human contact or 
telephone contact.  This could perhaps lead to the development of primary social ties.  
However, this would not be as likely to occur as in IRC/mIRC.  
One type of e-mail service is called LISTSERVs.  LISTSERVs are basically 
electronic mailing lists.  These are usually organized around specific subjects or topics of 
interest.  Participants can compose a standard e-mail message and send it to the 
LISTSERV which can distribute the message to hundreds or thousands of participants, 
each of which can respond either to the initial sender or to the group as a whole.  The 
message may go out to someone who the sender has never even met or interacted with.  
These LISTSERVs are sometimes referred to as communities because they often form 
around specific interest groups.  This type of CMC might allow for the establishment of 
communal relations due to its subject specific nature.  Participants of this type of CMC 
share a common interest in the subject or topic of the particular LISTSERV.  Unlike 
IRC/mIRC, the main emphasis with LISTSERVs is generally not on the formation and 
maintenance of social relationships, but on the discussion of a specific subject or topic.

While the potential for the formation of primary social relationships does exist with 
LISTSERVs, due to the asynchronous nature of  this type of CMC and its one-way nature, 
and due to the lack of emphasis on social relationships, themselves, it is probably less 
likely to occur than on IRC/mIRC.  Some studies have examined how LISTSERVs can 
serve as social support networks and some have even referred to them as communities 
(Furlong, 1989). However, empirical evidence that LISTSERVs represent a community in 
a sociological sense is mostly anecdotal.
Table 3.1 lists many of the types of CMC found on the Internet and some of their 
characteristics.

Table 3.1

Below is an explanation of the characteristics listed in Table 3.1 as they apply to 
these various types of CMC.  The first column of the table simply indicates the type or 
general category which each form of CMC falls into. The second column explains the 
nature of the type of CMC, whether or not it is a text-based form of CMC (which as 
indicated earlier, most forms of CMC are ultimately Text-based) or whether it is not a 
text-based form of CMC.  The third column of the table indicates whether or not that 
particular form of CMC occurs in "real time" or is "Live."  The fourth column indicates if 
each type of CMC allows object-oriented communication.  The fifth column of the table 
indicates if each form of CMC is focused around a specific topic or not. The sixth column 
indicates if the main focus of each form of CMC is game playing or not. The seventh 
column of the table indicates if each form of CMC can support a large number of 
simultaneous users to interact with one another--a large number of social actors at one 
time.
Most of the forms of CMC examined in this chapter have been text-based forms 
of CMC. Most forms of CMC are indeed text-based. Because IRC, MUDs, (Multiple 
User Dungeons/Dimensions) and other forms of CMC are reduced to text on a computer 
screen, differences in gender, age, race, and appearance of the participants become 
unimportant.  

	Chapter IV
	Research Objectives
While the literature seems to suggest that there is no precise definition of 
"community" in the field of sociology, sociologists in this area have come up with several 
concepts, or dimensions, which are typically used to indicate the presence or lack of 
community.  In any examination of the sociology of community literature, these concepts 
or dimensions become evident.
The first of these concepts, as highlighted by Hillery's (1955) review, is social 
relationships or social interaction.  Hillery states that interaction is involved in all 94 of 
the definitions of community which he examined (1955:119).  Thus, community consists 
of  people engaged in social relationships or social interaction. Therefore,  it seems 
essential that a sociological definition of community include this first dimension, or the 
social dimension of community.  One point of debate in the literature concerns the type of 
social relationships that represent "communal" relationships.  Following the logic of 
Tönnies, communal relationships have been defined as primary ties based upon emotional 
attachment, tradition, and intimacy (Gusfield, 1975).  Other community theorists, 
however, have utilized a less restrictive conception, contending that communal relations 
can involve merely the sharing of common institutions (Hillery, 1955).  In the case of the 
Internet, membership in a particular chat room could serve as a commonly shared 
institution.

The second facet of community which appears in the literature is the geographical 
dimension. Another point of debate concerns whether or not communities are restricted in 
their geographic scale.  Traditionally, communities were seen as systems of social 
relations which existed in small, proximate, geographic areas.  With the advent of 
advanced communications and transportation technology, however, some contend that 
communities can be extended  over wider and wider geographic areas.  Proliferation of 
these new communication technologies led to the idea of the "liberated" community 
which de-emphasizes geographical proximity as a facet of community (Wellman, 1979).  
This indicates that communities which once were restricted to a small geographic area are 
no longer geographically limited, hence the term "liberated" community.
Another facet of community which becomes evident in an examination of the 
traditional sociology of community literature is the notion of community attachment or 
sentiment.  This is where people psychologically feel a "sense of belonging" to a 
community group. This sense of belonging, or common identity, develops as persons 
socially define themselves as being members of a group with a collective interest 
(Gusfield, 1975).  The concept of "community solidarity" was developed to refer to the 
extent to which group members share this sense of belonging and identify with the 
collective interest of the communal group.

Most of the research about the Internet as a community has examined at least one 
of these three dimensions of  community,  (Turkle, 1984, 1995).  A few researchers such 
as Baym (1995), have included two of these three dimensions of community.  However, 
no previous studies have addressed all three of these dimensions of community.  Most 
have ignored the second of these three dimensions of community, the geography question, 
completely.
The purpose of this research is to conduct an exploratory study of social 
interaction over the Internet in order to assess how networks of social interaction, 
mediated by the Internet, relate to the three dimensions of community described above.  
The goals of this phase of the analysis will be threefold: (1) to describe the ways and 
extent to which social relationships developed over the Internet represent communal 
social relationships; (2) to describe the geographic scale of the networks of social 
interaction mediated by the Internet; and (3) to describe the extent to which participants 
in these social interaction networks develop community sentiment and socially define 
themselves as being part of a community group.  By fulfilling these goals, empirical 
evidence can be provided as to whether the Internet does indeed, represent community in 
a sociological sense.  This study will examine these three dimensions of community 
(social relations, geographical proximity, and community attachment) as they relate to an 
Internet chat room setting.
Forms of Computer Mediated Communication as a Medium for Community
As discussed in chapter three, the two forms of Computer Mediated 
Communication (CMC) that most likely could facilitate the development of a community 
are talkers and IRC/mIRC. Like the type of interaction which takes place in traditional 
communities, the interaction which takes place over these two mediums of  CMC occurs 
in real-time. Both of these types of CMC seem to result in the formation of social 
relationships.

As stated in Chapter three, talkers typically have a much smaller number of users 
than other forms of CMC and therefore might more easily facilitate the development of 
community.  One might argue that this smaller number of participants allows for on-line 
relationships to more easily develop.  Due to the nature of talkers, it seems that these 
could indeed facilitate the formation of intimate social relationships like those found in 
IRC/mIRC.  The problem with talkers, however, is that they are generally limited to one 
Internet site and are not very widely accessible to large numbers of users. The typical 
number of users on any given talker is far too small to create a sample size of any 
consequence.
As stated in chapter three, IRC/mIRC is perhaps the most widespread means of 
real-time Internet communication, in terms of the total number of sites (called servers) on 
which IRC exists, and in terms of the total number of users.  It is for this reason that 
IRC/mIRC is the form of CMC that will be examined in this study.  If one form of CMC 
must be chosen to represent real-time communication over the Internet, IRC/mIRC is 
perhaps the best choice because IRC/mIRC is so widespread and has such a large number 
of users. 

Many IRC/mIRC chat rooms, (called channels) are organized around a specific 
topic and are often politically charged.  A chat room/channel of a non-political nature of 
general interest, #friends , will be chosen for this study. The sole purpose of this 
particular IRC/mIRC Channel is "Making Friends Around The World."  This channel has 
as its sole goal the formation of social relationships, and  is therefore the most appropriate 
choice to examine the formation of the kinds of social relationships which might 
characterize community.  The sole purpose of this channel is to facilitate the formation of 
social relationships, and this may allow for community sentiment to develop among those 
persons who use it.  
Formation of Communal Social Relations Over the Internet: Research Issues
Previous research on the Internet as a community has failed to examine whether 
social relations established over the Internet represent communal social relations.  None 
of the research has examined the formation of primary social ties or strong social ties, as 
conceptualized by Granovetter (1973), over the Internet.

Surratt (1996) only examined community in the context of the first of these three 
dimensions of community, the idea of social relationships or social interaction. Surratt 
(1996:1) equates the notion of social relationships or social interaction with what she has 
termed "real community." Surratt (1996),  found that subjects demonstrated standards of 
acceptable/unacceptable behavior; they derived meaning in specific situations; they held 
members accountable for their actions; and, they were serious about their interactions 
(563-564).  This was utilized as evidence by Surratt that the Internet was a community.  
The establishment of specific norms and values alone should not be considered sufficient 
evidence for the existence of community, however.  While the formation of norms and 
values suggests the development of a "collective will"  for governing social relationships 
(as conceived by Tönnies) over the Internet, it does not provide evidence of communal 
relationships.  Business relationships, for example, are not normally considered 
"communal" relationships  in a sociological sense, yet these relationships are governed by 
their own set of norms and values.
No previous research has been conducted that attempts to situate the social 
relationships developed by an individual over the Internet with the social relationships 
developed by the Individual on a face-to-face basis.  Heavy Internet users have been 
portrayed as potential social isolates that spend most of their time interacting with others 
through the virtual world of the Internet.  Here they may make up new personalities or 
roles that they may not have in the context of physical, face-to-face interactions with 
others (Allen, 1996;  Dalaimo, 1995; Turkle, 1984, 1995; Young, 1998). 
This raises a number of interesting questions.  For example, "Do frequent Internet 
users participate in both virtual and traditional communities?"   Or, "Are frequent 
Internet users social isolates who are only able to participate in a community through the 
opportunities available over the Internet?"  Finally, "In what ways does participation in a 
virtual community complement, or augment participation in a traditional community?"  
This research will provide empirical evidence to address these questions.
Geographic Scale of Communities Developed Over the Internet: Research Issues

Previous research has never examined the geographic scale of the social 
interaction networks developed over the Internet.  Wellman's (1979) study provided 
evidence of liberated communities at the scale of a metropolitan region.  A large 
proportion of individuals in Wellman's sample of persons living in the East York borough 
of Toronto were found to have primary ties with persons residing in other areas of the 
metropolitan region.  One problem with his study is that Wellman did not measure when 
the primary ties held by an individual were established.  Thus, there is no way of 
determining where the individuals involved in a network of communal ties were residing 
at the time the communal relationships were initially established.  It is quite possible that 
many of the communal ties held by an individual were initially established when the 
persons involved did live in close geographic proximity. The use of communications 
technology would then facilitate the maintenance of communal ties once the individuals 
involved migrated to different geographic areas.  Alternatively, it is possible that 
communal ties could be initially established over greater geographic distances through the 
use of communications technology such as the Internet.  Moreover, social relations 
established over the Internet could lead to face-to-face relationships.  This possibility, 
particularly the established establishment of romantic relationships, has received recent 
attention by the mass media in the U.S.  This study will provide empirical evidence to 
determine which of these scenarios is more prevalent in the formation of social ties over 
the Internet and will describe the geographic scale at which networks of primary ties over 
the Internet are most prevalent.
Development of Community Sentiment Over the Internet: Research Issues

Several studies seem to provide some evidence that community sentiment exists 
over the Internet (Allen, 1996; Braddle, 1993; Bromberg 1996; Giese, 1996; Reid, 1991; 
Rheingold, 1993; Young, 1998).  Reid (1991) investigated a community in terms of 
Geertz's (1963) notion of community--a "system of meanings that give significance to 
shared behaviours which must be interpreted from the perspective of those engaged in 
them."  Bromberg (1996) investigated the presence of  a "sense of community."  The 
psychological research conducted by Turkle (1984, 1995), Young (1998), Giese (1996), 
Dalaimo (1995), and Allen (1995) also falls into this category.   These studies have all 
used anecdotal and qualitative evidence to provide evidence of the existence of 
community sentiment.  None have attempted to investigate how prevalent community 
sentiment is among a population of  Internet users.  This study will quantitatively measure 
the extent to which community sentiment is developed among participants in an Internet 
chat room. 

	Chapter V
	Research Methods
 	The data required to meet the objectives of this exploratory study were collected 
through the use of a sample survey of participants in the Internet IRC Chatroom, #friends. 
 Therefore, the population for the study consisted of all users of #friends during the April, 
1998 to June 1998 time period.  A structured questionnaire was administered to a sample 
of participants selected from the study population through the sampling procedure 
described below.  The survey questionnaire contained questions designed to measure the 
key study variables described in Chapter 4.
The survey was administered over the Internet.  Respondents in the sample were 
mailed a cover letter and a survey questionnaire in a single message via e-mail.  
Alternatively, a copy of the survey was made available on the project website at 
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~irsurvey for respondents to download the survey.  Then, 
they could print, fill out the survey by hand and send it by regular U.S. Mail.  One week 
after the initial mailing, respondents who had not returned their survey were sent an 
electronic notice reminding them to fill out and return the survey.  Three weeks after the 
initial mailing, respondents who had still not returned a survey were sent a second cover 
letter and copy of the survey.
Sampling Procedure

A sample of 500 participants of the #friends IRC channel was drawn by logging 
on to #friends for one hour intervals at randomly selected times.  Two one hour time 
intervals per day were used until a sample of 500 participants was drawn.  When logging 
on to #friends, participants' e-mail addresses are displayed on the screen.  All persons 
whose e-mail addresses were displayed during the randomly selected times were included 
in the sample.  This strategy approximated a cluster sampling design with the time unit 
representing the clustering variable. It is a random intercept sampling technique in the 
sense that persons logged into #friends at the randomly selected times were "intercepted," 
or chosen as members of the sample pool. If an e-mail address had already been collected 
once, it was not collected a second time as a duplicate. 
Response Rate
In distributing the survey questionnaire to the sample of 500 participants in 
#friends, it was found that e-mail addresses displayed for participants were not always 
valid.  A significant proportion of these e-mailed questionnaires were returned as 
undeliverable SMTP failures. In total, 259 of the surveys actually got through to 
respondents over the course of the initial mailing and follow-up mailings. Out of the 
grand total of 259 surveys that actually got through, a total of 53 were returned, resulting 
in a response rate of 20.46%.  There is no logical reason to suspect that those who did not 
respond would have answered the questionnaire any differently than those who did 
respond.  Thus, nonresponse bias would appear to be minimal.
Organization of the Survey Questionnaire

The survey questionnaire (see Appendix A) is divided into four sections.  The first 
section asks respondents about the social relationships they have in #friends, to address 
the first dimension of community; that is, communal relationships.  This is also addressed 
by another section which asks respondents about their traditional face-to-face social 
relationships.  The second section of the survey establishes the geographic 
proximity of respondents to one another, which addresses the second dimension of 
community. A third section asks questions measure the presence of community sentiment 
or attachment--the third dimension.  The final section asks for some basic demographic 
information.  Each section of the survey is discussed in detail below. 
Measurement of Communal Relations
Communal Relations were measured according to the four dimensions of the 
strength of a social tie specified by Granovetter (1973).  These include the duration of a 
tie, the emotional attachment involved, the level of intimacy, and  the reciprocal exchange 
of services.  Respondents were asked if there are any people that they talk with through 
#friends that they consider to be close friends.  If a respondent answered "yes" to this 
question, he/she was asked to list the number of people that he/she talks with through 
#friends that he/she considers to be close friends.  Respondents were then asked a series 
of further contingency questions designed to measure the duration of these ties and 
whether or not they involve emotional attachment, intimacy, and exchange of services. 
The  duration of social ties established over #friends was measured by asking

 respondents  how long they have known their "close friends"  on #friends. Additionally, 
respondents were asked to indicate the number of "close friends" they have known on 
#friends for each of several time intervals ranging from "less than 6 months" to "5 or 
more years."
Whether or not social ties established over #friends involve emotional attachment, 
intimacy, and reciprocity, was measured using a series of items adapted from Granovetter 
(1973), Wellman (1979), Parks and Floyd (1996), and Kasarda and Janowitz (1974).  
Respondents were asked to indicate the ways in which the persons they know through 
#friends represent close friends to them.  Respondents were asked to check which of the 
following characteristics provide a basis for their friendship with those they identify as 
close friends: (a) We strongly care about each other; (b) We talk about close personal 
matters that are important to us; (c) We provide each other help concerning personal 
problems; (d) We are "romantically" involved; and (e) We are related by family (see 
question 3-B in the survey).  In addition, respondents were asked to list the number of 
close friends they have through #friends to which each of these reasons applies.  It is 
contended that items a, d, and e directly reflect emotional attachment in a social tie.  
Items b and c directly reflect intimacy in a social tie,  Finally, all items imply a reciprocal 
exchange of services of some type between the parties involved.  

The number and strength of close social ties held by respondents outside of 
Cyberspace (e.g., on a face-to-face basis) were measured using the same series of 
questions (see question 7 and related contingency questions in the survey).  The 
relationships between responses to the questions, the number of strong ties developed 
through #friends, and the frequency of contact with others through #friends (see questions 
1, 2, and 17 in the survey) was used to assess the extent to which participants in #friends 
are social isolates in their physical location who engage in social relationships only 
through the Internet.  Additionally, respondents were asked whether there are any persons 
that they initially met through #friends with whom they have established face-to-face 
relationships, including relationships that have turned into romantic relationships 
involving dating or marriage (see question 9 and related contingency questions in the 
survey).
Measurement of the Geographic Scale of Community

The geographical proximity of a respondent=s network of close ties was measured 
by first asking respondents to indicate the city, state/province, (and country if outside 
USA), of their 5 closest friends on #friends, and respondents were then asked to list the 
location of their 5 closest friends that they did not meet and get to know through #friends. 
 	The survey also measured the extent to which a respondent's network of close ties 
outside of Cyberspace resides in the same location as the respondent.  The extent to 
which a respondent's network of close ties once lived in the same location, but migrated 
elsewhere was also measured.  Additionally, the means by which these ties are 
maintained through social contact, including the use of #friends, was also measured.  The 
responses to these questions, combined with the data on the number of strong ties 
developed solely through #friends, were used to provide insight into the extent to which 
close geographical proximity is important in the formation of social ties.  In other words, 
using Wellman's terminology (1979), this provides insight into the extent to which 
participation in @liberated@ communities represents the maintenance of communal ties 
initially established within the context of a traditional, proximate, community setting. 
In an effort to determine the geographic scale of social relations of respondents 
in both #friends and in a face-to-face setting, respondents were asked to list the city, 
state/province, and country (if other than USA) for up to five of their closest friends in 
#friends and for their face-to-face relationships.  These locations were then compared to 
the value the respondent indicated for their location in question 11.  Using this 
comparison for each of these relationships, the following  dummy variables were 
created: within city, within state, within country, within continent and cross-continent.  
Values were assigned in the following manner: 1 = within city, 2 = within state, 3 = 
within country, 4 = within continent, 5 = cross continent, and 9 = unknown.  The 
lowest possible level was coded for each variable.  For example, if  a respondent was 
within the same city,  presumably he or she would also be within the same state, 
country, and continent, yet this would be coded with a value of 1=within city.  The 
categories of within continent and cross continent were later collapsed into a category 
labeled Across national.@  This procedure was used for the variables in questions 3-D, 
7-E, and 9-B.  A frequency of combinations of different locational patterns was taken.

Measurement of Community Sentiment
Community sentiment was measured by items adapted from scales of community 
attachment and community sentiment developed by Kasarda and Janowitz (1974), Goudy 
(1982, 1990), and Buttel et al. (1979).  The wording of the items was adapted to 
fit the context of Cyberspace and the specific chatroom.  The first  question 
which was been adapted from Kasarda and Janowitz (1974:331) was utilized for the 
purposes of this survey to read as follows: "Would you say you belong to and feel 'at 
home' when you participate in #friends?"  Kasarda and Janowitz (1974:331) coded this 
question as a yes/no response, Goudy (1982:183) chose to use a three point likert type 
scale: (1) definitely not or probably not, (2) probably,  (3) definitely (1982:381-2)."  For 
the purposes of this survey however, the scale was modified to a four point likert type 
scale ranging from Adefinitely not@ to Adefinitely.@
Goudy (1982:183) uses the notion of "Length of residence" as a factor to measure 
community attachment.  Obviously, one does not take up "residence" in #friends in a 
literal sense.  But perhaps one can have "residence" in #friends in a figurative sense. The 
length of residence in a real-world -- physical, geographically bounded community -- 
helps to shape the length of acquaintance with other community members.  So too should 
the length of "residence" in #friends help to shape the length of acquaintance with friends 
formed in #friends. Granovetter's time dimension also comes into play here.  Question 
3-C was used to measure the temporal length of the ties. 

Another question used in the survey to measure community attachment which was 
also adapted from Kasarda and Janowitz (1974:331) was, "How interested are you to 
know what goes on in #friends?"  Response choices for this question were coded using a 
three point likert type scale with the responses (1) no interest, (2) some interest, and (3) 
much interest.
Yet another question from Kasarda and Janowitz (1974:331) was adapted to read 
as, ASuppose that for some reason that you were not allowed to participate in or log on to 
#friends for an extended period of time.  How would you feel about being unable to have 
access to #friends?@  Response choices for this question are coded as (1) very sorry, (2) 
somewhat sorry, (3) somewhat pleased, and (4) very pleased.	
A factor analysis using the principal components methods of extraction was 
conducted on the three indicators of community attachment for the sample of #friends 
users.  The following results were obtained: 

Eigenvalues of  the Correlation Matrix:   Total=3       Average=1




 Factor

1

2

3

Eigenvalue 

2.0008

0.6150

0.3842

Difference

1.3858

0.2308



Proportion

0.6669

0.2050

0.1281

Cumulative

0.6669

0.8719

1.0000



	Questionnaire Item

Factor Pattern

4.) Would you say you belong to and feel 'at home' when you participate in
      #friends?

0.8691

5.) How much interest do you have in knowing what goes on in #friends?

0.81584

6.) How would you feel about being unable to have access to #friends?

0.76149



Only 1 factor was found with an Eigenvalue > 1.0.  This factor explained 66.7% 
of the variance among the three indicators of community sentiment.  Bivariate 
correlations among the three indicators ranged from .37 to .59.  Scores on each of the 
three community sentiment items were summed to form a composite index of community 
sentiment.  Possible values for the composite index of community sentiment would range 
from 3 to 11.  A score of 3 would indicate an extremely low level of community 
sentiment or a lack of community sentiment, and a score of 11 would indicate a high level 
of community sentiment. Chronbach's alpha was also computed as an indicator of 
reliability of the index.  Coefficient ? was found to be .745 indicating that the reliability 
of the index is somewhat less than ideal. 
Method of Data Analysis 
The responses were collected and analyzed through the use of descriptive 
statistics.  Correlations between the number of on-line friends and face-to-face friends 
were also run.  Descriptive data from the measures of communal relations, geography 
of communal relations, and  community sentiment are used to assess the ways in which 
social participation on the #friends IRC channel represents a community in a 
sociological sense. 

	Chapter VI
 Findings
Characteristics of the Sample
Respondents of the survey were found to range in age from 13 to 50 years of age.  
The mean age for the sample was found to be 22.9 years (see Table 6.1).  The gender 
composition of the sample consisted of 59.6% males and 40.4% females.  These findings 
are somewhat consistent with those of the sample studied by Parks and Floyd (1996).  
The typical respondent in Parks and Floyd's study also tended to be male and single 
(1996:85).  However, the average age in Parks and Floyd's sample was much higher.   
Nearly 27.5% of the respondents were found to have a college degree or advanced 
graduate training.  Approximately one-third of the sample had a high school degree or 
some high school while 39.2% reported having some college.  Moreover, 57.1% of  the 
respondents reported that they were students.  Finally, 69.8% of the respondents reported 
that they were single.  These sample characteristics suggest that the typical respondent 
tended to be a single,  male, college or high school student.

Respondents in the sample were found to reside in 17 different nations, 
representing every continent except Antarctica (See Table 6.2 for a complete list of 
countries represented).  The United States had the highest representation with a total of 
26 responses (52% of the sample).  The second highest representation came from Canada 
with a total of 6 responses (12% of the sample).  This was followed by 3 responses from 
Australia and  2 responses from the Philippines.  All other nations represented in the 
sample had only one response. 

To evaluate the composition of the sample, it is useful to compare these sample 
characteristics with those of other Internet studies.  By far, the most comprehensive 
source of Internet demographics is the GVU user survey of Internet demographics that 
attempts to provide insight into the characteristics of the population of Internet users.   
Advertisements inviting Internet users to participate in the GVU survey are found across 
a variety of different Internet sites.  Internet users that are interested log on to the survey 
site and fill out the survey questionnaire on-line. While it is unknown how well 
participants in the GVU survey represent the population of Internet users, those that do 
participate are drawn from a wide cross-section of Internet sites.  Table 6.1 gives a 
comparison of the #friends sample characteristics with those of the Ninth GVU Survey 
(1998).  These data indicate that the #friends sample and participants in the GVU survey 
have a similar gender composition; that is, there are approximately 1.5-1.6 male users for 
every female user.  However, the comparison also suggests that #friends participants tend 
to be younger in age, have less education, are more likely to be single, and are more likely 
to be students compared to participants in the GVU survey.  This suggests that the 
#friends chatroom tends to be a more specialized Internet site that appeals primarily to 
single students seeking out interaction with others, compared to users of other sites for 
Internet communication. 
Frequency of Participation in #friends and in other chat rooms  
Out of 53 respondents total, 17 respondents (32.1%) indicated that they used 
friends "several times a day" while 6 respondents (11.3%) indicated that they used   
#friends  "once a day" (see Table 6.3).  Thus, 43.4% of the sample participated in #friends 
at least once a day.  A 95% confidence interval for this indicator was found to be ?13.3%. 
 This indicates that the population percentage of  #friends users that participate in the chat 
room at least once a day is 95% likely to be at least 30.1% but not more than 57.7%.  
Thus, it is possible that the majority (> 50%) of the population of #friends users 
participate in the chat room every day. 
An additional 17 respondents (32.1%) stated that they used #friends "a few times 
a week."  Adding to the previous estimate, over 75% of the respondents in the sample 
stated that they participated in #friends at least several times a week. The magnitude of 
this estimate indicates that it is highly likely that the majority of the population of 
#friends users participates in the chat room at least several times a week.  

	Table 6.1
	Comparison of this sample with Ninth GVU Survey

Characteristic		#friends Sample  		     9th GVU Survey   	f 	%	f   	%
Gender
Male	32	60.4	7716	61.3
Female	21	39.6	4875	38.7
Total	53	100.0	12591	100.0	
Age
Under 11	0	0.0	9	0
 	11-15	5	10.0	261 	2.1
 	16-20  	16	32.0	1366	11.0
21-25	17	34.0	1911	15.4
26-30	6	12.0	1971	15.8
31+	6	12.0	6925	55.7
Total	50	100.0	12443	100.0
Missing	3		148

Education
Some High School	10	19.6	393	3.2
High School Grad.	7	13.7	1285	10.3
Some College	20	39.2	4392	35.5
College Degree	9	17.6	3817	30.8
Some Grad School	2	3.9	--	--
Advanced Degree	3	5.9	2490	20.1
Total	51	100.0	12377	100.0
Missing	2		214

Occupation
Computer Related	7	14.3	2811	22.3
Management	1	2.0	1415	11.2
Professional	10	20.4	731	21.7
Educator or Student	26	53.0	3304	26.2
Other	5	10.2	2330	18.5
Total	49	100.0	12591	100.0
Missing	4		--

Marital Status
Single	37	74.0	4873	38.7
Married	7	14.0	5172	41.0
Divorced	1	2.0	861	6.84
Widowed	1	2.0	134	1.1
Other	4	8.0	1361	10.8
Total	50	100.0	12591	100.0
Missing	3		--

	Table 6.2
	Countries Represented by the Sample

Continent	Country	f	%

Africa	South Africa	1	1.9
Total	1	1.9

Asia	India	1	1.9
Philippines	2	3.8
Republic of Georgia	1	1.9
Total	4	7.5

Australia	Australia	3	5.7
Total	3	5.7

Europe	Holland	1	1.9
Norway	1	1.9
Romania	1	1.9
Sweden	1	1.9
United Kingdom	1	1.9
Total	5	9.4

North America	USA	26	49.1
Canada	6	11.3
Mexico	1	1.9
Total	33	62.3

Oceania	New Zealand	1	1.9
Total	1	1.9

South America	Columbia	1	1.9
Uruguay	1	1.9
Venezuela	1	1.9
Total	3	5.7

Grand Total	53	100.0


	Table 6.3 Frequency of participation in #friends chatroom

Frequency of Use	f	%

several times a day	17	32.1
once a day	6	11.3
a few times a week	17	32.1
once a week	5	9.4
a few times a month	5	9.4
once a month or less	3	5.7
Total	53	100

On-line Friendships in #friends
Altogether, 34 of the 53 respondents (64.2%) indicated that they regularly talk 
with specific people in #friends on a frequent basis. For this indicator, the 95% 
confidence interval was found to be ?12.9%.  This indicates that the population 
percentage of #friends users that regularly talk with people in #friends on a frequent basis 
appears to be at least 51.3% but no more than 77.1%.  This suggests that for the majority 
of users, the #friends chatroom serves as a forum for regular communication with specific 
people.   
In total, 36 of the 53 respondents (67.9%) stated that they did consider some of the 
people they talked with through #friends to be close friends.  For this indicator, the 95% 
confidence interval was found to be ?12.6%.  Thus, the population percentage of #friends 
users that perceive themselves as having developed close friendship ties through #friends 
is 95% likely to fall between 55.3 % and 80.5%.   This suggests that the majority of the 
population of #friends users would perceive themselves as having developed close 
friendships with others through participating in the chat room.  

On average, respondents in the sample stated that they had developed close 
friendships with approximately 5 other persons through #friends (mean=5.12).  A 95% 
confidence interval was ?.94.  Thus, the population mean for the number of close friends 
developed through participation in #friends is 95% likely to fall between 4 and 6 persons. 
 Nature of On-Line relationships in #friends
In general, the establishment of friendships with others was found to be the most 
important reason for participating in #friends.  As one respondent put it, the most 
important reason for participating in friends is:
To make friends ... real friends who go beyond the scope of being just an 
acquaintance for casual chat. I strongly look upon the Internet as a  medium to 
make the world a smaller place, through better understanding of cultures and 
regional habit. To a large extent, our environment imposes a large number of 
habits on us, habits that are considered "crude" and "not classy". It is my endeavor 
to discover these traits and adapt myself to them, so that I become a part of a 
really global family. The basic purpose of the Internet / IRC should be to serve as 
a zone where such "habits" and "environments" break down (gimme a prize for 
idealism :-))

The intensity of this quote illustrates the passionate feelings of some #friends users about 
the importance of participating in the chatroom in order to make friends.  The part of the 
first sentence of the quote which reads "real friends who go beyond the scope of being  
just an acquaintance for casual chat"  illustrates precisely the kind of strong friendship 
ties that make up "community."

The data for the characteristics of close friendship ties developed in #friends 
revealed that the majority of respondents in the sample had established at least one 
friendship tie that they perceived as involving some form of emotional attachment, 
intimacy, and a reciprocal exchange of services.  In total, 64.2% of the respondents in the 
sample stated that they had developed a close friendship tie in #friends where the persons 
provided each other with help concerning personal problems (see Table 6.4).  Out of the 
36 respondents stating that they had developed close friendship ties in #friends, the mean 
percentage of close friendship ties with this characteristic was estimated to be 71.6%.  To 
put this another way, on average, an estimated 7 out of every 10 close friendship ties 
developed in #friends had this attribute. 
In addition, 58.5% of the respondents in the sample stated that they had developed 
a close friendship tie in #friends where the persons strongly cared about each other=s well 
being, or talked about close personal matters that were important to them (see Table 6.4). 
 Out of the 36 respondents stating that they had developed close friendship ties in #friends 
the mean percentage of close friendship ties with each of these characteristics was 
estimated to be 64.9% and 57.9%, respectively.  These findings suggest that the majority 
of friendship ties developed in #friends were found to be characterized by these forms of 
intimacy and/or attachment, also implying that these relationships involve a reciprocal 
exchange of services between the persons involved. 

In contrast, friendship ties in #friends based on romantic involvement or family 
relations were found to occur much less frequently.  In total, 20.8% of the respondents 
stated that they had developed at least one close friendship tie in #friends where the 
persons were romantically involved (see Table 6.4).  Out of 36 persons who had 
developed close ties via #friends, the mean percentage of close friendship ties with this 
characteristic was estimated to be 14%.  Only 1 out of the 53 respondents (1.9%) stated 
that he had developed at least one close friendship tie in #friends involving family 
relations.

Table 6.4

The data for the duration of ties revealed that the majority of close friendship ties 
developed in #friends had been established between 6 months and 2 years in length at the 
time of data collection (see Table 6.5).  Out of the 36 persons who stated they had 
developed a close friendship tie in #friends, 55.5% had at least one tie that had been 
established between 6 months and a year in length, while 52.8% had at least one tie that 
had been established between 1 and 2 years in length.  Moreover, 26.8% of the total 
friendship ties established in #friends had been established between 6 months and a year 
while 31.8% of the total ties had been between 1 and 2 years.  Thus, the majority of all 
close ties (58.6%) had been established between 6 months and 2 years. 

An additional 24.7% of all close ties developed in #friends had been established 
less than 6 months (see Table 6.5).  Thus, 83.3% of all close ties had been established for 
two years or less.  In total, only 16.7% of the close friendship ties established in #friends 
had been in existence for more than 3 years.  Obviously, these findings are influenced by 
the Anewness@ of the technology.  However, the large percentage of close ties that had 
been in existence for 1-2 years suggests that close relationships developed in a chatroom 
setting may be maintained over an extended period of time.  

Table 6.5 

Traditional Face-to-Face Relationships Outside of  Cyberspace
  	In total, 49 out of the 53 respondents (92.5%) stated that they had close 
relationships with other people that they met and got to know outside of Cyberspace 
(i.e. outside of chatting on the computer).  For this indicator, the 95% confidence 
interval was found to be ?7.1%.  This indicates that the population percentage of 
#friends users  that appears to be at least 85.4% but no more than 99.6%.

On average, respondents in this sample stated that they had developed close 
friendships with approximately 7 other persons (mean=7.27) outside of Cyberspace.  
The 95% confidence interval for this estimate was found to be ?1.6.  This means that 
there is a 95% likelihood that for the population of #friends users, the average number 
of close friendship ties of respondents is between about 6 and 8 close friendship ties.
The data for the characteristics of close friendship ties developed outside of 
Cyberspace revealed that the majority of respondents in the sample had established at 
least one friendship tie that they perceived as involving some form of emotional 
attachment, intimacy, and a reciprocal exchange of services.  In total, 84.9% of the 
respondents in the sample stated that they had developed a close friendship tie outside of 
Cyberspace where the persons strongly cared about each other=s well being (see Table 
6.6).  Out of the 49 respondents stating that they had developed close friendship ties 
outside of Cyberspace, the mean percentage of close friendship ties with this 
characteristic was estimated to be 80.1%.  To put this another way, on average, an 
estimated 8 out of every 10 close friendship ties developed outside of Cyberspace had this 
attribute.  Among those respondents that stated they had a close tie outside of Cyberspace, 
91.8% had this characteristic. 

In addition, 81.1% of the respondents in the sample stated that they had developed 
a close friendship tie outside of Cyberspace where the persons talked about close personal 
matters that were important to them (see Table 6.6).  Out of the 49 respondents stating 
that they had developed close friendship ties outside of Cyberspace the mean percentage 
of close friendship ties with this characteristic was estimated to be 60.3%.  About three 
quarters of respondents (75.5%, 40 respondents) indicated that they provided help 
concerning personal problems to at least one close friendship tie outside of Cyberspace.  
Among those respondents that stated they had a close tie outside of Cyberspace, 81.6% 
had this characteristic. These findings suggest that the majority of friendship ties 
developed outside of Cyberspace were found to be characterized by these forms of 
intimacy and/or attachment, also implying that these relationships involve a reciprocal 
exchange of services between the persons involved. 
As was the case for close friendship ties developed in #friends, close friendship 
ties outside of Cyberspace based on romantic involvement or family relations were found 
to occur much less frequently.  In total, 34.0% of the respondents stated that they had 
developed at least one close friendship tie outside of Cyberspace where the persons were 
romantically involved  (see Table 6.6).  Out of 49 persons who had developed close ties 
outside of Cyberspace, the mean percentage of close friendship ties with this 
characteristic was estimated to be 13.2%.  A total of 8 out of the 53 respondents (15.1%) 
stated that he had developed at least one close friendship tie outside of Cyberspace 
involving family relations.


Table 6.6  
Characteristics of Close Friendship Ties Developed Outside of Cyberspace

The data for the duration of ties revealed that the majority of close friendship ties 
developed outside of Cyberspace (62.2%) had lasted for three years or more (see Table 
6.7).   Out of he 46 persons who stated they had developed a close friendship tie outside 
of Cyberspace, 56.5% had at least one tie that had been established for 5 or more years in 
length, while 50.0% had at least one close tie that had been established between 1 and 2 
years in length. Moreover, 45.2% of the total friendship ties established outside of 
Cyberspace had been established for 5 or more years in length while 25.0% of the total 
ties had been established between 1 and 2 years.  Thus, the majority of all close ties 
(62.2%) outside of Cyberspace had been established for 3 or more years. 

Only 8.6% of all close ties developed outside of Cyberspace had been established 
less than 6 months (see Table 6.7).  Thus, 37.8% of all close ties outside of Cyberspace 
had been established for two years or less.  In total, only 12.8% of the close friendship 
ties established in #friends had been in existence for less than 1 year.


Table 6.7


In all, 23 out of the 53 respondents (43.4%) indicated that at least one of their 
close friends had, at one time, lived in the same location as they themselves did, but 
now lived elsewhere.  For this indicator, the 95% confidence interval was found to be 
?13.3%.  This indicates that the population percentage of #friends users that have at 
least one close friend that at one time lived in the same location but now live elsewhere 
appears to be at least 30.1% but no more than 56.7%. This signifies that it is possible, 
though not highly likely, that a majority ( > 50%) of the population of #friends users 
had nonlocal communal ties which were initially established when the person involved 
lived in proximity.  

Among the valid responses, respondents had an average of about 8 close face-to-
face friendship ties outside of Cyberspace (Mean = 8.5).  Out of these 8 or so close 
friendship ties, an average of about 3 close friendship ties were non-local (Mean = 
3.42). Out of these non-local friendship ties of respondents, roughly 67.8% (or 2 out of 
3) non-local friendship ties once lived in the same location but now live elsewhere.   
Out of these 8 or so close friendship ties, an average of about 5 (mean = 5.09) close 
friendship ties were local in nature. This indicates that proximity does appear to be an 
important factor in the formation and maintenance of close face-to-face friendship ties 
that exist outside of Cyberspace.  
 A total of 14 out of the 53 respondents (26.4%) indicated that one or both 
traveled to meet face-to-face with their friends who once lived in the same location as 
they did.   Given this, it can be reasonably concluded that a fair number of relationships 
with others living in a different location resulted in face-to-face contact at some point.  

In total, 14 of  the 53 respondents (26.4%) indicated that they talked over the 
telephone with their friends who had once lived in the same location as they did. 
Additionally, 19 out of the 53 respondents (35.8%)  indicated that they used e-mail to 
communicate with their friends who had once lived in the same location.  About 54.2% 
of those who responded to question 7-G2 indicated that they wrote letters to their 
friends who had once lived in the same location as they did.  In total, 6 out of those that 
answered question 7-G2 indicated an "other" response, meaning that they 
communicated with their friends by some other means than what was listed. Two 
examples given for the other category were FAXes, and ICQ.  Only 7 out of the 53 
respondents (13.2%)  indicated that there are persons they talk with through #friends 
that they first met face-to-face.  This low number would seem to indicate that 
participants of #friends are not using this medium to  maintain once existing 
face-to-face ties, but that they are using #friends to form new friendship ties.  For those 
who did use #friends to maintain contact with once existing face-to-face ties, however, 
the mean number of friends that did use #friends to maintain ties with  was about 2 
friends (Mean = 2.33). 
 The Relationship Between Close Ties in #friends & Close Ties Outside Cyberspace
The data for close friendship ties indicate that the majority of respondents 
tended to have close friendship ties, both in #friends, and outside of Cyberspace.  In 
total, 66.7% (34/53) of the respondents reported having at least one close tie in #friends 
and at least one close tie outside of Cyberspace (see Table 6.8).   Additionally, 25.5% 
of the respondents (13/53) reported having at least one close friendship tie outside of 
Cyberspace while having no close friendship ties in #friends.  The opposite scenario 
was found to be much more infrequent in the sample.  Only 1 respondent out of 53 
(1.9%) reported having close friends in #friends, while having no close friendship ties 
outside of Cyberspace.  Further, only 3 respondents reported having no close friendship 
ties in either social situation.  These data suggest that contrary to stereotypes, 
participants in the #friends chatroom tend not to be reclusive Internet users that avoid 
developing any close social relationships with others outside of Cyberspace. 

A correlational analysis, however, between the number of strong ties in #friends 
and the number of strong ties outside of Cyberspace revealed an insignificant, positive 
correlation that would be weak in magnitude, at best, in the case of a Type II error 
(r=.2749, p=.0514).  This suggests that the number of close ties developed in #friends 
and the number of close ties developed outside of Cyberspace is independent.  Thus, 
those that develop a large number of strong ties outside of Cyberspace do no tend to 
develop a high number of strong ties in #friends and vice versa.  Nor, do those with a 
large number of strong ties in one social situation tend to develop a small number in the 
other.  
The Effects of Internet Participation on Other Activities

 	A total of 39 out of the 53 respondents (73.6%) indicated that they believed that 
the time they spent on the Internet had an important effect on their participation in other 
activities.  The major impact of time spent on the Internet however, was on time spent 
watching television.  Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (35 respondents, 66%) 
indicated that they spend less time watching TV as a result of their Internet use (see 
Table 6.9).   Seven or fewer respondents reported that spending time on the Internet 
resulted in spending less time on schoolwork, less time with friends, or less time with 
family.  This suggests that Internet use among #friends participants is largely a 
recreational activity that replaces television viewing during leisure time.

Table 6.9

Geographic Scale of Close Friendship Ties in #friends

The majority of close friendship ties developed in #friends were found to be 
cross national in their geographic scale.  In total, 52.1% of the total close friendship 
ties reported by respondents involved relationships that existed across national 
boundaries (see Table 6.10).  A substantial percentage of close friendship ties in 
#friends were national in scale and extended across the boundaries of states or 
provinces.  An estimated 30.8% of the close friendship ties in #friends were found to 
be at this level of geographic scale.   The findings indicated that the close friendship 
ties developed in #friends did not tend to occur at more proximate geographic scales.  
Only 4.3% of all close friendship ties involved persons living in the same city or town 
while only 7.7% of all ties involved persons living within the same state or province.  
These data suggest that networks of close friendship ties in #friends tend to be passive 
and diffuse in geographic scale and are not characterized by physical proximity.

Table 6.10 

Geographic Scale of Close Friendship Ties Outside of Cyberspace

The close friendship ties developed by respondents outside of Cyberspace tended 
to exhibit a greater degree of geographic proximity compared to close ties developed in 
#friends.  An estimated 39.3% of the close ties developed outside of Cyberspace involved 
persons within the same city or town (see Table 6.11).  An additional 28.9% involved 
persons within the same state or province.  Thus, over two-thirds of the total close 
friendship ties developed outside of Cyberspace were either Alocal@ in geographic scale 
(i.e., within the same city or town), or at the state level.  These data suggest that close 
social ties outside of Cyberspace tend to be more geographically circumscribed with 
spatial proximity playing a more important role in their formation and maintenance.  

Table 6.11  

The Evolution of Cyberspace Relationships into Face-to-Face Relationships
The development of a face-to-face relationship with a person that they initially 
met through #friends did not occur with high frequency among respondents in the sample. 
 In total, 9 out of the 53 respondents (17%) reported establishing a face-to-face 
relationship with someone they initially met in #friends.  While this percentage is not 
high, it indicates that an estimated 1 out of every 6 #friends participants in the sample had 
done this.  This ratio is more frequent than one might expect given the dominance of 
close friendship ties among #friends participants at the cross national level. 

Of the 9 respondents indicating that they had developed face-to-face ties with 
persons they met in #friends, 6 were found to have developed face-to-face relationships 
with multiple persons.  In total, the 9 respondents developed face-to-face ties with 22 
other persons.  Out of these 22 ties, 8 involved persons within the same state or province 
and 13 involved persons residing within the same country.  Only one tie was found to be 
cross national in scale.  These data indicate that while the development of close 
friendship ties in #friends predominantly occurs at an international scale, rarely do such 
ties evolve into face-to-face relationships unless the persons involved live in the same 
country.  A total of 7 out of the 53 respondents (13.2%) indicated that at least one of their 
face-to-face relationships they established with persons they first met through #friends 
turned into romantic relationships involving dating or marriage. 
Community Sentiment Among Participants in #friends
The majority of respondents were found to exhibit moderate to high levels of 
community sentiment as measured by the three community sentiment indicators.  In total, 
57.7% of the respondents stated that they Adefinitely@ perceive themselves as Abelonging 
to and feeling at home@ when they participate in #friends while an additional 26.9% stated 
that they Aprobably@ do (see Table 6.12).  Only 15.3% of the respondents stated that they 
probably do not or definitely do not belong to and feel at home when they participate in 
#friends.
Additionally, 54.7% of the respondents stated that they have Asome interest@ in 
knowing what goes on in #friends while 39.6% stated that they have Amuch interest@ in 
knowing what goes on (see Table 6.12).  Finally, 49.1% of the sample stated that they 
would be Avery sorry@ if they were no longer able to access #friends while 50.9% stated 
that they would be Asomewhat sorry@ if they no longer had access (see Table 6.12).  None 
of the respondents stated they would be Avery pleased@ or Asomewhat pleased@ if they no 
longer had access.

In combining the responses to the 3 indicators to form the index of community 
sentiment, the mean index score for the sample was found to be 9.23, on a scale of 3 to 
11.  Taken together, these findings suggest that #friends users in the sample developed a 
fairly high degree of community sentiment in relation to their participation in the #friends 
chatroom.  Thus, participants tend to define themselves as being part of a group in which 
they have Astake@ and a personal interest. 
The level of community sentiment was found to be related to whether or not a 
respondent had developed close friendship ties in #friends.  The mean score on the 
community index was found to be 9.91 for respondents that had developed close 
friendship ties in #friends (see Table 6.13).  In comparison, the mean index score for 
respondents without close friendship ties in #friends was found to be 7.94.  A t-test for 
differences of means revealed that the means for the two groups were significantly 
different (t = -5.16, p = .001).  While the direction of causal influence cannot be 
determined because of the cross-sectional research design, this finding suggests that the 
formation of strong ties in #friends helps promote higher levels of community sentiment, 
or vice versa.

Table 6.13

Chapter VII

Discussion and Conclusions

Close Friendship Ties in #friends
The data shows that the majority of #friends participants in the sample did view 
themselves as having close friendship ties through participating in #friends.  In looking at 
the attributes of these friendship ties, the majority do tend to exhibit three of 
Granovetter's criteria for strong social ties, i.e. emotional attachment, intimacy, and the 
reciprocal exchange of services.   Emotional attachment, represented by those who 
"strongly care about each other's personal well being" appears to be strong.  Of those who 
indicated they had at least one close friendship tie in friends, 86.1% indicated that this 
applied. Also representing emotional attachment were items asking about those who were 
"romantically involved" and "related  by family."  There was as  high a level number of 
"romantic" emotional attachments among #friends users as compared to those who 
Astrongly care about each other's personal well being," but there still is some emotional 
attachment.  Of those who reported they had friendship ties in #friends, 30.6% indicated 
they were romantically involved with at least one person in #friends. As far as familial 
emotional attachment, this is not really a factor in #friends use, because only one of the 
#friends users in the sample indicated that he used friends to communicate with family 
members. 

Granovetter's dimension of intimacy was measured using items asking about those 
who "talk about close personal matters that are important" in #friends and items asking 
about those who "provide each other with help concerning personal problems" in 
#friends. For both of these indicators, a large majority of  respondents who indicated they 
had close friendship ties in #friends indicated that they did "talk about close personal 
matters that are important" (86.1%) and that they did "provide each other with help 
concerning personal problems" (94.4%).  These indicators suggest a high degree of 
intimacy among friends users who indicated they had at least one close friendship tie in 
#friends. 	
These results signify that there does indeed appear to be a high level of intimacy 
in close friendship ties among #friends users, and that there are high levels of a certain 
type of emotional attachment--strongly caring about each other's personal well being.  
Also, there does appear to be some emotional attachment among close friendship ties in 
#friends as evidenced by romantic relationships, though this is not quite as high of a level 
of emotional attachment.  There does not appear to be much of any familial emotional 
attachment  among close friendship ties in #friends. This may be a question of semantics, 
if persons did not consider family to be close friends, but instead placed family members 
in a separate category than friends, they may not have indicated family ties as being close 
friendship ties when in fact they may have had close ties with family members.  All of 
these items involved reciprocal exchange of services, so this too seems to be present 
among the close friendship ties of friends users.

While not all #friends participants developed communal relationships in #friends, 
the majority of #friends participants in the sample did develop such relationships. A small 
number of respondents indicated that they had close friendship ties in #friends, but did 
not check off any of the items measuring emotional attachment, intimacy, or reciprocal 
exchange of services.  This could indicate the presence of false communal relations in 
#friends.  While respondents felt they may have had a close friendship tie in these case, 
Granovetter=s criteria of emotional attachment, intimacy, or reciprocal exchange of 
services were not met in these cases, calling into question the sincerity of the friendship 
ties.  It is interesting to note that someone could actually perceive a close friendship tie 
that does not exhibit  the characteristics of communal relationships.
As for Granovetter's notion of duration of friendship ties, a majority of close 
friendship ties in #friends indicated by respondents (68.6%) lasted from 3 to 4 years.  
Given the instantaneous nature of Internet communication and the newness of the Internet 
as a medium for communication and formation of friendship ties, this seems like a fairly 
long duration for Internet-mediated close friendship ties.  The number of relationships 
lasting 3 to 4 years in #friends suggests that long time relationships through #friends are 
possible. 
Given these findings, it seems as though Granovetter's criteria needed for close 
friendship ties to exist are present in the close friendship ties in #friends.   There are high 
levels of emotional attachment, intimacy, and reciprocity among the close friendship ties 
of #friends users in #friends.  It is this type of strong friendship tie that make up 
communal ties.  Hence, it is logical to conclude that the majority of close friendship ties 
in #friends can be said to be communal ties.  

Respondents' Close Friendship Ties Outside of Cyberspace
The majority of respondents' close friendship ties outside of Cyberspace also 
appear to exhibit Granovetter's criteria for strong social ties in some form or another.  
Emotional attachment, represented by those who "strongly care about each other's 
personal well being" appears to be strong.  Of those who indicated they had at least one 
close friendship tie outside of Cyberspace, 95.7% indicated that this applied. Also 
representing emotional attachment were items asking about those who were "romantically 
involved" and "related  by family."  There was not as high of a number of "romantic" 
emotional attachments among #friends users as the level exhibited by those who strongly 
care about each other's personal well being," but there still is some romantic emotional 
attachment.  Of those who reported they had close friendship ties outside of Cyberspace, 
38.3% indicated they were romantically involved with at least one person outside of 
Cyberspace. As far as familial emotional attachment, this is somewhat less of a factor in 
respondents' relationships outside of Cyberspace, because only 11 of the respondents 
indicated that they had close ties with family members.  This low number could be due to 
a question of semantics.  Some people who may have a close tie with family members 
may not consider such a tie to be a close "friendship" tie, because some people consider 
friends to be separate from family, so some respondents may not have put anything where 
they were asked to indicate the number of close "friendship" ties.  This could account for 
the low number of familial ties represented among the close face-to-face "friendship" ties 
indicated by respondents. 

Granovetter's dimension of intimacy was measured using items asking about those 
who "talk about close personal matters that are important" with others outside of 
Cyberspace, and items asking about those who "provide each other with help concerning 
personal problems" with others outside of Cyberspace.  For both of these indicators, a 
large majority of  respondents who indicated they had close face-to-face friendship ties 
outside of Cyberspace indicated that they did "talk about close personal mattes that are 
important" (95.6%) and that they did "provide each other with help concerning personal 
problems" (85.1%).  These indicators suggest a high degree of intimacy among friends 
users who indicated they had at least one close friendship tie outside of #friends. 	
These results signify that there does indeed appear to be a high level of intimacy 
in the traditional, face-to-face close friendship ties held by respondents outside of 
Cyberspace, and that there are high levels of a certain type of emotional 
attachment--strongly caring about each other's personal well being.  Also, there does 
appear to be some emotional attachment among close face-to-face friendship ties of 
respondents as evidenced by romantic relationships, though this is not quite as high of a 
level of emotional attachment.  There does not appear to be much of any familial 
emotional attachment  among close face-to-face friendship ties of respondents.  Again, 
this may be a question of semantics, if persons did not consider family to be close friends, 
but instead placed family members in a separate category than friends, they may not have 
indicated family ties as being close friendship ties.  All of these items involved reciprocal 
exchange of services, so this too seems to be present among the close friendship ties of 
friends users.  More face-to-face ties outside of Cyberspace exhibit emotional attachment, 
intimacy, and reciprocal exchange of services than the relationships in #friends.  

As for Granovetter's notion of duration of friendship ties, the most commonly 
occurring pattern of close face-to-face outside of Cyberspace friendship ties of 
respondents indicated by respondents (44.9% of all close ties) lasted from 3 to 4 years.  
These ties also tend to be much longer in duration than those in #friends, but this could be 
due to the Anewness@ of the technology.
Given these findings, it seems as though Granovetter's criteria needed for close 
friendship ties to exist are present in a majority of the close face-to-face friendship ties of 
respondents.   There are high levels of emotional attachment, intimacy, and reciprocity 
among the close friendship ties of  respondents.  
Comparison of Close Friendship Ties in #friends and Close Friendship Ties Outside 
of Cyberspace
The data indicates that the face-to-face friendship ties outside of Cyberspace 
exhibited higher levels of emotional attachment, intimacy, and reciprocity compared to 
close ties that were perceived to exist in #friends.  This shows the differences in the 
nature of friendship ties developed through this technological medium and traditional 
face-to-face friendship ties. 

This chatroom tends to consist of multiple networks of close ties which constitute 
communal relations.  The data also tell us that most #friends users tend to have both a 
network of close ties in #friends and a network of close ties outside of Cyberspace.  The 
data also echoes the sentiment that few Internet users are reclusive and isolated behind a 
computer who are only able to participate in a community through the opportunities 
available over the #friends channel and not in a traditional community.  This is consistent 
with the findings of others (Rhinegold, 1993; Parks and Floyd, 1996; Surratt 1996)  that 
suggest the idea of socially isolated Internet users is merely a stereotype.  While not all 
#friends participants become integrated into a network of communal relations in #friends, 
nearly all appeared to be well  integrated into traditional face-to-face social networks 
outside of Cyberspace.  
From these data, it is evident that close friendship ties in #friends and face-to-face 
friendship ties of respondents outside of Cyberspace constitute two separate social 
realms.  There appears to be no significant correlation between the number of close 
friendship ties in #friends and the number of close friendship ties outside of Cyberspace.  
This is because #friends is not widely used to maintain existing face-to-face ties.  This is 
also evidenced by the fact that very few respondents had no social ties in either #friends 
or in a traditional face-to-face setting.  Nearly all respondents had at least one social tie 
either in a face-to-face setting or in #friends.  Those that had a high number of close 
friendship ties in #friends did not necessarily have a high number of close friendship ties 
outside of Cyberspace and vice versa, further indicating that #friends and friendship ties 
outside of Cyberspace. constitute two separate social realms.  The data show that the size 
of each network (#friends vs. face-to-face) is independent.

On a limited basis, it appears that some #friends users use #friends to discuss 
personal problems because of the anonymous nature of #friends.  It is uncertain whether 
or not the problems discussed in #friends are problems which participants have outside of 
#friends or within #friends, so it is difficult to say if respondents are using #friends as a 
way to augment their participation in a traditional community by seeking advice in 
#friends about personal problems they are experiencing in their traditional relationships 
outside of Cyberspace. 
Geographic Scale of Close Friendship Ties in #friends
The geographic scale  of close friendship ties mediated through #friends appears 
to be very broad and diffuse.  These close friendship ties mediated through #friends range 
from ties within the same city to ties ranging across continents.  Ties also exist at every 
level between these two extremes, some ties in #friends exist within the same state or 
province, within the same country,  and across nations within the same continent.  It 
appears that most of the relationships in #friends occurred either within the same country 
or across countries.  Relationships in #friends did not generally occur within the same 
state/province or within the same city.  The data indicate that close geographic proximity 
does not appear to be much of a factor in the formation of close friendship ties in 
#friends.
Geographic Scale  of Close Friendship Ties Outside of Cyberspace
As one might expect, higher numbers of close face-to-face, traditional, outside of 
Cyberspace, friendship ties of respondents occur within the same city and within the same 
state/province than for ties within #friends.   Most close friendship ties outside of 
Cyberspace were local in nature (existing either within the same city/town or 
state/province), and the majority  of non-local close friendship ties outside of Cyberspace 
(2 out of every 3 non-local ties) once lived in the same location but now live elsewhere. 

One might expect that the bulk of one's traditional, face-to-face close friendship ties 
outside of Cyberspace would live in close geographic proximity, and this is what the data 
do indeed show.  Therefore, the network of close friendship ties outside of Cyberspace 
appears to be much less diffuse geographically.  Close geographic proximity appears to 
be a much more important factor in the formation and maintenance of the traditional face-
to-face relationships of respondents. 
Establishment/maintenance of Friendship Ties

A fair number of respondents (13.2%, 7 respondents) indicated that they use 
#friends to talk with close friends that they first met face-to-face.  These respondents are 
using #friends to maintain existing face-to-face relationships for the maintenance of 
social ties.  A slightly larger share of respondents indicated that there are persons that 
they first me through #friends that they have established a face-to-face relationship with. 
About 1 out of every 6 participants in #friends had developed at least one tie in #friends 
that evolved into a face-to-face tie. These numbers may be artificially inflated due to an 
institutionalized mechanism--yearly face-to-face meetings of #friends participants.  Each 
year, an informal meeting of #friends users is arranged as an opportunity for #friends 
users who choose to do so to meet with one another face-to-face in an informal setting.  
Initially, the aim of the question addressing the face-to-face meeting of respondents was 
intended to measure if #friends users arranged to meet other #friends users face-to-face 
on their own initiative.   Respondents were asked if there were persons which they 
considered to be close friends they talked with through #friends whom they had first met 
face-to-face (see Question 8 in survey questionnaire).  On the other hand, respondents 
were asked if there were persons that they first met through #friends that they had 
established a face-to-face relationship with (see Question 9 in survey questionnaire).  This 
question did not make the distinction of whether or not persons that respondents first met 
through #friends were close friends or not.  This was done in an attempt to see if anyone 
that initially met through friends had met face-to-face with anyone else they had met 
through #friends. A few close friendship ties established through #friends actually turned 
into relationships involving dating or marriage.  Often, those researching the net 
will talk about Cyber-dating, where participants of a chat-room such as friends will "date" 
one another and become seriously involved without ever having met face-to-face.  
Question 9 tried to eliminate this circumstance by asking if any of the "face-to-face" 
relationships established through #friends turned into romantic relationships involving 
dating or marriage.  Close geographic proximity serves as an important factor in the 
evolution of  #friends mediated relationships into face-to-face relationships.
Friends who met face-to-face and maintained contact using #friends were 
somewhat less common.  The data indicate that #friends is not being used on a large scale 
to maintain previously existing face-to-face relationships.  Instead, it is being used to 
facilitate the formation of close friendship ties.  This is what Wellman (1979) failed to 
investigate--when the friendship ties in the Toronto borough of East York were initially 
established.  This study deduced that among #friends users, most of the close friendship 
ties in #friends were initially established in #friends, and that #friends was not generally 
being used to maintain previously existing friendship ties. 

Wellman=s (1979) notion of liberated communities is influenced by geographic 
proximity.  Wellman=s notion of proximity was slightly different than what is used here, 
however.  Wellman used the neighborhood level of analysis, and this study went down 
only to the city or town level of analysis due to the wider geographic scale of 
relationships investigated by the study. There does appear to be a liberated community for 
the majority of #friends participants and for the majority of the face-to-face ties outside of 
Cyberspace.  The formation and maintenance of face-to-face ties of respondents seem to 
be heavily influenced by close geographic proximity, while geographic proximity is not 
important for the formation and maintenance of close friendship ties in #friends. 
Community Sentiment among #Friends Users
An analysis of the responses indicates that there does appear to be high levels of 
community sentiment among friends users.  The level of community sentiment was found 
to be influenced by whether or not participants developed close friendship ties in 
#friends.  There was a significant relationship between the mean score on the community 
sentiment index and whether or not participants developed at least one close friendship tie 
in #friends.  While it is not possible to determine the direction of causal influence, one 
can conclude from this that strong friendship ties in #friends promote higher levels of 
community sentiment or vice versa.  
 These data show that participants are more likely to confide in other #friends 
users than in their face-to-face friends.  This could largely be due to the anonymous 
nature of #friends and the Internet in general.  Strictly enforced norms of kindness and 
generosity on #friends make people feel comfortable regardless of what they discuss.  
Users who violate the norms of kindness and generosity are simply Akicked off@ or 
"banned."  These norms might also account for the high levels of community sentiment 
among  #friends users.  

Summary
To summarize, these data do indicate that #friends users participate in both virtual 
and traditional communities. The majority of relationships in #friends are communal 
relationships.  Not all participants of #friends become integrated into communal networks 
or develop communal networks through #friends, but the majority of #friends users do. 
These two areas of close friendship ties appear to comprise two separate and unrelated 
social realms.  The criteria for community which were outlined in previous chapters 
appear to be present in the majority of the friendship ties in  #friends.  There is a 
geographic territory (albeit a very diffuse one), there does appear to be communal 
relations, and there does appear to be community sentiment.
The first area of agreement cited by Hillery (1955), social relationships, which 
was examined in terms of Granovetter=s (1973) four dimensions of the strength of a social 
tie, appears to be present for the majority of #friends users.  The second of Hillery=s areas 
of agreement, geographic territory, was found to play an important role as well.  The third 
of Hillery=s areas of agreement, psychological identification with the community group, 
examined in terms of community sentiment, appears to be present among #friends users, 
especially those who had developed close friendship ties in #friends.
Directions for Future Research	

This research was based only on one chat-room/channel of IRC, and therefore the 
findings should not be generalized beyond the #friends channel, or beyond IRC to the 
Internet at large.  Perhaps this research design can be extended to other IRC channels or 
to other Internet based forms of CMC.  The #friends IRC channel was chosen for this 
research because of its uniqueness, and therefore, this research design as applied to other 
IRC channels or other Internet based forms of CMC might yield a different result.  	This research was intended as preliminary research to investigate an as yet unexplored topic. Hopefully, some insight as to whether or not #friends should be considered a community has been provided here.  Future research may wish to 
investigate these issues further.

Bibliography

Allen, Christina. 1996. Virtual Identities: The Social Construction of Cybered Selves. 
Ph.D. Dissertation. Evanston, Illinois:Northwestern University.

Anderson, B., V. Ryan, and W. J. Goudy. 1984. "Consistency in Subjective Evaluations 
of Community Attributes." Social Indicators Research. 14:165-175

Barlow, John Perry. 1995. "Is There a There in Cyberspace."  UTNE Reader. 68:52-56. 

Baym, Nancy K. 1995. "The Emergence of Community in Computer-Mediated 
Communication" pp. 138-163 in Jones, Steven, Ed. 1995. CyberSociety: 
Computer-Mediated Communication and Community. Thousand Oaks, California: 
Sage Publications Ltd.

Benedikt, Michael, ed. 1991. Cyberspace: First Steps. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Bender, Thomas. 1978. Community and Social Change in America. New Brunswick, NJ: 
Rutgers University Press.

Braddle, 1993. Virtual Communities:Computer-Mediated Communication and 
Communities of Association. Dissertation. Bloomington:Indiana University.

Bromberg, Heather. 1996. "Are MUDs Communities? Identity, Belonging, and 
Consciousness in Virtual Worlds." in Shields, Rob, ed. Cultures of Internet: Virtual 
Spaces, Real Histories, Living Bodies. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage 
Publications Ltd.

Buttel, Frederick H., Oscar B. Martinson, & E. A. Wilkening. 1979. "Size and Place of  
Community Attachment: A Reconsideration." Social Indicators Research. 	
6:475-485.

Dalaimo, Denise. 1995. The Simulation of Selfhood in Cyberspace. Master's thesis. 
Las Vegas:University of Nevada.

Dyson, Esther. 1997. Release 2.0: A Design for Living in the Digital Age.  New York: 	Broadway Books.

Fischer, Claude. 1977. Networks and Places : Social Relations in the Urban Setting. 
New York: Free Press.

Fischer, Claude and S. D. Berkowitz. 1988. Social Structures: A  Network Approach. 
New York: Cambridge.

Flora, Cornelia B., et al.1992. Rural Communities: Legacy and Change. Boulder: 
Westview Press.

Furlong, Mary S. 1989. "Crafting an Electronic Community: The SeniorNet Story." 
International Journal of Technology and Aging. 2:2 fall-winter, 125-134.
                                                                    
Geertz, Clifford. 1963. Old Societies and New States: The Quest for Modernity in Asia 
and Africa. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

Giese, Jon. 1996. Place without Space, Identity without Body: The Role of Cooperative 
Narrative in Community and Identity	Formation in a Text-Based Electronic 
Community. Dissertation. Altoona, Pennsylvania:Pennsylvania State University.

Goudy, Willis J. 1990. "Community Attachment in a Rural Region." Rural Sociology. 
55:178-198.

Goudy, Willis J. 1982. "Further Consideration of Indicators of Community Attachment."  	Social Indicators Research. 11:181-192.

Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. "The Strength of Weak Ties." American Journal of Sociology 
78:6.

Gusfield, Joseph. 1975. Community: A Critical Response. New York: Harper and Row.

GVU Center for Internet Demographics. 1998. Survey of Internet Demographics. online 
http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/user_survey

Hillery, George A. 1955. "Definitions of Community: Areas of Agreement." Rural 
Sociology. 20:111-123.

Hiltz, Starr Roxanne. 1984. Online Communities: A Case Study of the Office of the 
Future.  Norwood, NJ: Albex.

Hiltz, Starr Roxanne and Turoff, Murray. 1978. The Network Nation:Human 
Communication via Computer. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley 
Publishing Company, Inc.

Hunter, Albert. 1978. "Persistence of Local Sentiments in Mass Society." pp. 134-156 in 
David Street (ed.), Handbook of Contemporary Urban Life. San Francisco: 
Josey-Bass.

Jonassen, Christen T. 1959. "Community Typology." in Sussman, ed. 1959. Community  
Structure and Analysis. (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company), pp. 15-36. 

Jones, Steven, ed. 1995. CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and 
Community. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Ltd.

Kasarda, John D, and Morris Janowitz. 1974. "Community Attachment in Mass Society." 
 American Sociological Review. 39:328-39

Ludlow, Peter. 1996. High Noon on the Electronic Frontier: Conceptual Issues in 
Cyberspace. Cambridge,  Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Parks, Malcolm R. and Kory Floyd. 1996. "Making Friends in Cyberspace." Journal of 
Communication. 46:80-97
 
Porter, David, ed. 1997. Internet Culture. New York: Routledge.

Reid, E. M. 1991. Electropolis: Communication and Community on Internet Relay Chat. 
University of Melbourne. Honours Thesis. Available on-line at 
http://www.ee.mu.oz.au/papers/emr

Rheingold, Howard. 1993. The Virtual Community. Reading, Massachusetts: 
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Stoll, Clifford. 1995. Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts On the Information Highway.  
New York: Anchor Books.
 
Surratt, Carla. 1996. The Sociology of Everyday Life in Computer-Mediated 
Communities. Ph.D. Dissertation. Tuscon: Arizona State University.

Tilly, Charles. 1973.  "Do Communities Act?" Sociological Inquiry. 43:209-240.

Tönnies, Ferdinand. [1887] 1959. "From Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft" pp. 293-303 in  
The Making of Society: An Outline of Sociology.  Robert Bierstedt, Ed. The Modern 
Library: New York.

Turkle, Sherry. 1984. The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit. New York: 
Simon and Schuster.

Turkle, Sherry. 1995. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: 
Simon and Schuster.

Young, Kimberly S.  1998. Caught in the Net: How to Recognize the Signs of Internet 
Addiction--and a Winning Strategy for Recovery. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Wellman, Barry. 1979. "The Community Question." American Journal of Sociology. 
84:1201-1231.

Wellman, Barry, Peter Carrington, and Alan Hall. 1988. "Networks as Personal 
Communites." pp. 130-183 in Social Structures: A Network Approach. Wellman 
and Berkowitz, Eds. New York: Cambrige University Press.

Wellman, Barry, et al. 1996. "Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative 
Work, Telework, and Virtual Community." Annual Review of Sociology. 	
22:213-238.















APPENDIX A


Cover Letter and  Survey Questionnaire


Cover Letter

Hello,

My name is David Coon, and I am a student at Kansas State University in Manhattan, 
Kansas. I noticed recently that you were logged on to the #friends channel of IRC. I am 
conducting some research that examines the nature of the relationships that people 
establish with one another over the Internet.  I was wondering if you might take a few 
minutes of your time to participate in this research.  Your participation would involve 
answering the questions listed below and mailing the response back to me.  The 
questionnaire will take approximately 15 to 25 minutes to complete and seeks 
information about friendships you have established through #friends, and your use of the 
Internet.

You are one of a small number of people being asked to give your opinion on this
issue. You were randomly chosen as one of a small number of users from the #friends 
channel of IRC.  In order that the results will truly represent the thinking of the people 
who participate in #friends, it is very important that this questionnaire be completed and 
returned.

Your participation is completely voluntary.  All research information will be handled in 
the strictest confidence and your participation will not be individually identifiable in any 
way.  I will be happy to answer any questions that you have about the study.  If you have 
any questions that arise about the research or any other concerns, please feel free to 
contact me, David Coon, at irsurvey@ksu.edu .  If you have any questions about the role 
of the university, or your rights as a participant in this study, contact Clive Fullagar, 
Chair, Institutional Review Board, Kansas State University,  (785) 532-0608, 
fullagar@ksu.edu .

You may be assured of complete confidentiality.  If you are so inclined, you can even 
return the questionnaire anonymously by e-mail.  Instructions for doing this are available 
at http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~irsurvey  This questionnaire has an identification 
number on it for mailing purposes only.  This is so that your name may be checked off of 
the mailing list when your questionnaire is returned.  Neither your name, nor your e-mail 
address, will ever be associated with the information on the questionnaire itself.  All data 
collected from the survey will be summed to provide an aggregate picture of #friends 
users.

The data collected from the survey will be used to write a Master's thesis. The results of 
this research will be made available on the World Wide Web (WWW) and to anyone who 
requests a copy. 

              
Survey Questionnaire

In order to respond to the survey, please use the REPLY feature of your e-mail program 
and include this message in your reply. Then fill in the appropriate responses to the 
survey questions in your reply. Your e-mail address will in no way be associated with 
your response and your anonymity is guaranteed, but if you are still concerned about 
anonymity, you can get instructions on how to e-mail the survey anonymously at 
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/ ~dcoon/email.html  If you prefer, you can print out the 
survey and complete and mail the printed copy to David Coon, Dept. of Sociology, 204 
Waters Hall, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, U.S.A.; to ensure 
anonymity, do not include a return address.

Most of the questions below will simply ask that you either mark the appropriate
response choice with an "X" between the [ ]'s (brackets) or type the appropriate  number 
between 
the [ ]'s (brackets). Thank you very much for your help in this study.

First, I would like to ask you several questions about the nature of the relationships that 
you have with other persons that you talk with on #friends.

1.) How often do you log on to or join #friends?
[ ]several times a day
[ ]once a day
[ ]a few times a week
[ ]once a week
[ ]a few times a month
[ ]once a month or less

2.) Are there people that you talk with regularly through #friends?
[ ] Yes, there are specific people that I talk with on a frequent basis  
[ ] Yes, there are specific people that I talk with on an occasional basis 
[ ] No, I don't tend to talk with any specific persons on a regular basis 

3.) Out of the people that you talk with through #friends, do you consider 
any of them to be a "close" friend?
[ ]Yes  --> GO TO 3-A 
[ ]No --> SKIP TO QUESTION 4


3-A.) How many of the people that you talk with through #friends do you consider to be 
close friends?
[ ] Number of CLOSE FRIENDS  --> GO TO 3-B

3-B.) In which of the following ways do these people represent close friends to you 
(check all that apply)? Also, how many of the close friends listed in 3-A do each of these 
apply (next to each reason you check, please list the number of close friends to which the 
reason applies)?

Please Mark with an "X"                                            Please type a Number
[ ] We strongly care about each other's personal well being.         [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS     
[ ] We talk about close personal matters that are important to us. [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS     
 [ ] We provide each other help concerning personal problems.    [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS     
[ ] We are "romantically" involved.                             	        [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS 
[ ] We are related by family.                                      	        [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS 
[ ] Other __________________________________________    [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

3-C.) How long have you known your close friends on #friends? (Check all 
that apply) Also, how many of the close friends listed in 3-A fall in
each of the categories (next to each time period you check, please list 
the number of close friends that you have known for that length of time)?
 
Please Mark with an "X"                                         Please type a Number
[ ] less than 6 months     --------------------------->  [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS
[ ] less than 1 year, but more than 6 months --->  [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS
[ ] 1 - 2 years     ------------------------------------>   [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS
[ ] 3 - 4 years     ------------------------------------>   [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS
[ ] 5 or more years   ------------------------------->   [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS
          

3-D.) Where are your close friends on #friends located? (Please list the City/Town 
State/Province, Country if outside USA for up to 5 persons; If you don't know where any 
of your close friends are located, please type UNKNOWN in first blank).
City/Town:                           State/Province:         Country if outside USA:
City/Town:                           State/Province:         Country if outside USA:
City/Town:                           State/Province:         Country if outside USA:
City/Town:                           State/Province:         Country if outside USA:
City/Town:                           State/Province:         Country if outside USA:
          
3-E.) Do any of your close friends on #friends live in the same location as you do?
[ ] Yes  -------------> How many live in the same location as you do? [ ]
[ ] No 
[ ] I Don't know


Next, I would like to ask you several questions about how you feel about your 
participation in  the #friends chatroom.

4.) Would you say you belong to and feel 'at home' when you participate in  #friends?
[ ]definitely not
[ ]probably not
[ ]probably
[ ]definitely

5.) How much interest do you have in knowing what goes on in #friends?
[ ]no interest
[ ] some interest
[ ]much interest 

6.) Suppose that for some reason that you were not allowed to participate in or log on to 
#friends for an extended period of time. How would feel about being unable to have 
access to #friends?
[ ] very sorry
[ ] somewhat sorry  
[ ]somewhat pleased 
[ ] very pleased 

Now, I would like to ask you some questions about your relationships with other persons 
outside of # friends.


7.) In thinking about your social life, are there other people that you consider to be close 
friends or have close relationships with that you did not meet and get to know through 
chatting on the computer?
[ ]Yes  --> GO TO 7-B 
[ ]No --> SKIP TO QUESTION 8

7-B.) How many people do you know that you consider to be close friends or have close 
relationships with that you did not meet and get to know through chatting on the 
computer?
[ ] NUMBER OF CLOSE FRIENDS/RELATIONSHIPS  --> GO TO QUESTION 7-C											
7-C.) In which of the following ways do you have close relationships with these people 
(check all that apply)? Also, how many of the close friends listed in 7-B do each of  these 
reasons apply (Next to each reason you check, please list the number of  close friends to 
which each reason applies)?

Please Mark with an "X"                                                              Please type a Number
[ ] We strongly care about each other's personal well being.         [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS     
 
[ ] We talk about close personal matters that are important to us. [ ] CLOSE  FRIENDS    
  [ ] We provide each other help concerning personal problems.     [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS   
   
[ ] We are "romantically" involved.                                               [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS     
[ ] We are related by family.                                                         [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS 
[ ] Other _________________________________________     [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS


7-D.) How long have you known the people outside of #friends that you consider to be 
close friends or have close relationships with? (Check all that apply) Also, how many of 
these close friends listed in 7-B fall in each of the categories (next to each time period 
you check, please list the number of close friends that you have known for that length of   
 time)?

Please Mark with an "X"                                        Please type a Number
[ ] less than 6 months     ---------------------------> [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS
[ ] less than 1 year, but more than 6 months --->  [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS
[ ] 1 - 2 years     ------------------------------------>   [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS
[ ] 3 - 4 years     ------------------------------------>   [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS
[ ] 5 or more years   ------------------------------->   [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

7-E.) Where are the people outside of #friends that you consider to be close
friends or have close relationships with located? (Please list the City/Town 
State/Province, Country if outside USA for up to 5 persons)
City/Town:                           State/Province:         Country if outside USA:
City/Town:                           State/Province:         Country if outside USA:
City/Town:                           State/Province:         Country if outside USA:
City/Town:                           State/Province:         Country if outside USA:
City/Town:                           State/Province:         Country if outside USA:

7-F.) Do any of the people outside of #friends that you consider to be close
friends or have close relationships with live in the same location as you? 

[ ] Yes  -------------> How many live in the same location as you do? [ ]
[ ] No 

7-G.) In thinking about the people outside of #friends that you consider to be close friends 
or have close relationships with, did any of them live in the same location as you at one 
time, but now live elsewhere?            
[ ]Yes  --> GO TO 7-G1 
[ ]No --> SKIP TO QUESTION 8


7-G1.) How many of the persons you listed in 7-B lived in the same location as you at one 
time, but now live elsewhere?
[ ] CLOSE FRIENDS/RELATIONS NOW LIVE ELSEWHERE

7-G2.) How do you keep in contact and maintain your relationship with these people that 
now live somewhere else (check all that apply)?
[ ] One or both of us travels to meet face-to-face
[ ] We talk over the telephone
[ ] We communicate through e-mail
[ ] We write letters to each other
[ ] Other ________________________________


Next, I want to ask you a few more questions about your relationships with others through 
#friends.

8.) Are there persons that you talk with through #friends, that you first met face-to-face, 
in person?
[ ]Yes  --> GO TO 8-A 
[ ]No --> SKIP TO QUESTION 9

8-A). How many persons do you talk with through #friends that you first met 
face-to-face?
[ ] PERSONS 


9.) Are there persons that you first met through #friends, that you have established a 
face-to-face relationship with?
[ ]Yes  --> GO TO QUESTION 9-A 
[ ]No --> SKIP TO QUESTION 10

9-A). How many persons have you established face-to-face relationships with that you 
first met through #friends? 
[ ] PERSONS 

9-B.) Where were these people located when you established a face-to-face relationship 
with them? (Please list the City/Town State/Province, Country if outside USA for up to 5 
persons)
City/Town:                           State/Province:         Country if outside USA:
City/Town:                           State/Province:         Country if outside USA:
City/Town:                           State/Province:         Country if outside USA:
City/Town:                           State/Province:         Country if outside USA:
City/Town:                           State/Province:         Country if outside USA:

9-C). Have any of the face-to-face relationships that you've established with persons you 
first met through #friends turned into romantic relationships involving dating or 
marriage?
[ ]Yes  
[ ]No 

10. What is the most important reason why you participate in #friends? (Please type in 
your answer below)

Finally, I want to ask you a few questions about yourself.

11. Where are you located?
CITY: _______________________
STATE/PROVINCE:______________________
COUNTRY:  _____________________ (if outside USA).

12. What is your gender? 
[ ] MALE   
[ ] FEMALE

13. What is your age (in years)?
[ ] YEARS


14. What is the highest level of education that you have completed?
[ ] SOME HIGH SCHOOL
[ ] HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE
[ ] SOME COLLEGE  SPECIALTY AREA: _________
[ ] UNDERGRADUATE COLLEGE DEGREE  SPECIALTY AREA: _________
[ ] SOME SCHOOLING TOWARD ADVANCED DEGREE  SPECIALTY AREA:____ 
[ ] ADVANCED DEGREE  SPECIALTY AREA: _________

15. What is your occupation?  __________________________

16. What is your marital status?
[ ] Single
[ ] Married
[ ] Divorced
[ ] Widowed
[ ] Other ________________________________

17. Are there other Internet sites or IRC Channels that you use to chat with other people 
in addition to #friends?
[ ] YES  --------> GO TO QUESTION 17-A
[ ] NO

17-A). How many other Internet sites or IRC Channels do you use to chat with other 
people on a regular basis?
[ ] Number of CHAT ROOMS


18. Do you believe that the time you spend on the Internet has an important effect on your
participation in other activities?
[ ] YES   GO TO 18-A
[ ] NO         SKIP TO FINAL QUESTION 

18-A. How has it affected your participation in other activities? (check all that apply)
[ ] I spend less time with family
[ ] I spend less time with friends
[ ] I spend less time watching TV
[ ] I spend time at work using the Internet for Personal Reasons
[ ] I spend less time on schoolwork
[ ] I have missed important appointments or social events
[ ] other ___________________________________



Thank you for responding to the survey! Would you like a summary of the results sent to 
you?
[ ] YES
[ ] NO

Thank you for your assistance.

                            Sincerely,

                            David A. Coon
                            Researcher
                            Kansas State University

1 Simply put, a collective will is analogous to behavioral norms that shape the behavior of 
   members of a group.
2 Social network analysis focuses on patterns of relations among people, groups, and 
  organizations.
3See Rhinegold (1993) for a discussion of the history of IRC. mIRC is simply a more 
elaborate version of IRC that incorporates colors and other text formatting features. Reid 
(1991) used anecdotal evidence to qualitatively investigate IRC as a community.
Primary Relationships are defined as  interpersonal relations characterized by emotional 
intensity, total commitment, and mutual satisfaction.
5MUDs (Multiple User Dungeons/Dimensions) are an older form of CMC than mIRC. 
MUDs were first created in 1980.  (See Rhinegold, 1993, for  more thorough discussion 
of MUDs).

6MOOs (MUD, Object Oriented) are MUDs which are more graphically based in nature 
but still use text

7MUSHs (Multiple User Shared Hallucinations) for a complete discussion see 
http://www.tjhsst.edu/people/mgraham/muck.htm

8MUCKs (Multiple User Character Kits) also see 
http://www.tjhsst.edu/people/mgraham/muck.htm
9A complete description of #friends is available at: 
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/7790/
10Traditional Community here refers to a real-world, bounded geographical community 
which has all three dimensions, social interaction between people, a closely bound 
limited geographic area, and community sentiment.  Here, the term is used to refer to a 
community which is not a "virtual community."
11The concept of "close friends" here is adapted from Wellman (1979:1208-1209), where 
	respondents are asked to indicate who they feel are close friends. "Friend" is but one of 
the types of intimate relationships identified by Wellman (1979:1211).  "Kinship" is 
another. Since the purpose of #friends is "Making friends all around the world," an 
attempt to identify "close friends" rather than kinship is the main point of this question, 
though question 3-B does address the kinship issue.
12This survey is produced by the Graphics Visualization and Usability (GVU) Center at 
Georgia Tech.  It is an Internet user survey administered by self-selection.  Strong 
cautionary statements about the survey's representativeness and reliability are given on 
	the survey website.  For details, consult: http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/user_survey