ÿWPClD ŒerºH¸)jS>êV·¥»0‡©aH¹0 ÒŒ^ÀX*Úãî.Sÿ?wuŸË®—ܵˆµ`ÏÕWI÷+ÛU¡œÑQ.?W&Yê/ióõ,3½ìÜqeÃãz®ÚƒJIÙ,#²Ì¦ŽÐrü¼'KŠÄ±´7o Û[ûïåÆ2œµÌR)ƒš»à5Ó!K,@щ٬¿BÁg_9K]Ca 4QË•“§†i”»iOá#‚Ì3ÃÁ0ûL(0ß¾Âï.Ÿú°ãé9[G‘"§§ÜC_ÿó8vT@ÏÙ-}t_j·Ž‚tÎÌ"ì«7NJ´h%Ý8¼œ¹t˜É=äc?Ñ%¼Î@öìJQd9’aNx{™Ì¹Y©W'À§c8Âá93‹Saà9Øu4Âë¾* ô¬Ú J3 JD»3åwÌ ]Øç\CàÏüÔcÖƒ­Ý—(×£Æ6ô!ß 8Ó¢ø ÔßtS¤¶±Ñì²*¤þb«*z‰ æêîߨ§}œ°êõÍ7†è ?úv„ºÔîãE‚Fý­Mdyˆ:ƒüI߉æ&˜¹¨›Ü ?C-Âr-Û¿<W´6)hˆ+QpPctzÅ&&HÚ÷¤Aj'júŽ# Ä U†NÏ % 0(# B›K 0Ch 0C« w@î . 0 C6 0uy î ö 4  / /  E ‰RÛfó÷õ¼ì¢¨WJUW<¡ÃÝç a‡»›aVjf€f‚‚„ D3 B*9 D3ca–aªU,¾ D3ê B D3: Bm D3Š B½ D3Ú B  D/* D3Y B*Œ D3¶ B*é D3 B-Fsˆ B*² D3Ü B7 B7F D-} D5ª D+ß D3 B= DMZ DC§ Æê ư!Æv"Æ<#Æ$ A©È$ 0Dq% 0Kµ%f&&a &f& &f5&7&fM&O&fd&ff&fh&fj&fl&fn&fp&ìr&^(t(‰(Ÿ(´(Ê(ß(õ( )a)a3)aG)a[)ao)aƒ)—)a­)Á)a×)aë) hÿ) hÿ* hF+ hVJ- hJ / hê/ h$ñ1UB2W2l22–2U2¬2Þ2ô2 33 hV33‰5 hpž5 hn6|8 hÊ‘8 hƒ[: hšÞ; hôx?˜HP LaserJet 4/4MHPPCL5E,,,,0 (@øÐ Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ d(2C$§§Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(2C$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý E{eU' use o(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó(- 2u$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓÓ€€€€òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ñ  ÑËrA%c°°(#(#3|x Ñ  Ñ Ó  ÓÓ  ÓÓB.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓà Ÿ àà  àòò9óóA€complete€description€of€#friends€is€available€at:€Ð ° Ðà Ÿ àà  àhttp://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/7790/ Ó  ÓÓ  ÓÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œX?ÓÓ XÓòò3óóSee€Rhinegold€(1993)€for€a€discussion€of€the€history€of€IRC.€mIRC€is€simply€a€more€Ð ° Ðelaborate€version€of€IRC€that€incorporates€colors€and€other€text€formatting€features.€Reid€Ì(1991)€used€anecdotal€evidence€to€qualitatively€investigate€IRC€as€a€community. Ó  ÓÓ  ÓÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œX?ÓÓ XÓòòóóPrimary€Relationships€are€defined€as€€interpersonal€relations€characterized€by€emotional€Ð ° Ðintensity,€total€commitment,€and€mutual€satisfaction.Be íà  àòò5óóMUDs€(Multiple€User€Dungeons/Dimensions)€are€an€older€form€of€CMC€than€mIRC.€Ð ° Ðà  àMUDs€were€first€created€in€1980.€€(See€Rhinegold,€1993,€for€€more€thorough€discussion€Ìà  àof€MUDs). ²Ò°ÒÓ  ÓÓ  Óòò1€óóSimply€put,€a€collective€will€is€analogous€to€behavioral€norms€that€shape€the€behavior€of€Ð ° Ѐ€members€of€a€group. ˜à  àòò2€óóSocial€network€analysis€focuses€on€patterns€of€relations€among€people,€groups,€and€Ð ° Ðà  à€€organizations. MÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œX?Óà  àòòÌà  à6óóMOOs€(MUD,€Object€Oriented)€are€MUDs€which€are€more€graphically€based€in€nature€Ð @ Ðà  àbut€still€use€textԇ³\ÂXXÔԇ³\³\ÔÐ 0€ Ðô\  `$Times NewRoman ¹Ó  ÓÓ  ÓÓ XÓòò7óóMUSHs€(Multiple€User€Shared€Hallucinations)€for€a€complete€discussion€see€Ð ° Ðhttp://www.tjhsst.edu/people/mgraham/muck.htm ÝÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œX?ÓÓ XÓÌòò8óóMUCKs€(Multiple€User€Character€Kits)€also€see€Ð  ð Ðhttp://www.tjhsst.edu/people/mgraham/muck.htmble to realize....Th ±Ó  ÓÓ  ÓÓB.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓÓ XÓòò10óóTraditional€Community€here€refers€to€a€real-world,€bounded€geographical€community€Ð ° Ðwhich€has€all€three€dimensions,€social€interaction€between€people,€a€closely€bound€Ìlimited€geographic€area,€and€community€sentiment.€€Here,€the€term€is€used€to€refer€to€a€Ìcommunity€which€is€not€a€"virtual€community."TABLE D Ñ  Ñion  xÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œX?ÓÓ XÓòò11óóThe€concept€of€"close€friends"€here€is€adapted€from€Wellman€(1979:1208-1209),€where€Ð ° Ðà  àrespondents€are€asked€to€indicate€who€they€feel€are€close€friends.€"Friend"€is€but€one€of€Ìthe€types€of€intimate€relationships€identified€by€Wellman€(1979:1211).€€"Kinship"€is€Ìanother.€Since€the€purpose€of€#friends€is€"Making€friends€all€around€the€world,"€an€Ìattempt€to€identify€"close€friends"€rather€than€kinship€is€the€main€point€of€this€question,€Ìthough€question€3-B€does€address€the€kinship€issue.%%%%'þÿdxd&ÿÿ0 d d'ÿÿdxd of organizational dispersion patterns: (ô\ Y`Symbol++++'óÿdxdöÿ  d----'ûÿdxdüÿP Pd////'ýÿdxdþÿ d1111'üÿdxdýÿ d--'÷ÿ dxd4444'òÿdxd&õÿP d d6666'øÿdxd&ùÿp d Pd<<<<'ùÿdxd)Hairline d Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñ&úÿp Pd d>?>?'öÿdxd3øÿ+0 ÿÿÿd ÿÿÿd d3÷ÿ+0 d d d'õÿdxd'ôÿdxd'ÈÈÈÈdxdDDDD'úÿdxdûÿ   dE"Thin Top/Bottom dxd=Thin BottomdxdLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5GMNB›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ómputer-mTABLE Ces Ñ  Ñco Ñ  Ñ\ Ñ  Ñpment of commu âÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œX?ÓÓ XÓòò12óóThis€survey€is€produced€by€the€Graphics€Visualization€and€Usability€(GVU)€Center€at€Ð ° ÐGeorgia€Tech.€€It€is€an€Internet€user€survey€administered€by€self-selection.€€Strong€Ìcautionary€statements€about€the€survey's€representativeness€and€reliability€are€given€on€¼à  àthe€survey€website.€€For€details,€consult:€http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/user_survey Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñmotional intensity (mutual confiding) and reciprocity. Grannoveter 1973:1361) says that these 3 factors can ooperate  Ñ  Ñnother alothough the Ñ  Ñy intercorrelated." The survey insturm! !!!@!䃞ͪÏë?!@!³˜Ø|\ê?!@!®dÇF ^è?ÍTABLE B!""@""ð?"@"@""ı.n£@"®Gáz®ã?"‚âǘ»–Ø?""±¿ìž<,ö?"´Yõ¹ÚŠÍ?""z6«>Wå?"= ×£p=Ê?"„ O¯”eÀ?""z6«>Wå?"Ÿ<,Ôšæë?"ð?ÐTABLE A"OOš™™™™™@OOOOO@OÍÌÌÌÌÌ@OO@O@OO€A@O€P@OO@Oš™™™™™&@OO@Offffff*@OOð?Offffffþ?ÎTABLE CORR…ëQ¸…@CRCRCTTq= ×£p@CTCTCTCTCT€J@CTfffff¦C@CTCT€C@CTfffffæ<@CTCT1@CT333333)@CTCT9@CT€2@CTCTð?CTffffffæ?C Table_ITVV š™™™™™@< Œ p`‹*Times New RomanTT Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñô\  `Times New Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñ Ñ  Ñ Ñ  ÑXXffffff@CXCXCXCXCX@CX333333@CXCX"@CXÍÌÌÌÌÌ@CXCXB@CXÍÌÌÌÌÌ>@CXCX€N@CXÍÌÌÌÌ J@CXCX@CXffffff@CXCX@]@CXY@C Table_HX Ñ  ÑYY333333@CYCYCYCYCZZÍÌÌÌÌÌ@CZCZCZ€J@CZCZCZG@CZ;@CZ333333!@CZfffffæ7@CZ*@CZffffff!@CZ€S@CZI@CZ€J@CZ1@CZffffff>@CZ:@CZÍÌÌÌÌŒH@CZ a@CZš™™™™™F@CZ@L@C Ñ  Ñ[[ffffff@C[C[C[€J@C[€H@C[C[C[33333óV@C[C[33333óU@C[C[ffffffT@C[C[š™™™™YB@C[C[ @C[333333.@C[ÍÌÌÌÌL0@C\\C\C\€J@C\B@C\C\C\?@C\C\?@C\C\A@C\C\&@C\C\ð?C\C] ]@C]C]C]€J@C]C]C]B@C]@C]@C]ffffff*@C]€M@C]33333³8@C]ffffff3@C]ð?C]4@C]š™™™™ÙB@C]P@C]ÍÌÌÌÌÌ:@C]ÀK@C]S@C]ÍÌÌÌÌÌ?@C]ffffffJ@C]@C]š™™™™™&@C]@@C]ÍÌÌÌÌÌ*@C]33333³0@C]@C]ÍÌÌÌÌÌ"@C] @C]ffffff @C]ÍÌÌÌÌÌ+@C^1^{®Gáz@C^C^C^C^C^@C^ffffff@C^C^@C^'@C^C^,@C^fffffæ:@C^C^>@C^š™™™™ÙL@C^C^€J@C^Y@C^ C^ C^ @C^ ÍÌÌÌÌÌ@C^ C^ =@C^ š™™™™YK@C^ C^ 5@C^ ÍÌÌÌÌÌC@C^ C^ €J@C^ Y@C^C^C^:@C^ÍÌÌÌÌŒH@C^C^;@C^33333sI@C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^€J@C^Y@C Table_J^Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýññ›ññÑ  ÑÑ€ ÀÀ` ÑÑÈÑÑ  ÑÒ°ÒÓÓÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œX?ÓÔ‡X´’XXXÔññò òññÙÙÔ‡ Ñ XX´’ÔÑ7€´’XXdðdÈ7ÑÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜññññó óññññññÔ#†X´’X  Ñû#ÔÌÌÓ  ÓÌAN€INVESTIGATION€OF€#FRIENDS€INTERNET€RELAY€CHAT€ÌAS€A€COMMUNITYÌÌby€ÌÌDAVID€ALAN€COON€ÌÌB.A.,€Southeastern€Louisiana€University,€1996€ÌÌ---------------------------------€ÌÌA€THESIS€ÌÌsubmitted€in€partial€fulfillment€of€the€ÌÌrequirements€for€the€degree€ÌÌMASTER€OF€ARTS€Ì€Ð ,`'* ЇDepartment€of€Sociology,€Anthropology,€and€Social€Work€ÌCollege€of€Arts€and€Sciences€ÌÌKANSAS€STATE€UNIVERSITY€ÌManhattan,€Kansas€ÌÌ1998€ÌÌÓÊÓÌà ` à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àApproved€by:Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àMajor€ProfessorÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àDr.€W.€Richard€GoeÌÌÐ  Ð  ÐÓ  ÓÔ‡ Ñ XX´’Ôò òABSTRACTÐ ° Ðó óÔ#†X´’X  Ñá#ÔÓÕÓÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àA€large€number€of€publications€have€referred€to€the€Internet€as€a€€"community"Ð 0€ Ðwithout€elaborating€on€this€point.€Few€studies€have€attempted€€to€take€a€sociologicalÏconception€of€community€and€applied€it€to€the€€Internet,€and€those€that€have,€have€givenÏonly€a€cursory€treatment€of€the€€classical€community€literature€at€best.€The€purpose€of€thisÏthesis,€€therefore,€was€to€apply€a€sociological€conception€of€€"community"€to€a€part€of€theÏInternet.€This€thesis€examines€the€presence€of€elements€which€typically€indicate€theÏpresence€of€community€in€a€€sociological€sense,€through€survey€research€of€€participantsÏof€the€#friends€IRC€Internet€"chat€room."€€The€survey€was€used€to€determine€the€nature€Ïand€extent€of€social€network€formation€in€the€context€of€how€this€relates€€to€a€sociologicalÏdefinition€of€community.€Three€principal€areas€were€investigated€by€the€survey:Ïcommunal€social€relations,€geographic€proximity,€and€community€sentiment.€This€thesisÏalso€classified€€various€forms€of€Computer€Mediated€Communication€(CMC)€found€onÏthe€Internet€and€framed€how€each€of€these€types€of€interaction€fits€into€a€€scheme€ofÏcommunity.ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àFindings€indicated€that€the€majority€of€the€social€relationships€which€exist€inÏ#friends€met€the€characteristics€needed€for€communal€social€relations.€€It€was€found€thatÏthe€majority€of€the€social€networks€formed€in€#friends€were€large€in€geographic€scope.€ÏThere€was€found€to€be€a€fair€amount€of€community€sentiment€in€#friends,€and€a€highÏâ âdegree€of€attachment€among€those€with€close€friendship€ties€in€#friends.€€Based€on€theÐ ð(@$& Ðfindings,€it€can€be€concluded€that€the€#friends€chatroom€on€IRC€has€many€of€theÏcharacteristics€of€a€community€and€can€be€considered€a€ð ðvirtual€community.ððÌâ âÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àÌÓ  ÓÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óò òÔ‡ Ñ XX´’ÔÐ  P   ÐÔ#†X´’X  Ñ‚#ÔÔ‡ Ñ XX´’ÔÑ7€´’XXdðXXdð7ÑÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜTABLE€OF€CONTENTSÐ ° Ðó óÔ#†X´’X  ÑÙ#ÔÓ  ÓTABLE€OF€CONTENTS......................................................................................................iÐ 0€ ÐÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓLIST€OF€TABLES..............................................................................................................ivÌACKNOWLEDGMENTS...................................................................................................vÌCHAPTER€ÌI.à ` àINTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1Ð °  ÐII.€à ` àREVIEW€OF€LITERATURE..................................................................................5Ô#†X´’XXX´’Á#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’ÔÐ à  Ðà ` àStatement€of€the€Problem.........................................................................................5Ìà ` àSociological€Definitions€of€the€concept€of€Communityðð.........................................5Ô#†X´’XXX´’´#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’ԀРP  Ðà ` àCommunal€Social€Relations.....................................................................................8Ô#†X´’XXX´’ø#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’ÔÐ 0€ Ðà ` àCommunal€Attachment€and€Common€Ties............................................................11Ô#†X´’XXX´’Ë#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’ÔÐ ` Ðà ` àInformation€Technology€and€Community.............................................................13Ô#†X´’XXX´’#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’ÔÐ ð@ Ðà ` àResearch€on€the€Internet€as€a€Community.............................................................16¼à ` àÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓPsychological€Internet€Research............................................................................22Ìà ` àSocial€Relationships€and€Common€Ties€On„Line€.................................................24Ô#†X´’XXX´’U#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’ÔÐ à Ðà ` àGeography€and€the€Internet....................................................................................24Ô#†X´’XXX´’D#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’ÔÐ p!À ÐIII.€à ` àTYPES€OF€COMPUTER€MEDIATED€COMMUNICATION.............................26Ð P#   ÐIV.€à ` àRESEARCH€OBJECTIVES..................................................................................38Ð 0%€ " Ðà ` àForms€of€€CMC€as€a€Medium€for€Community.......................................................40¼à ` àÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓFormation€of€Communal€Social€Relations€Over€the€Internet................................42ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àGeographic€Scale€of€Communities€Developed€Over€the€Internet..........................43Ð Ð* &( ÐÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àDevelopment€of€Community€Sentiment€Over€the€Internet....................................44ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓV.€€à ` àRESEARCH€METHODS......................................................................................46Ð à Ðà ` àÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓSampling€Procedure...............................................................................................46Ìà ` àÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓResponse€Rate........................................................................................................47ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àOrganization€of€The€Survey€Questionnaire...........................................................47Ïà ` àÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓMeasurement€of€Communal€Relations...................................................................48Ìà ` àÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓMeasurement€of€the€Geographic€Scale€of€Community..........................................50Ìà ` àMeasurement€of€Community€Sentiment................................................................52Ìà ` àÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓMethod€of€Data€Analysis.......................................................................................54ÌVI.€à ` àFINDINGS.............................................................................................................Ó?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Ó55Ó?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓÐ à Ðà ` àCharacteristics€of€the€Sample€................................................................................55Ó?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àFrequency€of€Participation€in€#friends€and€in€Other€Chat€Rooms.........................57Ó?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Ó€ÏÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àOnline€Friendships€in€#friends...............................................................................60Ó?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àNature€of€On„Line€relationships€in€#friends..........................................................61Ì€Ó?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓÔ#†X´’XXX´’#ÔÔ‡€X”ýXXX´’Ôà ` àTraditional€Face„to„Face€Relationships€Outside€of€CyberspaceÔ#†X´’XX€X”ý'#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’Ô..........................64Ô#†X´’XXX´’'#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’ÔÐ ð@ ÐÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓÓÓà ` àThe€relationship€between€close€ties€in€#friends€&€close€ties€outside€of€Ìà ` àCyberspace.............................................................................................................70ÌÌÓ`(Óà ` àThe€Effects€of€Internet€Participation€on€Other€Activities......................................71Ìà ` àGeographic€Scale€of€Close€Friendship€Ties€in€friends...........................................72ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àGeographic€Scale€of€Close€Friendship€Ties€Outside€of€Cyberspace.....................73Ìà ` àThe€Evolution€of€Cyberspace€Relationships€into€Face„to„Face€Relationships€.....74Ìà ` àCommunity€Sentiment€Among€Participants€in€#friends........................................75Ð $+t&) ÐVII.à ` àDISCUSSION€AND€CONCLUSIONS.................................................................78Ð ° Ðà ` àClose€Friendship€Ties€in€#friends..........................................................................78ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àRespondentsðð€Close€Friendship€Ties€Outside€of€Cyberspace................................81ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓÓÓà ` àComparison€of€Close€Friendship€Ties€in€#friends€and€Close€Friendship€Ties€Ìà ` àOutside€of€Cyberspace...........................................................................................83ÌÌÓ¡-ÓÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àGeographic€Scale€of€Close€Friendship€Ties€in€#friends.........................................85ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àGeographic€Scale€of€Close€Friendship€Ties€Outside€of€Cyberspace.....................85ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àEstablishment/maintenance€of€Friendship€Ties.....................................................86Ìà ` àCommunity€Sentiment€among€#friends€Users.......................................................88Ìà ` àSummary................................................................................................................89Ìà ` àDirections€for€Future€Research..............................................................................89ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓBIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................91ÌAPPENDIX€A....................................................................................................................95Ìà ` àCover€Letter...........................................................................................................96Ìà ` àSurvey€Questionnaire.............................................................................................97ÓÓÓ ì(#ŒXÓÌÐ  ð@ ÐÓ  Óò òLIST€OF€TABLESÐ ° Ðó óÓ”4ÓÌÓÓԇ³\ÂXX´’ÔÔ*wƒVddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#wÔÔ,Üdd ÔÔ,Ddd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  à ‹‹ÐÔ#†X´’X³\ì4#ÔTable€3.1:Ð %ôD ‹‹%ÐTypes€of€CMC€&€Characteristics€of€Each€Type..............................36Ð %ôD ‹‹%ÐTable€6.1:Ð %xÈ ‹‹%ÐComparison€of€this€sample€with€Ninth€GVU€Survey......................58Ð %xÈ ‹‹%ÐTable€6.2:Ð %ü L ‹‹%ÐCountries€Represented€by€the€Sample.............................................59Ð %ü L ‹‹%ÐTable€6.3:Ð %€ Ð  ‹‹%ÐFrequency€of€participation€in€#friends€chatroom.............................60Ð %€ Ð  ‹‹%ÐTable€6.4:Ð % T  ‹‹%ÐCharacteristics€of€Close€Friendship€Ties€Developed€in€#friends.....63Ð % T  ‹‹%ÐTable€6.5:Ð %ˆØ  ‹‹%ÐDuration€of€close€friendship€ties€developed€in€#friends..................64Ð %ˆØ  ‹‹%ÐTable€6.6:Ð % \  ‹‹%ÐÓÓCharacteristics€of€Close€Friendship€Ties€Developed€Outside€ofÏCyberspace.......................................................................................67Ð %üL  ‹‹%ÐÓç9ÓTable€6.7:Ð %€Ð  ‹‹%ÐÓÓDuration€of€close€friendship€ties€developed€outside€of€ÌCyberspace.......................................................................................68Ð %pÀ ‹‹%ÐÓ;ÓTable€6.8:Ô#†X´’XXX´’í'#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’ÔÐ %ôD ‹‹%ÐÓÓJoint€Distribution€of€respondents€with€close€friends€in€#friends€vs.ÏThose€with€Close€friends€outside€of€Cyberspace.............................71Ð %ä4 ‹‹%ÐÓ]<ÓTable€6.9:Ô#†X´’XXX´’<#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’ÔÐ %h¸ ‹‹%ÐÓÓEffects€of€Internet€Participation€on€Other€Activities.......................72Ð %h¸ ‹‹%ÐÓ­=ÓTable€6.10:Ô#†X´’XXX´’i=#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’ÔÐ %ì< ‹‹%ÐGeographic€Scale€of€Close€Ties€in€#friends.....................................73Ð %ì< ‹‹%ÐTable€6.11:Ô#†X´’XXX´’v>#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’ÔÐ %pÀ ‹‹%ÐGeographic€Scale€of€Close€Ties€Outside€of€Cyberspace..................74Ð %pÀ ‹‹%ÐTable€6.12:Ô#†X´’XXX´’^?#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’ÔÐ %ôD ‹‹%ÐFrequency€Distributions€of€Community€Sentiment€Indicators........76Ð %ôD ‹ ‹%ÐTable€6.13:Ô#†X´’XXX´’=@#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’ÔÐ %xÈ   ‹‹%ÐÓÓComparison€of€the€means€on€the€Community€Sentiment€IndexÏbetween€Persons€with€Close€Friendship€Ties€Developed€in€#friendsÏand€Those€Without€Such€Ties..........................................................77Ó[AÓÔ#†X´’XXX´’A#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’ÔÐ&X¨#  &ÐÐ  x È# ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†X´’XXX´’wB#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’Ôò ò€Ô‡ Ñ XX´’ÔACKNOWLEDGMENTSÔ#†X´’X  Ñ#C#ÔÐ ° Ðó óÓ  ÓÌI€would€like€to€thank€Dr.€W.€Richard€Goe€for€serving€as€€my€major€advisor.€€Also,€thanksÏto€Dr.€Michael€Timberlake€and€Dr.€Paul€Ciccantel,€for€agreeing€to€serve€as€committeeÏmembers.€€I€would€like€to€acknowledge€the€late€Dr.€Robert€L.€Hale€of€SoutheasternÏLouisiana€University€for€encouraging€me€to€continue€on€to€graduate€school,€and€Dr.ÏDavid€P.€Shepherd€of€Southeastern€Louisiana€University€for€providing€me€with€continuedÏinspiration.€€Finally,€I€would€like€to€extend€special€thanks€to€fellow€graduate€studentÏAlpha€O.€Sheriff€€who€helped€provide€me€with€theoretical€guidance€in€the€beginning€ofÏthe€project.ÌÔ#†X´’XXX´’C#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’Ôò òÐ  ` ÐÙÙØ ØØØÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜññññññà@êê)àÔ‡ Ñ XX´’ÔChapter€IÔ#†X´’X  Ñ G#Ôññññññó óññññññˆÐ ° ÐÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ì(#?ÓññññññÔ‡ Ñ XX´’ÔÔ#† Ñ   Ñ!F#ÔÔ‡ Ñ   ÑÔò òññññÌññTABLE›€OF€CONTENTSÌó óÔ#†X´’X  ÑH#ÔÌTABLE€OFÏCONTENTS......................................................................................................IÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ì(#?ÓLIST€OF€TABLES.............................................................................................................iiiÌACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................ivÏCHAPTERÌI.€à ` àINTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1Ð ð@ ÐII.€à ` àREVIEW€OF€LITERATUREÐ Ð  Ðà ` àStatement€of€the€Problem€........................................................................................Ìà ` àSociological€Research€on€Community€....................................................................¼à ` àÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓResearch€on€the€Internet€as€a€Community€................................................................¼à ` àÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓPsychological€Internet€Research€..............................................................................ÌIII.€TYPES€OF€COMPUTER€MEDIATED€COMMUNICATIONÌIV.€à ` àRESEARCH€OBJECTIVES€....................................................................................Ð "` Ðà ` àForms€of€€CMC€as€a€Medium€for€Community€.........................................................¼à ` àÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓFormation€of€Communal€Social€Relations€Over€the€Internet....................................¼à ` àÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓGeographic€Scale€of€Community€Developed€Over€the€Internet................................¼â âà ` àÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓDevelopment€of€Community€Sentiment€Over€the€Internet€.......................................Ð )à$& ÐÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓV.€€à ` àRESEARCH€METHODS..........................................................................................Ð ° Ðâ âà ` àÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓSampling€Procedure...................................................................................................¼à ` àÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óresponse€Rate...........................................................................................................ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àOrganization€of€Questionnaire€..................................................................................Ïà ` àÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓMeasurement€of€Communal€Relations.......................................................................¼à ` àÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓMeasurement€of€the€Geographic€Scale€of€Community..............................................¼à ` àMeasurement€of€Community€Sentiment....................................................................¼à ` àÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓMethod€of€Data€Analysis..........................................................................................ÌVI.€à ` àFINDINGS€...........................................................................................................Ó?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓÐ ° ÐÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àCharacteristics€of€the€Sample€....................................................................................Ó?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àFrequency€of€Participation€in€#friends€and€in€other€chat€rooms................................Ó?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Ó€ÏÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àOnline€Friendships€in€#friends€.................................................................................Ó?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àNature€of€ONLINE€relationships€in€#friendsÏ..............................................................Ó?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓÔ#†X´’XXX´’GH#ÔÔ‡€X”ýXXX´’Ôà ` àTraditional€Face„to„Face€Relationships€Outside€of€€CyberspaceÐ ð@ ÐÔ#†X´’XX€X”ý„[#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’Ô..............................Ô#†X´’XXX´’$\#ÔÔ‡€X”ýXXX´’ÔÐ Ð  ÐÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àSocial€Isolates..................................................................................ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àInternet€Participation€vs.€Other€Activities................................................ÌÔ#†X´’XX€X”ý„\#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’ÔÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àGeographic€Scope€of€Communal€Relations...............................................................Ð p&À!$ Ðâ âÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àGeographic€Scope€of€Friendship€Ties€Mediated€Through€#friends...........................Ð P( #& ÐÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àGeographic€Scale€of€Traditional€Face-To-Face€Friendship€Ties€of€Ó?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Ó#friends€Users.€Ó?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Ó¼à ` àPersons€that€Met€Face-to-Face€With€Someone€They€Met€in€#friends:Ó?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Ó€Geographic€¼à ` àScale...Ìâ âà ` àÓ ì(#ŒXÓCommunity€Sentiment€in€#friends.............................................................................ÌVII.€€DISCUSSION€AND€CONCLUSIONSÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ì(#?Óà ` àClose€Friendship€Ties€in€#friends..............................................................................ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àGeographicc€Scope€of€€Close€Friendship€Ties€inÏ#friends..........................................ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àCommunity€Sentiment€among€#Friends€Users..........................................................ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àClose€Friendship€Ties€Outside€of€Cyberspace..........................................................ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àGeographic€Scope€of€Close€Friendship€Ties€Outside€of€Cyberspace....................ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àRelocation€/Establishment€of€Ties.....................................................................ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓBIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................ÌAPPENDIX€A..........................................................................................................Ìà ` àCover€Letter......................................................................................................Ìà ` àSurvey€Questionnaire.......................................................................................ÓÓÓ ì(#ŒXÓÐ  Ð  Ðò òÓ  ÓLIST€OF€TABLESó óÐ ° ÐÓÜhÓChapter€3Ìà ì àTable€3.1€¼à ì àTypes€of€CMC€&€Characteristics€of€Each€Type€ÌÌÌChapter€5à ì àÐ P   Ðà ì àÌà ì à¼à ì àTable€5.1¼à ì àFactor€Pattern€of€Community€SentimentÏIndicatorsÌÌÌChapter€6Ìà ì àÌàQìì*ìàˆà‘6 6 B(#àTable€6.1ˆÐ ° ÐàQìì*ìàˆà‘ÆÆ(#àComparison€of€this€Sample€with€Ninth€GVU€SurveyˆÐ  ð ÐÌà ì à¼à ì àTable€6.2¼à ì àCountries€Represented€by€the€SampleÌÌà ì à¼à ì àTable€6.3¼à ì àFrequency€of€Participation€in€#friends€ChatroomÌÌà ì à¼à ì àTable€6.4¼à ì àCharacteristics€of€Close€Friendship€TiesÏDeveloped€in€Ìà ì à¼à ì à¼à ì à¼à ì à#friendsÌÌà ì à¼à ì àTable€6.5€¼à ì àDuration€of€close€Face„to„Face€friendship€ties€of€Ìà ì à¼à ì à¼à ì à¼à ì àrespondents€€Ð ,`'* Їà ì à¼à ì àTable€6.6¼à ì àCharacteristics€of€Close€Friendship€TiesÏDeveloped€Ìà ì à¼à ì à¼à ì à¼à ì àOutside€of€CyberspaceÌÌà ì à¼à ì àTable€6.7¼à ì àDuration€of€close€friendship€ties€developedÏoutside€of€Ìà ì à¼à ì à¼à ì à¼à ì àCyberspaceÌÌà ì à¼à ì àTable€6.8¼à ì àJoint€Distribution€of€respondents€with€close€à‘ìì(#àfriends€€in€#friends€vs.€those€with€close€friends€outside€ˆÐ pÀ ÐàQ}}#ìàof€€Cyberspace€ˆÌÌà ì à¼à ì àTable€6.9¼à ì àInternet€Participation€Affect€on€Other€activitiesÌÌà ì à¼à ì àTable€6.10¼à ì àGeographic€Scope€of€Close€Ties€Outside€of€Ìà ì àCyberspaceÌà ì à¼à ì àÌà ì à¼à ì àTable€6.11¼à ì àGeographic€Scope€of€Face„to„FaceÏRelationships€Ìà ì à¼à ì à¼à ì à¼à ì àEstablished€through€#friendsÌâ âÐ  +p&) Ðà ì àâ â¼à ì àTable€6.12¼à ì àCommunity€Sentiment€QuestionsÌà ì à¼à ì àÌÌà ì à¼à ì àTable€6.13¼à ì àComparison€of€the€Means€of€the€Community€Ìà ì à¼à ì à¼à ì à¼à ì àSentiment€Index€between€persons€with€close€Ìà ì à¼à ì à¼à ì à¼à ì àfriendship€ties€developed€in€#friends€and€those€Ìà ì à¼à ì à¼à ì à¼à ì àwithout€close€face-to-face€friendship€tiesÌÐ  `° Ðò òÓ  ÓACKNOWLEDGMENTSÐ ° Ðó óÓ  ÓÌÓÓI€would€like€to€thank€Dr.€W.€Richard€Goe€for€serving€as€€my€major€advisor.€€Also,€thanksÏto€€Dr.€Michael€Timberlake€and€Dr.€Paul€Ciccantel,€for€agreeing€to€serve€as€committeeÏmembers.€€I€would€like€to€acknowledge€the€late€Dr.€Robert€L.€Hale€of€SoutheasternÏLouisiana€University€for€encouraging€me€to€continue€on€to€graduate€school,€and€Dr.ÏDavid€P.€Shepherd€of€Southeastern€Louisiana€University€for€providing€me€with€continuedÏinspiration.€€Finally,€I€would€like€to€extend€special€thanks€to€fellow€graduate€studentÏAlpha€O.€Sheriff€€who€helped€provide€me€with€theoretical€guidance€in€the€beginning€ofÏthe€project.ÌÔ#†X´’XXX´’/^#ÔÔ‡ Ñ XX´’Ôò òÐ  à МññÙÙ›ññØØññØØññÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ›à@êê)àChapter€Ió óˆÐ ° ÐÔ#†X´’X  Ѽu#ÔÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ì(#?Óò òà@÷÷'àIntroductionó óˆÐ 0€ ÐÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓWhether€or€not€people€realize€it,€computers€are€playing€an€increasingly€important€role€inÏtheir€daily€lives.€€In€particular,€the€computer€network€known€as€the€Internet€hasÏexperienced€exponential€growth.€€By€one€account,€a€new€homepage€on€the€World€WideÏWeb€(WWW),€a€part€of€the€Internet,€crops€up€every€thirty€seconds.€€The€use€of€computersÏin€varying€capacities€is€replacing€face-to-face€social€interaction€between€people.€€In€someÏoffices,€co-workers€will€send€e-mail€messages€to€someone€in€the€next€cubicle€rather€thanÏinteract€with€that€person€face-to-face.€€Computer€mediated€communication€(CMC)€hasÏbecome€increasingly€widespread.€€The€extent€to€which€face-to-face€social€interaction€isÏbeing€replaced€by€CMC€òòshouldóó€be€an€important€topic€of€concern€among€sociologists.€€Ð ` Ðà ` àBy€far,€the€largest€forum€for€CMC€to€occur€is€the€Internet.€€The€Internet€is€aÏcomputer€network€that€links€computers€all€over€the€world.€€Started€as€the€ARPANETÏduring€the€Cold€War€by€the€Advanced€Research€Projects€Agency€(ARPA)€of€the€U.S.ÏDepartment€of€Defense,€it€has€grown€into€an€international€network€which€now€includesÏacademic€institutions,€governments,€commercial€establishments,€and€millions€of€privateÏindividuals€from€all€around€the€world.Ìà ` àThe€Internet€is€a€term€which€is€sometimes€misused€and€abused.€€Esther€DysonÏ(1997:1-2)€makes€a€distinction€between€the€Net€and€the€Internet.€€Dyson€sees€the€Net€as€aÏlinking€of€both€formal€and€informal€computer€networks€as€well€as€commercial€networksÏsuch€as€America€On€Line€(AOL)€that€are€linked€to€the€Internet.€€The€Internet€for€DysonÐ Ð* &( Ð(1997:1-2)€is€strictly€those€computers€hooked€together€using€the€Internet€Protocol€(IP).€ÏThis€distinction€is€probably€a€false€one,€however.€€Almost€everyone€uses€the€two€terms,ÏNet€and€Internet,€interchangeably.€€While€services€like€AOL€may€have€services€andÏfeatures€of€their€own€which€are€separate€and€apart€from€those€of€€the€Internet,€AOL€itselfÏis€still€connected€to€the€Internet.€€For€the€purposes€of€this€study,€however,€the€Internet€willÏbe€defined€as€any€computer€which€has€access€to€the€forms€of€CMC€that€this€study€willÏexamine.€€ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àThe€Internet€allows€people€sitting€behind€computer€screens,€literally€at€differentÏends€of€the€earth,€to€communicate€with€one€another€and€interact€socially€in€a€way€that€isÏunparalleled€throughout€all€of€human€history.€€One€might€argue€that€the€telephone€alsoÏallowed€for€such€communication,€but€unlike€the€Internet,€telephones€require€users€toÏknow€the€person€they€are€contacting€or€at€least€the€specific€location,€phone€number,€orÏname€of€the€person€they€wish€to€contact.€€Someone€can€simply€join€a€discussion€of€aÏparticular€topic€of€interest€on€the€Internet€without€even€knowing€any€of€the€others€who€areÏinvolved€in€the€discussion.€€These€persons€can€form€interest€groups,€relationships,€andÏeven€have€digital€romances€over€the€Internet.€€It€is€in€this€manner€that€the€technologyÏmediates€and€facilitates€the€formation€of€social€networks.€€Persons€using€various€forms€ofÏCMC€over€the€Internet€can€form€networks€of€social€interaction.ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Ó€à ` àThe€forms€of€CMC€that€make€up€the€Internet€exist€first€and€foremost€to€facilitateÐ p&À!$ Ðsome€form€of€communication€between€people.€€It€is€for€this€reason€that€these€forms€ofÏCMC€can€serve€to€facilitate€social€interaction€between€people.€€The€social€interactionÏwhich€takes€place€through€the€various€forms€of€CMC€can€involve€the€formation€of€socialÐ ,`'* Ðties€and€social€networks,€like€those€which€form€the€basis€of€€a€real€world,€bounded,Ïgeographical€community.€€ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àBoth€the€popular€press€and€even€some€of€the€academic€literature€has€used€the€termÏ"Virtual€Community"€to€refer€to€the€Internet€ever€since€the€publication€of€HowardÏRhinegold's€book€in€1993.€€Rhinegold,€also€famous€for€his€book,€€òòVirtual€Realityóó,€is€theÐ 0 € Ðperson€who€first€coined€the€term€"Virtual€Community."€€Most€of€the€research€which€hasÏbeen€done€in€this€area,€however,€takes€the€usage€of€the€term€"Virtual€Community"€as€aÏgiven,€and€does€not€evaluate€this€concept€empirically€in€any€critical€fashion.€€ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àFor€this€reason,€the€Internet€has€been€frequently€referred€to€as€a€"community"€€or€aÏ"virtual€community"€with€little€elaboration€on€how€and€why€this€is€the€case.€€Few€studiesÏhave€attempted€to€assess€the€ways€in€which€the€social€interaction€that€takes€place€over€theÏInternet€represents€a€community€in€a€sociological€sense.€€Studies€that€have€addressed€thisÏtopic€have€given€only€a€cursory€treatment€to€the€classical€community€literature.€€The€fewÏexisting€studies€that€have€attempted€to€do€this€have€been€qualitatively-oriented€andÏanecdotal.€€There€is€a€lack€of€empirical,€quantitatively-oriented€research€in€this€area.€€TheÏpurpose€of€this€study,€therefore,€will€be€to€assess€the€ways€in€which€the€networks€of€socialÏinteraction€formed€over€the€Internet€meet€a€sociological€definition€of€the€concept€of€Ï"community."€€An€empirical€examination€of€this€issue€will€be€accomplished€through€theÏuse€of€a€survey€of€€social€actors€that€interact€through€one€of€the€various€forms€of€CMC€onÏthe€Internet.€€Ìà ` àA€literature€review€of€some€of€the€classical€community€literature€and€someÏcommunity/Internet€research€is€presented€in€chapter€two.€€Chapter€two€will€first€presentÐ ,`'* Ðsome€of€the€traditional€sociological€literature€about€community€such€as€Tnnies€[1887]Ïand€Hillery€(1955),€then€it€will€move€to€a€discussion€of€more€recent€work€aboutÏtraditional€communities€by€Gusfield€(1975),€Wellman€(1979,€1988),€Goudy€(1982,€1990)Ïand€others.€The€chapter€will€conclude€with€a€discussion€of€some€more€recent€researchÏspecifically€about€the€Internet,€some€of€which€relates€to€the€idea€of€"community."ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àChapter€three€will€discuss€and€attempt€to€classify€some€of€the€wide€variety€ofÏvarious€forms€of€€CMC€found€on€the€Internet.€€There€are€many€forms€of€CMC€whichÏallow€social€interaction€to€occur€over€the€Internet.€€Real€time€forms€of€CMC€are€most€likeÏface-to-face€communication€which€occurs€in€real€world,€geographical€communities.€€ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àWhile€non€real-time€communication€does€occur€in€traditional,€real€world,Ïgeographical€communities,€the€mainstay€of€communication€in€these€communities€consistsÏof€real-time€face-to-face€interaction.€€Use€of€the€term€'community'€minimally€impliesÏsome€sort€of€social€interaction€among€groups€of€people.€€The€main€form€of€€"real€time"Ïcommunication€between€large€groups€of€people€over€the€Internet€is€comprised€of€variousÏ"chat€rooms."€€The€many€types€of€on-line€chat€rooms€will€be€discussed€in€chapter€three.€€ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Ó€Chapter€four€gives€an€overview€of€€the€research€issues€that€were€examined€by€this€study.€ÏChapter€five€discusses€the€research€methods€that€were€used.€€The€findings€are€presented€inÏchapter€six.€€Finally,€a€discussion€of€the€findings€and€conclusions€about€the€findings€areÏpresented€in€chapter€seven.ÌÐ  P( #& ÐÑ€ ÀÀ` ÑÑ7€´’XXdðXXdð7ÑÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓÑ€¿rÑÑ€W@¸Ñà@¶¶(àò òÔ‡ Ñ XX´’ÔChapter€IIÔ#†X´’X  ѧ•#Ôó óˆÐ ° Ðà@¢¢#àò òReview€of€LiteratureˆÐ 0€ ÐStatement€of€the€Problemó óÐ  ` Ðà ` àPopular€press€accounts€of€the€"Internet€Community"€or€the€"Virtual€Community"Ïraise€several€questions€which€sociologists€should€investigate.€What€is€the€nature€of€theÏsocial€relationships€established€by€persons€over€the€Internet?€€Is€the€Internet€really€aÏcommunity€in€a€sociological€sense?€€There€is€a€substantial€body€of€previous€research€withÏapplicability€to€understanding€these€questions.Ìò òSociological€Definitions€of€€the€Concept€of€€"Community"ó óÐ P  Ðà ` àFerdinand€Tnnies€([1887]€1959)€was€among€the€first€to€address€the€issue€of€whatÏis€meant€by€community.€€Tnnies€argued€that€€the€notion€of€community,€termedÏòòGemeinschaftóó,€represented€an€ideal€type€of€a€collective€will€governing€social€relationshipsÐ ð@ Ðamong€humans€(Tnnies,€[1887]€1959).׃×Ý ƒ ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Communal€social€relationships€were€based€onÐ Ð  Ðemotional€attachment,€sentiment,€and€familiarity.€€In€opposition€to€òòGemeinschaftóó,€orÐ ° Ðcommunity,€is€a€different€form€of€collective€will€based€on€rational€calculation,Ïindifference€and€self-interest.€€This€was€termed€òòGesellschaftóó.€€Tnnies€contended€thatÐ p!À Ðsocieties€were€undergoing€a€€shift€from€social€relations€based€on€community,€to€thoseÏbased€on€Gesellschaft,€as€industrial€capitalism€developed€within€the€nation€states€ofÏWestern€Europe.€€Tnnies€implicitly€gave€the€concept€of€community€a€spatial€form€byÐ '`"$ Ðcontending€that€the€prototypical€form€of€community€social€organization€could€be€found€inÏthe€rural€agrarian€village.€€€Tnnies€set€the€stage€for€nearly€all€sociological€conceptions€ofÏcommunity€which€came€later.€€Tnnies's€view€of€what€represented€community€has€hadÏmajor€influence€on€the€use€of€the€concept€of€community€in€American€Sociology.€Ìà ` àSince€Tnnies,€€there€has€been€substantial€debate€about€how€to€define€the€conceptÏof€"community"€in€sociology€(Hillery,€1955;€Jonassen,€1959;€Gusfield,€1975)€To€date,Ïthere€remains€a€lack€of€consensus€over€a€precise€definition€of€the€concept.€George€HilleryÏ(1955)€argues€that€this€problem€exists€with€concepts€in€all€disciplines.€€Hillery€(1955)Ïexamined€94€different€definitions€of€community€that€were€presented€in€the€literature€in€anÏeffort€to€identify€consensual€definitions.€€Hillery€found€three€areas€of€agreement,€orÏfactors,€that€most€of€the€94€definitions€of€community€had€in€common.€€The€first€of€theseÏthree€factors€which€Hillery€cited€was€that€most€definitions€of€community€include€in€someÏway,€people€who€are€involved€in€social€interaction.€€The€second€factor€was€thatÏcommunity€€involves€a€geographic€area.€€And€finally,€the€third€factor€found€by€HilleryÏwas€that€community€involves€people€who€have€common€ties€of€some€kind.€€The€notion€ofÏcommon€ties€encompassed€a€broad€array€of€phenomena€including€shared€lifestyles,Ïnorms,€and€values,€psychological€identification€with€a€community,€and€the€use€of€sharedÏinstitutions.€€Nearly€all€definitions€of€community€in€sociology€can€be€classified€in€termsÏof€the€three€areas€of€agreement€which€Hillery€(1955)€found:€Social€interaction,Ïgeographic€area,€and€common€ties.€€This€research€will€attempt€to€frame€the€Internet€inÏâ âterms€of€these€three€concepts.€€Ð 0*€%( Ѐà ` àJonassen,€however,€argues€that€Hillery€found€"agreement€on€only€two€points:Ð ° Ðâ ânamely€no€author€denied€that€area€"òòcouldóó,"€€be€an€element€of€community,€and€all€theÐ à Ðdefinitions€dealt€with€people€(Jonassen,€1959:18)."€€By€area,€Jonassen€is€referring€toÏphysical€geographic€propinquity.€€Jonassen's€emphasis€on€the€word€òòcouldóó€most€likelyÐ P   Ðindicates€that€Hillery€does€not€see€area€as€a€requirement€for€community,€but€merelyÏsomething€which€might€serve€as€a€factor€to€indicate€the€presence€of€community.€€SomeÏsociologists€have€referred€to€this€as€a€"loose"€conception€of€community€because€no€limitsÏare€placed€on€the€size€of€the€geographic€area€and€the€concept€of€common€tiesÏencompasses€such€a€broad€array€of€phenomena,€many€of€which€do€not€preciselyÏcorrespond€to€the€€òòGemeinschaft€óósocial€relations€conceived€by€Tnnies€(e.g.€sharedÐ à Ðinstitutions€as€being€sufficient€for€community).€€Ìà ` àMost€sociological€research€of€"community"€fits€into€one€or€more€of€these€threeÏareas€of€agreement€cited€by€Hillery€(1955).€€These€"three€areas€of€agreement,"€as€HilleryÏcalls€them,€illustrate€three€different€ways€in€which€the€concept€of€community€has€beenÏdefined€in€sociology.€Frequently,€these€concepts€have€been€used€separately€or€inÏcombination€to€define€communities.€Ìà ` àJoseph€Gusfield€(1975)€describes€two€different€òòusagesóó€of€the€term€"community"€inÐ °"  Ðsociology.€€The€first€usage€described€by€Gusfield€is€the€territorial,€physical,€boundedÏgeographical€community.€€Here,€the€emphasis€is€on€locality.€€Hillery€never€indicated€thatÏthere€were€limits€to€the€geographic€area€of€community.€This€is€an€additional€stipulationÏimposed€by€Gusfield.€€The€second€of€the€two€uses€of€the€term€"community"€whichÏGusfield€observed€was€the€relational€aspect€of€community,€where€he€argued€that€theÐ ,`'* Ðemphasis€"points€to€the€quality€or€character€of€human€relationships,€without€reference€toÏlocation"€€(Gusfield;€1975:xvi).€€In€this€usage,€a€"communal"€relationship€represents€anÏintimate,€primary€relationship€involving€emotional€attachment€as€specified€by€Tnniesòò.óóÐ pÀ Ðà ` àFlora€et€al.òò€óó(1992:14)€also€outline€three€ways€in€which€sociologists€use€the€termÐ P   Ðcommunity.€But€again,€all€of€these€involve€people€interacting€in€some€way.€€Flora€et€al.Ïindicate€that€the€first€usage€of€the€term€community€ð ðrefers€to€a€place,€a€location€in€whichÏa€group€of€people€interact€with€one€anotherðð€(Flora€et€al.€1992:14).€€The€second€€use€ofÏthe€term€they€look€at€involves€a€look€at€the€social€systems€which€are€said€to€make€upÏcommunities€and€the€organizations€and€organizational€mechanisms€in€place€whichÏfacilitate€the€interaction€among€people€characteristic€of€communities€(Flora€et€al.€1992).€ÏThe€third€way€which€Flora€et€al.€say€that€sociologists€use€the€term€community€describes€aÏð ðshared€sense€of€identity€held€by€a€group€of€peopleðð€(Flora€et€al.€1992).€€Ìò òCommunal€Social€Relationsó óÐ 0€ Ðà ` àHillery€indicated€that€social€interaction€underlies€nearly€all€sociologicalÏdefinitions€of€community.€€Hillery's€ideas€of€"social€interaction"€and€"common€ties"€haveÏbeen€addressed€by€Mark€Granovetter€(1973),€Claude€Fischer€(1977),€Barry€WellmanÏ(1979),€Willis€Goudy€(1982,€1990),€and€others.€€Wellman€(1979;€1988)€sees€communitiesÏas€social€networks€and€has€used€a€technique€known€as€social€network€analysis׃×Ý ƒ ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€toÐ $à" Ðâ âinvestigate€this€idea€of€how€common€social€ties€influence€community.€€Claude€FischerÐ p&À!$ Ð(1977)€examined€social€relations€in€urban€settings€and€argued€that€social€relationsÏthemselves€comprised€"community."Ìâ âà ` àWellman€(1979;€Wellman,€Carrington,€and€Hall,€1988),€discusses€three€argumentsÏfound€in€the€sociological€literature€concerning€change€in€community:€The€"CommunityÏLost"€argument;€the€"Community€Saved"€argument;€and€the€"Community€Liberated"Ïargument.€€The€"Community€Lost"€argument€postulated€that€"community"€in€theÏòòGemeinschaft€óósense€would€not€survive€in€an€era€of€urbanization€as€predicted€by€TnniesÐ ð@  Ð(Wellman,€1979:1204;€Wellman,€Carrington,€and€Hall,€1988:133).€The€community€savedÏargument€used€empirical€evidence€to€show€that€proximate€neighborhood€and€kinshipÏgroups€(òòGemeinschaftóó)€"continued€to€be€abundant€and€strong"€in€urban€settingsÐ à Ð(Wellman,€1979:1205;€Wellman,€Carrington,€and€Hall,€1988:134).€Wellman,€Carrington,Ïand€Hall€indicate€that€both€the€"Lost"€and€"Saved"€arguments€"define€community€as€aÏsolidarity,€local,€kinshiplike€group"€that€is€restricted€to€small€geographic€areas€(Wellman,ÏCarrington,€and€Hall,€1988:134).Ìà ` àThe€"Liberated"€community€argument€is€perhaps€most€useful€in€attempting€toÏexplain€the€Internet€as€a€community.€Wellman,€Carrington,€and€Hall€state€that€in€thisÏargument,€community€consists€of€individuals€with€€"membership€in€multiple,Ïinterest-based€communities,€predominately€composed€of€long€distance€friendship€ties"Ï(Wellman,€1979:1206;€Wellman,€Carrington,€and€Hall,€1988:133).€€In€the€liberatedÏcommunity,€geographic€proximity€is€no€longer€necessary€for€communal€relations€asÏtechnology€permits€primary€ties€to€be€developed€and€maintained€over€broader€geographicÏspaces.€€The€Internet€would€certainly€meet€these€criteria.€Internet€users€often€participate€inÐ ,`'* Ðseveral€interest€groups,€chatrooms,€LISTSERVs,€etc.€(these€are€described€in€more€detailÏin€Chapter€3).€€Also,€Internet€relationships€are€"predominately€composed"€of€longÏdistance,€friendship€ties.Ìà ` àMark€Granovetter€studied€the€notion€of€social€ties.€€Communal€ties€are€a€form€ofÏsocial€ties€that€are€defined€as€a€strong€primary€relationship€between€two€personsÏ(Gusfield,€1975).€€Granovetter's€aim€was€to€conceptually€define€and€measure€the€strengthÏof€social€ties.€€Granovetter€(1973)€ultimately€determined€that€the€strength€of€such€tiesÏcould€be€determined€by€four€factors:€duration€of€the€tie,€emotional€attachment€involved,Ïthe€level€of€intimacy,€and€extent€of€€reciprocity€€i.e.€the€reciprocal€exchange€of€services.Ìà ` àThe€first€of€€Granovetter's€(1973)€four€dimensions€is€duration.€€Granovetter€seesÏduration€as€simply€the€length€of€time€the€social€tie€€has€existed.€€The€second€of€ÏGranovetter's€(1973)€four€dimensions€is€emotional€intensity.€€Granovetter€defines€this€asÏthe€level€of€commitment€between€the€participants€of€the€social€tie.€Participants€in€theÏsocial€tie€experience€an€emotional€bond€to€one€another.€€Parties€involved€in€the€Ïrelationship€have€an€emotional€investment€in€the€relationship.€€The€third€of€Granovetter'sÏfour€dimensions€is€intimacy.€Intimacy€involves€a€strong€level€of€commitment€betweenÏparticipants€of€the€relationship.€€According€to€Granovetter,€intimacy€means€thatÏparticipants€of€the€relationship€feel€free€to€talk€about€personal€matters€with€one€another.€ÏGranovetter's€fourth€and€final€dimension€is€reciprocity.€This€dimension€involves€theÏreciprocal€exchange€of€services€between€participants€in€the€relationship.€€To€Granovetter,Ïreciprocity€means€that€all€parties€in€the€relationship€mutually€benefit€from€the€relationshipÏand€gain€from€it.Ð ,`'* Ðà ` àGranovetter€(1973:1361)€suggests€that€a€combination€of€these€four€factors€shouldÏbe€used€to€define€the€strength€of€a€social€tie.€€Granovetter€(1973:1361)€says€that€these€fourÏfactors€can€operate€independently€of€one€another,€although€they€are€"obviously€highlyÏintercorrelated."€Using€Granovetter's€scheme,€a€"communal"€tie€would€be€a€socialÏrelationships€that€involves:€Extensive€contact€over€a€period€of€time,€emotionalÏattachment,€intimacy,€and€a€reciprocal€exchange€of€services.Ìò òCommunal€Attachment€and€Common€Tiesó óÐ ð@  Ðà ` àThe€concept€of€"communal€attachment"€would€fall€under€Hillery's€(1955)€idea€ofÏpeople€with€common€ties,€because€individuals€who€experience€strong€feelings€of€Ïattachment€to€the€community€share€this€in€common€with€one€another.€€Willis€GoudyÏ(1982)€addressed€the€concept€of€€"communal€attachment"€as€a€facet€of€community.ÏCommunal€attachment€refers€to€an€individual€feeling€psychologically€attached€to€aÏcommunity€group,€or€feeling€like€a€vital€part€of€the€community.€€Communal€attachment€isÏalso€referred€to€in€the€literature€as€communal€sentiment€(Gusfield,€1975;€Fischer,€1977).€ÏGusfield€(1975)€and€Fischer€(1977)€equate€communal€attachment€with€Geertz's€(1963)Ïconcept€of€primordial€attachment.€€This€involves€an€added€dimension€that€the€needs€andÏthe€will€of€the€individual€must€be€subordinate€to€the€needs€and€collective€will€of€theÏgroup.€But,€the€addition€of€this€dimension€results€in€a€more€restrictive€view€of€communalÏattachment.€Ìà ` àCharles€Tilly€(1973)€and€Albert€Hunter€(1978)€took€the€idea€of€communalÏattachment€one€step€further€by€introducing€the€concept€of€communal€solidarity.€€Tilly€andÏHunter€argue€that€this€involves€a€group€state€when€the€vast€majority€of€membersÐ ,`'* Ðpsychologically€identify€themselves€as€members€of€a€group€with€a€collective€interest.€ÏThey€see€this€as€a€measure€of€the€extent€of€communal€attachment€among€group€members.Ìà ` àTilly€(1973)€used€community€solidarity€as€a€means€of€explaining€collective€actionÏby€communities.€€Tilly€(1973)€sees€two€conceptions€of€community€solidarity.€€TillyÏ(1973:214)€first€conceptualizes€solidarity€as€"the€average€strength€of€existing€ties€amongÏmembers€of€the€[community]."€€He€defines€strength€(1973:214)€in€this€case€as€the€claimsÏthat€any€pair€of€individuals€have€to€one€another.€€Tilly's€(1973:214)€"alternativeÏconception€of€solidarity"€involves€the€extent€to€which€individuals€are€willing€to€makeÏcommitments€to€other€members€of€the€group€based€solely€on€their€common€groupÏmembership€alone.Ìà ` àHunter€posits€(1978)€"A€Dynamic€Model€of€Emergent€Community€Sentiments,"Ïin€which€he€describes€four€stages€of€communities.€€The€model€describes€a€progressionÏthrough€four€stages€of€community€sentiment.€€The€fourth€stage€becomes€important€inÏdiscussing€this€idea€of€community€solidarity€because€Hunter€describes€this€stage€asÏòòvicarious€óóor€òòsymbolic€communitiesóó.€€Hunter€(1978:150)€says€that€vicarious€communitiesÐ ð@ Ðare€communities€which€are€€"consciously€constructed."€€The€symbolic€attachment€whichÏcommunity€members€share€helps€lead€to€communal€solidarity.€€Scales€for€measuring€theÏdegree€of€community€attachment€have€been€developed€by€Kasarda€and€Janowitz€(1974)Ïand€Goudy€(1982).Ìà ` àNow€that€some€of€the€basic€sociological€research€on€community€has€beenÏâ âdiscussed,€the€next€section€will€try€to€present€some€of€the€research€that€has€been€doneÐ 0*€%( Ðabout€€information€technologies€€in€the€context€of€how€it€relates€to€a€discussion€ofÏcommunity.Ìâ âò òInformation€Technology€and€Communityó óÐ pÀ Ðà ` àMuch€has€been€written€about€the€use€of€Information€Technology€(IT)€whichÏincludes€the€Internet,€as€it€relates€to€the€concept€of€community.€During€the€past€twentyÏyears€or€so,€a€great€deal€of€literature€has€been€developed€about€how€to€employ€IT€in€theÏworkplace.€€Some€of€this€literature€speaks€of€the€"development"€of€"communities."€Ìà ` àHiltz€and€Turoff€(1978)€were€among€the€first€authors€to€systematically€€reference€Ïthe€idea€of€IT€as€it€relates€to€the€development€of€community€€in€their€1978€book€òòTheÐ ° ÐNetwork€Nation:€Human€Communication€via€Computeróó.€€Hiltz€and€Turoff€draw€on€theÐ à Ðnotion€of€community€as€a€social€network€and€chronicle€an€early€computer€conferencingÏsystem€known€as€EIES.€€However,€their€work€primarily€explores€€the€behavior€of€workersÏby€computer-mediation€of€work-related€tasks.€€They€argued,€however,€that€eventuallyÏsuch€forms€of€computer€mediated€communication€would€become€widespread€in€their€useÏand€expand€far€beyond€a€few€thousand€users€(xix).€€Ìà ` àOf€the€forms€of€communication€noted€by€Hiltz€and€Turoff,€Jones€(1995)€brings€upÏthe€notion€that€face-to-face€communication€may€not€necessarily€be€more€real€than€otherÏmedia€communication,€despite€the€tendency€to€believe€that€it€is.€€He€states,€"face-to-faceÏinteraction€does€not€necessarily€break€down€boundaries,€and€to€adopt€it€as€an€ideal€willÏlikewise€not€necessarily€facilitate€communication,€community€building,€or€understandingÏâ âamong€people"€(Jones,€1995:29).Ð 0*€%( Ðà ` àHiltz€and€Turoff€(1978)€discuss€models€and€forms€in€which€telecommunication€isÏâ âsubstituted€for€travel.€€They€discuss€four€distinct€types€of€organizational€dispersionÏpatterns:€The€òòcentralized€organizationóó€€has€a€single€large€headquarters€to€which€everyoneÐ pÀ Ðmust€commute.€€In€the€òòfragmentationóó€pattern,€"a€few€'coherent€subunits'€in€theÐ P   Ðorganization€break€off€and€are€located€elsewhere"€(Hiltz€and€Turoff,€1978:475).€€UsuallyÏcommunication€to€the€main€company€is€done€via€terminals.€€In€òòdispersionóó,€a€number€ofÐ `  Ðwork€centers€are€located€around€one€area,€reporting€to€the€nearest€one,€using€computersÏand€telecommunications.€€In€òòdiffusion,óó€small,€multicompany,€neighborhood€work€centers,Ð Ð  Ðand€work€at€home€are€utilized.€€Individuals€walk€or€bicycle€to€work€in€this€pattern€(HiltzÏand€Turoff,€1978:475).€€Ìà ` àIn€discussing€its€impact€on€the€various€patterns€of€work,€Hiltz€and€Turoff€(1978)Ïcite€many€problems€with€decreased€face-to-face€communication.€€They€state,€for€example,€Ï"another€problem€is€that€employee€morale€and€work-group€cohesion€may€depend€on€theÏduration€and€number€of€face-to-face€contacts,€which€decrease€the€further€we€go€along€theÏcontinuum€from€single€centralized€large€offices€to€work€at€home.€€Whether€'electronicÏsocializing'€or€substitution€of€socialization€with€friends€and€neighbors,€rather€than€withÏco-workers,€will€occur,€and€whether€they€will€be€adequate€substitutes€to€maintain€theÏinterpersonal€supports€that€people€need,€is€an€unanswered€question"€(1978:€479).€€Ìà ` àHiltz€and€Turoff€(1978)€add€that€"because€of€the€factors€of€geographic€mobilityÏand€commutation€to€work,€there€has€been€less€overlapping€of€social€ties€among€theÏvarious€groups€a€person€belongs€to."€€Hiltz€and€Turoff€(1978:481),€state,€€"We€believeÏthat€computerized€conferencing€can€serve€to€substitute€electronic€mobility€for€physicalÐ ,`'* Ðmobility,€and€permit€a€person€to€exchange€communications€on€a€fairly€deep€andÏmeaningful€level€with€mainly€different€interest-oriented€groups.€€At€the€same€time,€thereÏis€likely€to€be€considerable€connectedness€among€the€various€groups,€with€manyÏoverlapping€memberships€(481)."€Ìà ` àHiltz€and€Turoff€(1978)€go€so€far€as€to€€suggest€the€emergence€of€a€new€"tribal"Ïform€of€economic€organization€involving€groups€of€individuals€in€which€members€supplyÏtalents€to€the€collective.€€Rhinegold€(1993)€also€uses€the€tribal€analogy€in€his€descriptionÏof€€IRC€(the€Internet€Relay€Chat)€by€using€the€term€€"real€time€tribes"€€Hiltz€and€TuroffÏ(1978)€see€a€rich€diversity€of€communities€growing€out€of€computer-basedÏcommunication€systems.€€It€is€clear€that€Hiltz€and€Turoff€anticipated€the€arrival€ofÏcomputer-based€communication€as€community.€€In€a€slightly€more€recent€work€entitledÏòòOnline€Communitiesóó,€Hiltz€(1984)€indicates€that€individual€behaviors€can€be€influencedÐ P  Ðby€IT€such€as€EIES,€the€system€chronicled€in€her€case€study.€Ìà ` àBarry€Wellman€et€al.€(1996:213)€indicated€that€information€technologies€facilitateÏthe€development€of€computer-supported€social€networks€which€"are€becoming€importantÏbases€of€virtual€communities."€Wellman€et€al.€(1996)€cite€some€of€the€limitations€of€usingÏinformation€technologies€in€the€workplace,€indicating€that€on-line€communications€areÏoften€more€blunt€and€impersonal.€€This€might€seem€to€imply€that€the€development€ofÏvirtual€communities€is€not€likely.Ìà ` àNow€that€some€of€the€basic€sociological€research€on€information€technologies€hasÏbeen€discussed,€the€next€section€will€try€to€present€some€of€the€research€that€has€beenÏdone€about€the€Internet€in€the€context€of€how€it€relates€to€a€discussion€of€community.Ð ,`'* Ðò òResearch€on€the€Internet€as€a€Community€ó óÐ ° Ðà ` àThe€Internet€has€been€termed€everything€from€a€"virtual€community,"€to€anÏ"electronic€community,"€to€"online€community,"€"computer€community,"€to€"cyberÏcommunity."€€Much€of€the€literature€that€examines€this€topic€however,€is€from€disciplinesÏother€than€sociology,€including€€psychology,€computer€science,€and€massÏcommunications.€A€more€limited€amount€of€research€on€this€topic€€has€been€conducted€byÏsociologists.€€Some€studies€have€been€conducted€about€how€different€forms€ofÏComputer-Mediated€Communication€(CMC)€relate€to€communities€or€can€be€consideredÏcommunities.€€Ìà ` àClifford€Stoll,€who€was€one€of€the€founding€members€of€the€Internet€when€it€wasÏstill€known€as€the€ARPANET,€asserts€in€his€1995€Book,€òòSilicon€Snake€Oilóó,€that€claimsÐ pÀ Ðabout€the€Internet€as€a€community€are€false€and€that€the€Internet€can€only€provide€theÏillusion€of€community€(Parks€and€Floyd,€1996:80,€Young,€1998:88).€Kimberly€S.€YoungÏquotes€Stoll,€"Computer€networks€isolate€us€from€one€another,€rather€than€bringing€usÏtogether"€(Quoted€in€Young,€1998:88).€€This€quote€would€certainly€seem€to€imply€thatÏcomputer€networks€do€not€allow€for€the€formation€of€social€ties,€but€that€such€networksÏòòpreventóó€the€formation€of€social€ties,€like€the€kind€that€characterize€community.€€Parks€andÐ °"  ÐFloyd€indicate€that€other€analysts€have€also€questioned€claims€about€the€Internet€as€aÏcommunity€and€have€similarly€argued€that€"only€the€illusion€of€as€community€can€beÏcreated€by€Cyberspace"€(Parks€and€Floyd,€1996:80).Ìà ` à€Heather€Bromberg,€(1996:146-149)€argues€that€MUDs€(Multiple€UserÏDungeons/Dimensions)€provide€a€sense€of€community€for€individuals€who€are€isolated€orÐ ,`'* Ðneedy€(Bromberg,€1996:318).€€Perhaps€this€can€be€seen€as€some€form€of€communalÏattachment,€but€Bromberg€fails€to€clarify€what€she€means€by€"a€sense€of€community."€ÏShe€does€not€use€accepted€measures€of€communal€attachment€found€in€previous€researchÏ(such€as€those€used€by€Goudy,€1982,€1990;€€Buttel€et€al.,€1979;€and€Kasarda€andÏJanowitz,€1974)€to€determine€this,€but€instead€uses€anecdotal€evidence.€€Bromberg€statesÏthat€€"MUDs...offer€an€antidote€to€loneliness€and€malaise,€allow€the€exploration€ofÏalternate€identities€and€personae,€offer€the€promise€of€connectivity€and€community€andÏallow€users€to€experience€the€feeling€of€mastery€over€their€environments"€(Bromberg,Ï1996:146).€€However,€Bromberg€offers€no€empirical€evidence€that€this€conclusion€can€beÏgeneralized€€to€a€larger€population€of€some€type.€€Ìà ` àIn€reviewing€community€literature€as€it€relates€to€the€Internet,€Steven€Jones,Ï(1995)€uses€Effrat's€notion€of€community,€which€has€three€principal€components:€(1)Ïcommunity€as€solidarity€institutions;€(2)€community€as€primary€interaction;€(3)Ïcommunity€as€institutionally€distinct€groups.€€Jones€(1995)€suggests€that€the€third€ofÏthese,€community€as€institutionally€distinct€groups,€makes€the€most€sense€in€the€contextÏof€CMC.€Jones€says€that€all€three€of€these€features€appear€in€CMC.Ìà ` àJones€goes€on€to€argue€that€there€is€a€need€to€conceptualize€community€as€aÏcomplex€of€social€relationships,€which€has€not€been€sufficiently€explored.€€He€argues€thatÏCMC€is€socially€produced€space,€in€which€spatiality€is€distinguished€from€physical€space.€ÏJones€is€saying€that€this€is,€in€effect,€a€new€kind€of€space€that€is€not€physical€space,€butÏinstead€is€a€kind€of€socially€created€space.€€Since€CMC€€decenters€place,€it€challenges€theÏtraditional€framework€as€community€being€based€on€proximate€geographic€space.Ð ,`'* Ðà ` àJones€addresses€this€issue€when€he€states€that€"Communities€formed€by€CMCÏhave€been€called€'virtual€communities'€and€defined€as€incontrovertibly€social€spaces€inÏwhich€people€still€meet€face-to-face,€but€under€new€definitions€of€both€'meet'€and€'face'"Ï(Jones,€1995:19).€€Therefore,€for€Jones,€community€is€predicated€on€the€common€beliefs,Ïinterests,€knowledge,€and€information€apart€from€physical€space.€€Community€consists€ofÏsocial€networks€and€social€interaction.€€Community€is€no€longer€a€"where."Ì€à ` àJones€reviews€such€early€work€as€Licklider€and€Taylor€who€discuss€whatÐ ð@  Ðinteractive€communities€on-line€would€not€be--€communities€with€the€same€geographicalÏarea.€€These€communities€would€be€€people€with€common€interests€and€goals.€€This€viewÏof€community€differs€from€the€traditional€view€of€community€sociology€as€that€ofÏ"locality-based€action"€which€emphasizes€geographic€area.€€Ìà ` àJones€(1995:24)€uses€Bender's€(1978)€definition€of€community,€which€viewsÏcommunities€as€social€networks,€not€as€places.€€This€is€similar€to€Wellman's€(1979)Ïnotion€of€€the€"Liberated€Community."€€Jones€cites€two€reasons€for€€using€social€networksÏas€a€definition€useful€for€the€study€of€community€€over€the€Internet€and€other€forms€ofÏCMC.€€First,€Jones€argues€that€such€a€definition€of€community,€is€based€on€socialÏinteraction,€which€creates€communities.€€Second,€this€definition€shifts€the€focus€awayÏfrom€place.€€Jones€argues€that€in€studying€CMC,€it€is€necessary€to€put€less€emphasis€onÏ(but€not€eliminate€completely)€the€consideration€of€€bounded€geographical€territoryÏ(Jones,€1995:24).€€Ìà ` àJones€goes€on€to€discuss€the€literature€related€to€pseudo-community€and€theÏdecentering€of€place.€€Jones€uses€Beniger's€definition€of€pseudo-community€--€"reversal€ofÐ ,`'* Ða€centuries€old€trend€from€organic€community€based€on€personal€relationships--toÏimpersonal€associated€integrated€by€mass€means"€(Beniger,€1987:369).€€Jones€discussionÏtakes€us€from€the€traditional€communal€relationships€(òòGemeinschaftóó)€to€highly€impersonalÐ pÀ Ðassociations€(òòGesellschaftóó),€moving€from€face-to-face€dialogue€as€community€to€symbolicÐ P   Ðor€indirect€group€relationships.€€Jones€borrowed€the€notion€of€òòGemeinschaft€óóandÐ 0 € ÐòòGesellschaft€óó€from€the€work€of€Ferdinand€Tnnies.€€Jones€is€unclear€about€what€he€meansÐ `  Ðby€the€decentering€of€place,€but€obviously,€the€Internet€removes€the€emphasis€on€€placeÏfound€in€a€traditional€òòGemeinschaftóó-type€community.€€Jones€suggests€that€the€actual€roleÐ Ð  Ðof€computer-mediated€communication€as€community€still€has€not€been€fully€settled.€€Ìà ` àWhile€not€specifically€investigating€the€Internet€in€the€context€of€a€sociologicalÏconception€of€community,€Parks€and€Floyd€(1996)€examined€the€nature€of€relationshipsÏon€the€USENET€part€of€the€Internet.€€Recall€that€community€typically€involves€socialÏrelationships€of€some€kind.€€Parks€and€Floyd€used€a€survey€and€came€up€with€someÏempirical€findings€about€the€nature€of€relationships€on€USENET.€They€found€for€exampleÏthat€women€were€significantly€more€likely€to€have€formed€on-line€relationships,€andÏgreater€numbers€of€such€relationships,€than€men.€Ìà ` àLudlow€(1996)€examines€the€social€change€brought€about€by€the€introduction€ofÏcomputer€technology€as€it€relates€to€the€idea€of€community.€€He€states€that€"With€thatÏchange€has€come€a€sense€of€alienation€and€loss€of€community.€€Increasingly,€though,€itÏbecomes€possible€to€recreate€that€lost€community€in€cyberspace,€by€forming€communitiesÏof€interest€that€are€not€bound€by€the€accidents€of€geography."€€He€continues€by€asking€if€Ïthey€are€really€communities€(Ludlow,€1996:xv).€€Ludlow€addresses€the€issue€of€whetherÐ ,`'* Ðyou€can€ð ðreally€call€someone€a€'neighbor'€if€you€can't€see€her€face€or€hear€her€voiceððÏ(Ludlow,€1996:xv).€€€He€questions€the€idea€of€€'the€virtual€community.'€€He€also€asks€thatÏð ðIf€we€give€our€allegiances€to€virtual€communities,€are€we€abandoning€our€geographicÏcommunities€in€a€sort€of€'urban€flight'?ðð€(Ludlow,€1996:xv).€€Ludlow€also€asks€ð ðto€whatÏextent€should€other€communities,€and€the€legal€system€itself,€acknowledge€and€respectÏvirtual€communities?ðð€(Ludlow,€1996:xv).Ìà ` àRhinegold€(1993)€gives€an€in-depth€discussion€of€community€and€CMC€on€theÏInternet€Relay€Chat€(IRC).€€Communication€on€IRC€is€stripped€to€the€bare€essentialsÏ...text€on€a€computer€screen€(Rhinegold,€1993).€€His€experiences€as€a€member€of€theÏWhole€Earth€'Lectronic€Link€(WELL)€on-line€community€is€the€basis€for€much€of€hisÏview€of€computer€culture.€€He€states€that€there€is€something€real€about€the€on-lineÏcommunity:€"There's€always€another€mind€there.€€It's€like€having€the€corner€bar,€completeÏwith€old€buddies€and€delightful€newcomers€...€€and€fresh€graffiti€and€letters,€exceptÏinstead€of€putting€on€my€coat,€shutting€down€the€computer€and€walking€down€to€theÏcorner,€I€just€invoke€my€telecom€program€and€there€they€are.€€It's€a€place"€(Rhinegold,Ï1993:24).Ìà ` àBaym€(1995:152)€states€"Like€the€smiley€face€dictionaries,€list€of€nicknames€areÏoften€compiled€and€posted€to€the€group€or€e-mailed€to€confused€newcomers.€€Again€theÏsynchronous€collection€and€codification€of€the€group's€expressive€forms€demonstrates€theÏself-reflexivity€of€[the]€computer-mediated€community."ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà ` àBaym€indicates€that€these€factors€are€"the€most€salient€preexisting€forces€on€theÏdevelopment€of€computer-mediated€community€(Baym,€1995:161).€€Baym€seesÐ ,`'* Ðcomputer-mediated€communication€as€a€community.€€Many€researchers€discussÏcommunication€on€the€computer€as€being€either€synchronistic€or€asynchronistic.€€BaymÏdefines€these€communication€styles:€ÌÓÓà ` à"With€synchronistic€communication,€all€participants€are€on-line€simultaneously€Ìà ` àand€read€and€respond€to€one€another€immediately€...With€asynchronistic€Ìà ` àcommunication,€participants€need€not€be€on-line€simultaneously€and€can€read€and€Ìà ` àrespond€at€different€times"€(142).€€ÌÌÓÓÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓIf€€community€can€be€defined€as€"group€interest",€then€it€could€be€concluded€thatÏcommunity€could€involve€Internet€communication€using€both€these€types€ofÏcommunication.€€Ìà ` àIn€her€dissertation,€Clara€Surratt€(1996:1),€examined€if€Internet€communicationÏallowed€for€interaction€which€was€"as€meaningful€as€face-to-face€interaction"€as€it€relatesÏto€the€type€of€face-to-face€interaction€in€what€she€has€termed€"real€communit[ies]."€ÏSurratt€argued€that€face-to-face€communications€have€just€as€much€potential€to€beÏanonymous€as€Internet€communications.€€Surratt€(1996:568)€found€that:ÌÓÓÓ XÓEvery€CMC€system€[she]€analyzed€in€[her€research]€has€evolved€from€a€piece€ofÏcommunications€software€into€a€complex€social€system,€complete€with€beliefÏsystems,€sets€of€values,€cultural€norms,€and€systems€of€socialization,€socialÏcontrol,€and€stratification€requisite€€for€any€collection€of€individuals€to€be€definedÏas€a€human€community.ÌÓ XÓÓÓÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓSurratt€is€unclear€about€how€the€presence€of€these€criteria€serves€to€form€a€"community."Ìà ` à€Elizabeth€Reid€(1991)€argues€that€chat-rooms€are€communities.€€As€she€attemptsÏto€construct€communities,€Reid€(1991:32-33)€quotes€Geertz's€(1963)€understanding€ofÏculture€as€a€"system€of€meanings€that€give€significance€to€shared€behaviours€which€mustÏbe€interpreted€from€the€perspective€of€those€engaged€in€them."€€€She€continues€quotingÏGeertz,€who€says€that€culture€€is€"a€set€of€control€mechanisms€--€plans,€recipes,€rules,Ð ,`'* Ðinstructions€--€for€the€governing€of€behavior"€(1991:33).€€Based€on€this€definition,€GeertzÏmight€see€the€Internet€as€a€community€since€users€have€symbolic€systems€and€textualÏsignificance€to€communicate€as€well€as€"netiquette,"€to€punish€those€who€abuse€the€rulesÏ(1991:33).€€Reid€goes€on€to€state€that€community€does€exist€on€the€IRC.€€It€is€createdÏthrough€collective€beliefs€and€symbolic€strategies.€€Ìà ` àSherry€Turkle€(1995:88)€refers€to€MUDs€(Multiple-User€Dungeons/Dimensions)Ïas€"online€communities."€Just€as€can€be€found€in€physically€bounded€geographicalÏcommunities,€MUDs€have€rules€and€regulations€according€to€Turkle.Ìà ` àEsther€Dyson€(1997),€a€technology€analyst,€refers€to€the€Internet€as€aÏ"community"€throughout€her€book.€€She€argues€that€there€are€many€communities€on-line.€ÏDyson€(1997:31)€states€that€"Most€individuals€live€in€several€communities€online,€just€asÏthey€do€in€the€physical€world."€€She€argues€that€the€Internet€can€even€be€used€to€fosterÏcommunity€development:ÌÓÓà ` àUsed€right,€the€Internet€can€be€a€powerful€enabling€technology€fostering€the€Ìà ` àdevelopment€of€communities€because€it€supports€the€very€thing€that€creates€a€Ìà ` àcommunity--human€interaction.€€One€benefit€of€the€Internet€is€that€it€allows€the€Ìà ` àformation€of€communities€independent€of€geography€(Dyson,€1997:32).ÌÌÌÓÓò òPsychological€Internet€Research€ó óà À àÐ °"  Ðà ` àPsychologists€have€conducted€some€research€on€the€nature€of€InternetÏRelationships.€€Sociologist/Psychologist€Sherry€Turkle,€in€a€1984€book,€first€investigatedÏthe€nature€of€person-computer€relationships.€€In€this€work,€Turkle€(1984)€argued€thatÏcomputers€affect€the€development€of€self,€and€alter€one's€self€concept.€€Most€notably,ÏTurkle€(1984)€measured€the€intensity€of€the€relationship€between€computers€and€theirÐ ,`'* ÐÑW@¸'ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑW@¸'ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑW@¸ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññusers.€€While€probably€not€developed€to€the€level€of€intensity€of€relationships€whichÏcharacterize€communal€relationships,€this€was€a€preliminary€attempt€to€examineÏcomputer-mediated€relationships,€even€if€they€are€one€way€relationships€between€a€userÏand€a€computer.Ìà ` àIn€a€more€recent€book,€Turkle€(1995)€investigated€how€computer€mediated€socialÏrelationships/interactions€influence€individual€identity.€€Turkle€describes€the€virtualÏnature€of€MUDs.€€She€discusses€how€the€human€interaction€in€MUDs€is€considered€saferÏthan€real-world€interaction,€and€she€discusses€the€"unreal"€or€fantasy€nature€of€the€socialÏinteraction€which€takes€place€in€MUDs.€€Turkle€(1995:9)€showed€how€the€psychology€ofÏcomputer€mediated€human€interaction€suggested€that€it€involves€how€users€view€theirÏreflections€in€"the€mirror€of€the€machine€(quoted€in€Allen;€1996:11)."€€Turkle's€(1995)Ïfocuses€mainly€on€the€relationships€that€individuals€have€to€their€computers€and€howÏthese€relationships€influence€individuals'€conceptions€of€self.€€This€is€only€important€inÏthe€context€of€community€in€that€individuals'€views€of€how€others€see€them€mightÏinfluence€the€kinds€of€social€relations€which€are€needed€for€community€to€exist.€€Ìà ` àChristina€Allen€(1996)€wrote€a€thesis€which€examined€"Virtual€Identities:€TheÏSocial€Construction€of€Cybered€Selves."€€This€is€somewhat€similar€to€Turkle's€(1984)Ïbook€in€that€it€examines€the€role€of€computers€in€the€construction€of€one's€sense€of€self.€ÏAllen's€thesis€examined€œMOOs€›(discussed€in€Chapter€3)œ.›€€It€€drew€from€several€disciplinesÏincluding€psychology€and€sociology.€The€next€section€addresses€Hillery's€three€areas€ofÏâ âagreement€as€they€relate€specifically€to€the€Internet.€€€Ð 0*€%( Ðò òÔ&   Ôâ ââ ââ âSocial€Relationships€&€Common€Ties€On-Lineó óÐ ° Ðà ` àTwo€of€Hillery's€three€areas€of€agreement,€people€involved€in€social€interactionÏÔ' ° Ôand€people€with€common€ties,€€are€addressed€by€Wellman€et€al.€(1996)€when€they€indicateÏthat€the€Internet€and€other€computer€based€communications€technologies€encourage€theÏformation€of€specialized€relationships,€and€they€go€on€to€say€that€many€on-line€ties€doÏmeet€the€criteria€for€strong€ties.€Wellman€et€al€(1996)€also€indicate€that€the€very€nature€ofÏthe€Internet€and€other€computer€based€technologies€encourage€the€development€of€weakÏon-line€ties.€€Wellman€et.€al€(1996)€do€suggest€that€on-line€ties€tend€to€be€segmentalizedÏbecause€users€can€easily€participate€in€different€chat€rooms.€€Parks€and€Floyd€(1996)€alsoÏexamined€on-line€relationships€and€appear€to€have€similar€findings.Ìò òGeography€and€the€Internetó óÐ pÀ Ðà ` àThe€second€of€Hillery's€three€areas€of€agreement,€geographic€area,€obviously€isÏnot€as€important€as€the€other€two€in€the€case€of€the€Internet.€The€Internet€does€indeedÏmeet€both€of€the€two€criteria€which€Jonassen€(1959)€says€Hillery€found€were€the€only€twoÏpoints€of€agreement€in€defining€a€community.€€Benedikt€(1991)€argues€that€the€InternetÏdoes€indeed€have€physical€and€geographical€aspects,€and€one€might€be€able€to€stretch€thisÏto€meet€the€area€requirement€of€community.€Benedikt€is€referring€to€the€physical€wiringÏand€hardware€aspects€of€the€Internet€as€well€as€the€people€involved€while€sitting€at€theirÏInternet€connected€computers.€€John€Barlow€(1995)€tries€to€address€the€question€of€"IsÏthere€a€there€in€cyberspace?"€He€seems€to€conclude€that€there€really€is€no€geographic€ÌÓB.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒXBÓconcomitant€to€the€Internet€and€that€"virtual€communities"€are€not€really€communities€atÏœall.Ð ,`'* ÐÑ¿r)ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑ¿r ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññ›à ÷ àThe€œareas›€of€agreement€cited€by€Hillery€(1955)€will€be€used€as€the€guidingÏframework€of€this€research.€The€first€area€of€agreement€cited€by€Hillery,€socialÏrelationships,€will€be€examined€in€terms€of€Granovetterððs€(1973)€four€dimensions€of€theÏstrength€of€a€social€tie,€i.e.€emotional€attachment,€intimacy,€reciprocity,€and€duration.ÌEmotional€attachment€was€also€cited€by€TÔ‡X´’XXX´’ÔÔ#†X´’XXX´’„)#Ônnies€œ([1887]1959)€in€his€discussion€ofÐ 0 € ÐòòGemeinschaftóó.›€€The€second€of€Hilleryððs€areas€of€agreement€that€this€research€will€examineÐ `  Ðis€the€role€of€geographic€territory.€€The€third€of€Hilleryððs€areas€of€agreement€which€thisÏstudy€will€examine€is€psychological€identification€with€the€community€group.€€ThisÏdimension€will€be€examined€in€terms€of€community€attachment.œÐ  ° ÐÑ€ ÀÀ` ÑÑ7€´’XXdðXXdð7ÑÓH+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXHÓÔ‡ Ñ XX´’Ôà@‚‚(àò òChapter€IIIó óˆÐ ° ÐÔ#†X´’X  Ñ,#Ôà@L L àò òTypes€of€€Computer€Mediated€Communicationó óˆÐ 0€ Ðà ` àThere€are€a€number€of€different€forms€of€computer€mediated€communicationÏ(CMC)€by€which€people€can€communicate€over€the€Internet.€€The€purpose€of€this€chapterÏwill€be€to€classify€the€major€types€of€Internet€communication€into€categories€based€onÏsimilar€characteristics€and€determine€which€types€might€permit€social€interactionÏnecessary€for€the€formation€of€community.Ìà ` àA€primary€interest€of€this€study€in€examining€the€types€of€CMC€is€that€they€canÏlead€to€the€formation€of€€Computer€Mediated€Interaction€Networks€(CMINs);€that€is,€theÏformation€of€a€social€interaction€network€among€persons€that€is€mediated€by€computers.€ÏThe€formation€of€CMINs€is€possible€through€many€of€the€synchronous€types€of€CMC,€butÏis€not€possible€to€the€same€extent€using€asynchronous€types€of€CMC€which€will€beÏdiscussed€later€because€the€nature€of€communication€is€fundamentally€different.€€ThisÏdistinction€is€necessary€because€CMC€can€be€limited€to€one-way€communication€in€theÏcase€of€€asynchronous€types€of€communication.€€In€synchronous€types€of€CMC,€there€isÏmulti-way€communication€in€which€two,€three,€four,€or€four-hundred€people€can€interactÏsimultaneously€in€real€time.€€The€ability€to€interact€in€this€fashion€is€an€importantÏfoundation€of€community.Ìà ` àOne€category€of€Internet€communication€is€what€I€have€termed€synchronous€orÏreal-time€communication.€€This€type€of€Internet€communication€involves€interactionÏwhich€occurs€live€between€participants€who€are€logged€on€to€different€computersÐ Ð* &( Ðsimultaneously.€€I€call€this€"synchronous"€because€it€requires€immediate€activity€andÏimmediate€active€response€and€involvement€between€the€participants.€€It€is€probably€thisÏtype€of€Internet€communication€which€is€most€analogous€to€the€type€of€face-to-faceÏcommunication€which€takes€place€in€bounded€geographical€communities.€€Examples€ofÏthis€type€of€communication€include€the€various€types€of€Internet€Chatting.Ìò òà ` àó óThe€term€"chatting"€is€used€in€this€thesis€as€a€general€term€to€refer€to€any€type€ofÐ `  Ðsynchronous€Internet€communication€which€occurs€between€social€actors.€€It€is€aÏreal-time€form€of€communication.€€The€term€"chat€room"€is€used€in€this€thesis€as€aÏgeneral€term€to€refer€to€any€place€or€channel€where€synchronous€communication€isÏoccurring€in€real€time€between€social€actors.€€Ìà ` àAnother€category€of€Internet€communication€is€what€I€have€termed€asynchronousÏcommunication.€€Examples€of€this€type€of€communication€are€e-mail,€LISTSERVs,ÏUsenet€newsgroups,€Gopher,€the€WWW,€and€even€some€of€the€advertisements€found€onÏthe€web.€€I€call€these€asynchronous€forms€of€Internet€communication€because€they€areÏpassively€read,€and€response€time€is€typically€much€slower€than€in€synchronousÏcommunication.€€This€type€of€communication€is€synchronous€in€the€sense€that€the€userÏmust€actively€read€or€seek€out€the€information,€but€it€does€not€have€the€same€dynamic€asÏreal-time€communication,€because€the€nature€and€type€of€communication€is€somewhatÏdifferent.€€While€individuals€can€write€in€response€to€something€else,€they€cannot€get€theÏsame€kind€of€immediate€clarification€of€unclear€thoughts€or€ideas,€and€participants€areÏmore€likely€to€ask€for€clarification€of€unclear€thoughts€or€ideas€which€occur€inÏsynchronous€forms€of€Internet€communication.€€In€comparison,€synchronousÐ ,`'* Ðcommunication€is€written€in€real-time€as€a€response€to€something€that€has€just€beenÏwritten€by€someone€else€in€real€time.€€Also,€asynchronous€communication€allows€the€userÏto€spend€more€time€in€constructing€a€response€because€of€its€less€immediate,€delayedÏnature.Ìà ` àOne€type€of€"synchronous"€Internet€communication€is€IRC€or€mIRC׃×Ý ƒ ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×.€€IRC,€orÐ 0 € ÐInternet€Relay€Chat,€was€first€formed€in€1988€by€a€Researcher€in€Finland€as€a€text-basedÏway€of€chatting.€This€is€strictly€a€text-based€means€of€CMC€which€is€designed€primarilyÏto€enable€people€from€around€the€world€to€communicate€on€topics€of€specific€interest.€ÏDiscussions€of€varying€topics€are€organized€into€different€"Channels."€Each€channel€hostsÏa€discussion€on€a€specific€topic€with€different€users€which€participate€in€real-time,€liveÏconversations.€€It€is€possible€for€users€to€join€several€"channels"€at€once.€€Users€inÏIRC/mIRC€must€choose€a€nickname,€sometimes€referred€to€as€a€"nick,"€which€enablesÏthem€to€communicate€with€one€another.€€Ìà ` àIRC/mIRC€is€probably€the€most€widespread€means€of€real-time€òòInternetóóÐ ` ÐCommunication€in€terms€of€the€total€number€of€users.€€Other€proprietary€services€such€asÏCompuServe€or€AOL€have€their€own€forms€of€CMC€which€are€more€widespread€on€theÏservices€themselves,€but€not€across€the€Internet.€While€no€one€knows€the€exact€number€ofÏIRC€users,€the€number€is€undoubtedly€quite€large.€Unlike€MUDs€(Multiple€UserÏDungeons/Dimensions,€discussed€later),€which€generally€exist€on€only€one€Internet€site,Ð p&À!$ Ðthe€same€IRC€channels€may€exist€on€hundreds€of€different€Internet€sites,€called€servers.€ÏEach€of€these€servers€has€a€large€number€of€users.€€Each€IRC€channel€or€chatroom€mayÏhave€several€hundred€users€on€each€IRC€server,€while€other€forms€of€€synchronous€CMCÏare€generally€limited€to€one€site.Ìà ` à€€The€type€of€social€interaction€which€occurs€in€IRC/mIRC€channels€could€beÏconducive€to€the€formation€of€intimate€social€ties€and€social€relationships€thatÏcharacterize€a€community.€€A€high€number€of€IRC/mIRC€channels€are€specificallyÏdedicated€to€allowing€users€to€interact€and€form€social€relationships€of€some€kind.€€A€fairÏnumber€of€these€channels€which€are€organized€around€the€formation€of€socialÏrelationships€are€even€dedicated€to€the€formation€of€romantic€relationships.€€AnecdotalÏevidence€suggests€that€people€who€initially€met€on€IRC/mIRC€have€moved€across€theÏcountry€to€be€with€those€whom€they€have€met,€and€some€have€even€gotten€married.€€IfÏany€form€of€CMC€has€the€potential€for€the€formation€of€€primary€relationships,׃×Ý ƒ ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€it€wouldÐ 0€ Ðcertainly€be€IRC/mIRC.Ìà ` àThe€total€number€of€users€of€IRC€is€virtually€unlimited,€unlike€some€other€typesÏof€synchronous€CMC€on€the€Internet.€€While€specific€channels€may€limit€the€number€ofÏusers,€these€limits€are€generally€quite€high.€€IRC€is€less€anarchistic€than€some€other€formsÏof€CMC€because€the€channel€operator€has€the€power€to€terminate€undesired€users€at€anyÏtime.€€This€feature€also€exists€on€some€other€forms€of€CMC,€but€is€far€more€common€onÏIRC.€€IRC€is€typically€accessed€by€means€of€a€special€program€which€resides€either€on€anÐ P( #& ÐInternet€€connected€Mainframe,€or€in€the€case€of€mIRC,€on€a€PC€or€Mac€that€has€a€modemÏor€a€direct€Internet€connection.Ìà ` àThe€closest€thing€to€emotions€on€IRC€are€emoticons,€or€textual€representations€ofÏfaces.€Emoticons,€are€a€"system€of€symbols€which,€when€combined,€yield€picturesÏintended€to€convey€body€language€and€facial€expressions"€(Surratt,€1996:76).€These€areÏthings€like€smiley€faces.€One€of€the€more€common€examples€of€this€is€expressed€as€:).€ÏThe€colon€represents€the€two€eyes€and€the€parenthesis€represents€the€mouth€(of€a€smileyÏthat€has€been€turned€sideways).€However,€in€IRC€communication,€there€is€simply€no€wayÏto€verify€who€is€chatting€with€whom.€€ññ›ññÌà ` àMany€IRC€channels€or€chatrooms,€such€as€the€#friends€channel,€have€strictlyÏenforced€norms€of€kindness€and€generosity€make€people€feel€comfortable€regardless€ofÏwhat€they€discuss.€€Users€who€violate€the€norms€of€kindness€and€generosity€are€simplyÏññññtemporaññññrialññññññññuññññññññyññññññtemporarilyññ€ð ðkicked€offðð€orññ€ññññ€tññññemporarily€ññ"banned."€€These€norms€might€also€account€forÏthe€high€levels€of€community€sentiment€among€€#friends€users.€€ññœññÌà ` àA€recently€developed€part€of€the€Internet€known€as€the€WorldWide€Web€(Web€orÏWWW€for€short),€has€lately€become€a€home€for€chatting€to€occur€over€the€Internet.€ÏInitially,€the€web€was€designed€as€a€place€for€one-way€communication€and€disseminationÏof€€information.€The€WWW€is€similar€to€GOPHER,€which€was€an€earlier€text-basedÏinformation€retrieval€system€developed€by€the€University€of€Minnesota€which€could€beÏused€to€navigate€the€Internet.€€While€this€type€of€communication€still€makes€up€the€bulkÏâ âof€web€traffic€by€far,€recent€innovations€have€allowed€the€formation€of€various€ways€inÐ 0*€%( Ðwhich€people€can€chat€in€real€time€over€the€web.€€This€type€of€CMC€is€what€is€referred€toÏhereafter€as€Web€chatting.Ìâ âà ` àWeb€chatting€is€a€type€of€€CMC€which€is€conducted€over€a€part€of€the€InternetÏknown€as€the€WorldWide€Web€(WWW).€€This€type€of€chatting€is€usually€text-basedÏbecause€of€the€nature€of€webpages,€but€sometimes,€as€mentioned€above,€an€icon€or€photoÏcan€be€associated€with€the€on-line€nickname€of€the€chat€participants.€€This€type€ofÏchatting€requires,€at€a€minimum,€a€special€piece€of€software€called€a€web€browser€orÏInternet€Browser€(such€as€Netscape€Navigator€or€Microsoft€Internet€Explorer),€andÏgenerally€requires€other€software€programs€or€sub-programs€which€work€with€theÏbrowser.€€These€programs€are€sometimes€referred€to€as€"plugins."€One€type€of€WebÏchatting€is€called€ICQ€(computer€shorthand€for€"I€seek€you").€€While€the€web€itself€doesÏcontain€a€fair€amount€of€graphics,€images,€sounds,€and€even€videos,€this€form€of€chatting,Ïlike€IRC/mIRC,€is€also€text-based.Ì€€€€à ` àAnother€type€of€synchronous€CMC€€is€MUDs׃×Ý ƒ ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×.€€€In€this€thesis,€I€use€the€termÐ ` ÐMUDs€as€a€general€category€which€includes€MUDs,€MOOs׃`×Ý ƒ ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×,€MUSHs׃„×Ý ƒ ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×,€and€MUCKs׃d ×Ý ƒ ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×.€Ð ð@ ÐAll€of€these€are€different€types€of€€MUDs€which€are€basically€on-line€interactive€roleÏplaying€games€which€are€based€on€MUD€technology.€€Unlike€IRC,€interaction€isÏconstrained€within€the€rules€of€a€game.€€The€types€of€interaction€which€occur€inÏMUDs/MOOs€fall€within€the€confines€of€an€overall€objective€of€winning€a€game€of€someÏkind.€€This€may€involve€things€such€as€capturing€a€dragon€for€example.€€MUDs/MOOsÏare€typically€described€as€imaginary€worlds€in€which€people€interact,€but€this€interactionÏtakes€place€only€in€the€context€of€people's€adopted€roles€in€the€framework€of€a€game.€€InÏthe€context€of€MUDs,€participants€can€create€buildings,€cities,€etc.€€which€remain€after€theÏparticipant€leaves.€€MUD€characters€live€and€die.€€MUD€cities€are€built€and€destroyed.€ÏMUDs€are€typically€accessed€through€Telnet,€a€computer€program/protocol€which€linksÏInternet€connected€computers€together€and€allows€different€types€of€Internet€computers€toÏcommunicate€with€one€another.€€These€types€of€relationships€would€clearly€not€beÏconsidered€standard€social€relationships€because€the€interaction€is€fantasy€oriented€andÏconfined€within€the€rules€of€the€game.€€As€a€result,€MUDs€would€probably€not€facilitateÏformation€of€the€kind€of€real€world€social€relationships€which€are€found€in€other€forms€ofÏCMC.Ìà ` àTalkers,€as€the€name€implies,€are€places€on€the€Internet€where€users€go€to€simplyÏ"talk."€€Really,€participants€aren't€"talking"€at€all,€but€as€in€the€case€of€IRC/mIRC€andÏMUDs/MOOs,€they€are€exchanging€text-based€messages€in€real€time.€€Talkers€are€basedÏon€the€same€technology€as€MUDs.€€Like€MUDs/MOOs,€talkers€are€also€accessed€throughÏTelnet.€€Essentially,€they€are€MUDs€that€have€simply€de-emphasized€the€game€aspect.€ÏThe€environment€on€talkers€seems€to€be€a€bit€more€friendly€than€MUDs,€and€talkersÐ ,`'* Ðtypically€have€a€much€smaller€number€of€users.€€One€might€argue€that€this€smallerÏnumber€of€participants€allows€for€on-line€relationships€to€more€easily€develop.€€Due€to€theÏnature€of€talkers,€it€seems€that€these€could€indeed€facilitate€the€formation€of€intimateÏsocial€relationships€like€those€found€in€IRC.€€While€there€is€somewhat€of€a€game€aspect€toÏtalkers,€it€has€been€de-emphasized€to€such€an€extreme€that€it€is€not€likely€to€interfere€inÏthe€formation€of€relationships€as€it€would€in€MUDs.€€Ìà ` àUp€to€this€point,€most€of€the€types€of€"chatting"€which€have€been€discussed€haveÏbeen€text-based.€€Most€Internet€chatting€is€text-based.€€Text-based€chatting€has€far€fewerÏcomputer€hardware€requirements€and€is€generally€easier€to€access€than€other€types€of€ÏInternet€chatting.€€For€this€reason,€text-based€chatting€also€seems€to€be€far€more€commonÏthan€non-text-based€mediums€of€chatting.Ìà ` àGenerally€speaking,€non-text-based€methods€of€chatting€are€essentially€text-basedÏchatting€which€is€accompanied€by€pictures,€photos,€avatars,€or€icons.€€Some€forms€ofÏnon-text-based€chatting€are€strictly€cartoon-like€graphical€depictions€of€the€chatÏparticipants.€€These€cartoon-like€characters€are€what€are€referred€to€as€avatars.€€SomeÏforms€of€web€chatting€allow€for€chat€participants€to€include€a€photo,€an€icon,€or€any€typeÏof€image€desired.€€A€few€users€include€a€photo€of€themselves€or€even€have€digital€camerasÏon€their€computers€which€continuously€update€with€live€photos,€but€most€include€photosÏof€inanimate€objects€or€celebrities,€and€an€even€greater€proportion€include€icons€orÏnon-photographic€images€of€one€sort€or€another.€€Ìà ` àThis€thesis€will€focus€primarily€on€text-based€forms€of€chatting€because€they€areÏmore€common.€€The€less€widespread€non-text-based€modes€of€chatting€will€beÐ ,`'* Ðde-emphasized€because€they€are€less€common,€are€more€demanding€of€computerÏhardware,€and€usually€they€still€have€many€of€the€characteristics€of€text-based€forms€ofÏInternet€Chatting.Ìà ` àSome€mainframe€computer€terminals€which€are€connected€to€the€Internet€haveÏsupport€for€the€TALK€command.€€This€allows€users€who€are€simultaneously€logged€on€toÏdifferent€computers€to€"TALK"€or€type€text-based€messages€to€one€another€on€a€splitÏscreen€in€real-time.€€This€was€devised€in€the€1970s€as€a€way€for€computer€engineers€toÏcommunicate€with€one€another.€€A€similar€feature€is€found€on€some€VAX/VMSÏmainframe€machines,€the€PHONE€feature.€The€PHONE€feature€allows€up€to€6€usersÏnetworked€to€a€VAX/VMS€machine€to€talk€to€one€another€simultaneously.€€Ìà ` àElectronic€mail€(e-mail)€is€one€form€of€what€I€have€termed€'asynchronous'€InternetÏcommunication.€€By€far,€e-mail€is€undoubtedly€the€most€ubiquitous€form€of€InternetÏCommunication.€€E-mail€consists€of€text-based€electronic€messages€which€are€sent€outÏover€the€Internet,€usually€from€one€individual€to€another,€or€from€one€individual€to€aÏsmall€number€of€other€individuals.€€Sometimes€these€messages€may€have€a€photo,€soundÏclip,€video€clip,€computer€file,€or€computer€program€attached,€but€generally,€these€areÏtext-based€messages.€€Again,€these€are€asynchronous€because€they€have€a€delayedÏreaction€time€and€are€generally€not€considered€to€be€a€form€of€real-time€communication.€ÏE-mail€messages€are€often€exchanged€in€an€effort€to€maintain€social€relationships€withÏothers€but€probably€would€not€result€in€the€formation€of€òònewóó€primary€social€relationsÐ P( #& Ðbecause€the€person€initiating€the€contact€must€know€the€name€or€the€e-mail€address€of€theÏperson€to€whom€they€are€sending€the€message.€€While€e-mail€generally€does€place€anÐ ,`'* Ðemphasis€on€communication€between€individuals€or€small€groups€of€individuals,€it€isÏprobably€not€the€ideal€place€for€the€òòformationóó€of€primary€social€relations€that€characterizeÐ à Ða€community.€€However,€e-mail€can€be€very€useful€to€maintain€or€supplement€such€socialÏrelations.€€E-mail€can€indeed€be€used€to€supplement€the€interaction€which€has€taken€placeÏover€some€other€form€of€CMC€such€as€IRC/mIRC€or€to€supplement€face-to-face€humanÏcontact€or€telephone€contact.€€This€could€perhaps€lead€to€the€development€of€primaryÏsocial€ties.€€However,€this€would€not€be€as€likely€to€occur€as€in€IRC/mIRC.€€Ìà ` àOne€type€of€e-mail€service€is€called€LISTSERVs.€€LISTSERVs€are€basicallyÏelectronic€mailing€lists.€€These€are€usually€organized€around€specific€subjects€or€topics€ofÏinterest.€€Participants€can€compose€a€standard€e-mail€message€and€send€it€to€theÏLISTSERV€which€can€distribute€the€message€to€hundreds€or€thousands€of€participants,Ïeach€of€which€can€respond€either€to€the€initial€sender€or€to€the€group€as€a€whole.€€TheÏmessage€may€go€out€to€someone€who€the€sender€has€never€even€met€or€interacted€with.€ÏThese€LISTSERVs€are€sometimes€referred€to€as€communities€because€they€often€formÏaround€specific€interest€groups.€€This€type€of€CMC€might€allow€for€the€establishment€ofÏcommunal€relations€due€to€its€subject€specific€nature.€€Participants€of€this€type€of€CMCÏshare€a€common€interest€in€the€subject€or€topic€of€the€particular€LISTSERV.€€UnlikeÏIRC/mIRC,€the€main€emphasis€with€LISTSERVs€is€generally€not€on€the€formation€andÏmaintenance€of€social€relationships,€but€on€the€discussion€of€a€specific€subject€or€topic.ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓWhile€the€potential€for€the€formation€of€primary€social€relationships€does€exist€withÏLISTSERVs,€due€to€the€asynchronous€nature€of€€this€type€of€CMC€and€its€one-wayÏnature,€and€due€to€the€lack€of€emphasis€on€social€relationships,€themselves,€it€is€probablyÐ ,`'* Ðless€likely€to€occur€than€on€IRC/mIRC.€€Some€studies€have€examined€how€LISTSERVsÏcan€serve€as€social€support€networks€and€some€have€even€referred€to€them€asÏcommunities€(Furlong,€1989).€However,€empirical€evidence€that€LISTSERVs€represent€aÏcommunity€in€a€sociological€sense€is€mostly€anecdotal.Ìà ` àTable€3.1€lists€many€of€the€types€of€CMC€found€on€the€Internet€and€some€of€theirÏcharacteristics.ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓÌTable€3.1ÌÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?ÓÔ*fƒSddÜdd Ddd V(#(#fÔÔ,Ïtt ÔÔ,Ftt ÔÔ,„tt ÔÔ,ûtt ÔÔ,9tt ÔÔ,îtt ÔÔ,ûtt ÔÔ+  ÔÐ 5€" ° €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„5Ðԇ³\ÂXX´’ÔÓÓType/GenerÐ 8ˆ Ðal€CategoryÐ =€*ì<C „C„=ÐUses€Text-basedÏCommunicationÐ =€*ì<C „C„=ÐAllowsÏReal€TimeÏInteractionÐ =€* ðC „C„=ÐAllows€ObjectÏOrientedÏCommunicationÐ =€* ðC „C„=ÐTopicÏFocusedÐ =€*ì<C „C„=ÐFocusÏonÏGameÏPlayingÐ =€*T¤ C „C„=ÐAllows€high€#€ofÏsimultaneousÏusers€to€interactÐ U€B* ð#C ˆ ‘  €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„UÐIRC/mIRCÐ =€* ð$C „C„=ÐYesÐ =€* ð%C „C„=ÐYesÐ =€* ð&C „C„=ÐNoÐ =€* ð'C „C„=ÐYesÐ =€* ð(C „C„=ÐNoÐ =€* ð)C „C„=ÐYesÐ U€B* ð*C ˆ ‘  €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„UÐMUDs/MO¼Os/MUSHsÐ =€* ð,C „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*ì<-C „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*ì<.C „C„=ÐÓ  ÓSometimesÔ#†X´’X³\“u#Ôԇ³\ÂXX´’ÔÐ =€*ì</C! „C„=ÐSometim¼esÐ =€* ð1C „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*ì<2C „C„=ÐYesÐ U€B*ì<3C ˆ ‘  €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„UÐUSENETÐ =€*ì<4C „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*ì<5C „C„=ÐNoÐ =€*ì<6C „C„=ÐNoÐ =€*ì<7C „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*ì<8C „C„=ÐNoÐ =€*ì<9C „C„=ÐYesÐ U€B*ì<:C ˆ ‘  €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„UÐICQÐ =€*8ˆ;C „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*8ˆ<C „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*8ˆ=C „C„=ÐNoÐ =€*8ˆ>C „C„=ÐNoÐ =€*8ˆ?C „C„=ÐNoÐ =€*8ˆ@C „C„=ÐNoÐ U€B*8ˆAC ˆ ‘  €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„UÐTALKERSÐ =€*„ÔBC „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*„ÔCC „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*„ÔDC „C„=ÐNoÐ =€*„ÔEC „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*„ÔFC „C„=ÐSometi¼mesÐ =€*8ˆHC „C„=ÐNoÐ U€B*„ÔIC ˆ ‘  €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„UÐGOPHERÐ =€*„ÔJC „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*„ÔKC „C„=ÐNoÐ =€*„ÔLC „C„=ÐNoÐ =€*„ÔMC „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*„ÔNC „C„=ÐNoÐ =€*„ÔOC „C„=ÐNoÐ U€B*„ÔPC ˆ ‘  €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„UÐWWWÐ =€*Ð QC „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*Ð RC „C„=ÐSometimesÐ =€*Ð SC „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*Ð TC „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*Ð UC „C„=ÐNoÐ =€*Ð VC „C„=ÐSometimesÐ U€B*Ð WC ˆ ‘  €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„UÐWEBÏCHATTIN¼GÐ =€*„#ÔZC „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*"l[C „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*"l\C „C„=ÐSometimesÐ =€*"l]C „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*"l^C „C„=ÐNoÐ =€*"l_C „C„=ÐYesÐ U€B*"l`C ˆ ‘  €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„UÐE-MAILÐ =€*Ð$ aC „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*Ð$ bC „C„=ÐNoÐ =€*Ð$ cC „C„=ÐNoÐ =€*Ð$ dC „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*Ð$ eC „C„=ÐNoÐ =€*Ð$ fC „C„=ÐNoÐ U€B*Ð$ gC ˆ ‘  €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„UÐLISTSERV¼sÐ =€*Ð& "iC „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*&l!jC „C„=ÐNoÐ =€*&l!kC „C„=ÐNoÐ =€*&l!lC „C„=ÐYesÐ =€*&l!mC „C„=ÐNoÐ =€*&l!nC „C„=ÐNoÔ#†X´’X³\?{#Ôԇ³\ÂXX´’ÔÐ:0.&l!oC ˆ ‘  :Ðà ` àÌÌÓÓà ` àÔ#†X´’X³\(‹#ÔBelow€is€an€explanation€of€the€characteristics€listed€in€Table€3.1€as€they€apply€toÐ ü(L$q Ðthese€various€types€of€CMC.€€The€first€column€of€the€table€simply€indicates€the€type€orÐ Ü*,&s Ðgeneral€category€which€each€form€of€CMC€falls€into.€The€second€column€explains€theÏnature€of€the€type€of€CMC,€whether€or€not€it€is€a€text-based€form€of€CMC€(which€asÏindicated€earlier,€most€forms€of€CMC€are€ultimately€Text-based)€or€whether€it€is€not€aÏtext-based€form€of€CMC.€€The€third€column€of€the€table€indicates€whether€or€not€thatÏparticular€form€of€CMC€occurs€in€"real€time"€or€is€"Live."€€The€fourth€column€indicates€ifÏeach€type€of€CMC€allows€object-oriented€communication.€€The€fifth€column€of€the€tableÏindicates€if€each€form€of€CMC€is€focused€around€a€specific€topic€or€not.€The€sixth€columnÏindicates€if€the€main€focus€of€each€form€of€CMC€is€game€playing€or€not.€The€seventhÏcolumn€of€the€table€indicates€if€each€form€of€CMC€can€support€a€large€number€ofÏsimultaneous€users€to€interact€with€one€another--a€large€number€of€social€actors€at€oneÏtime.Ìà ` àMost€of€the€forms€of€CMC€examined€in€this€chapter€have€been€text-based€formsÏof€CMC.€Most€forms€of€CMC€are€indeed€text-based.ò ò€ó óBecause€IRC,€MUDs,€(MultipleÐ 0€ ÐUser€Dungeons/Dimensions)€and€other€forms€of€CMC€are€reduced€to€text€on€a€computerÏscreen,€differences€in€gender,€age,€race,€and€appearance€of€the€participants€becomeÏunimportant.€€ÌÐ  °"  ÐÑ€ ÀÀ` ÑÑ7€´’XXdðXXdð7ÑÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà@ŠŠ(àò òÔ‡ Ñ XX´’ÔChapter€IVˆÐ ° ÐÔ#†X´’X  Ñ0’#Ôà@µµ$àResearch€Objectivesó óˆÐ 0€ Ðà ` àWhile€the€literature€seems€to€suggest€that€there€is€no€precise€definition€ofÏ"community"€in€the€field€of€sociology,€sociologists€in€this€area€have€come€up€with€severalÏconcepts,€or€dimensions,€which€are€typically€used€to€indicate€the€presence€or€lack€ofÏcommunity.€€In€any€examination€of€the€sociology€of€community€literature,€these€conceptsÏor€dimensions€become€evident.Ìà ` àThe€first€of€these€concepts,€as€highlighted€by€Hillery's€(1955)€review,€is€socialÏrelationships€or€social€interaction.€€Hillery€states€that€interaction€is€involved€in€all€94€ofÏthe€definitions€of€community€which€he€examinedò ò€ó ó(1955:119).€€Thus,€community€consistsÐ 0€ Ðof€€people€engaged€in€social€relationships€or€social€interaction.€Therefore,€€it€seemsÏessential€that€a€sociological€definition€of€community€include€this€first€dimension,€or€theÏsocial€dimension€of€community.€€One€point€of€debate€in€the€literature€concerns€the€type€ofÏsocial€relationships€that€represent€"communal"€relationships.€€Following€the€logic€ofÏTnnies,€communal€relationships€have€been€defined€as€primary€ties€based€upon€emotionalÏattachment,€tradition,€and€intimacy€(Gusfield,€1975).€€Other€community€theorists,Ïhowever,€have€utilized€a€less€restrictive€conception,€contending€that€communal€relationsÏcan€involve€merely€the€sharing€of€common€institutions€(Hillery,€1955).€€In€the€case€of€theÏInternet,€membership€in€a€particular€chat€room€could€serve€as€a€commonly€sharedÏâ âinstitution.Ð ð(@$& Ðà ` àThe€second€facet€of€community€which€appears€in€the€literature€is€the€geographicalÏâ âdimension.€Another€point€of€debate€concerns€whether€or€not€communities€are€restricted€inÏtheir€geographic€scale.€€Traditionally,€communities€were€seen€as€systems€of€socialÏrelations€which€existed€in€small,€proximate,€geographic€areas.€€With€the€advent€ofÏadvanced€communications€and€transportation€technology,€however,€some€contend€thatÏcommunities€can€be€extended€€over€wider€and€wider€geographic€areas.€€Proliferation€ofÏthese€new€communication€technologies€led€to€the€idea€of€the€"liberated"€communityÏwhich€de-emphasizes€geographical€proximity€as€a€facet€of€community€(Wellman,€1979).€ÏThis€indicates€that€communities€which€once€were€restricted€to€a€small€geographic€area€areÏno€longer€geographically€limited,€hence€the€term€"liberated"€community.Ìà ` àAnother€facet€of€community€which€becomes€evident€in€an€examination€of€theÏtraditional€sociology€of€community€literature€is€the€notion€of€community€attachment€orÏsentiment.€€This€is€where€people€psychologically€feel€a€"sense€of€belonging"€to€aÏcommunity€group.€This€sense€of€belonging,€or€common€identity,€develops€as€personsÏsocially€define€themselves€as€being€members€of€a€group€with€a€collective€interestÏ(Gusfield,€1975).€€The€concept€of€"community€solidarity"€was€developed€to€refer€to€theÏextent€to€which€group€members€share€this€sense€of€belonging€and€identify€with€theÏcollective€interest€of€the€communal€group.Ìà ` àMost€of€the€research€about€the€Internet€as€a€community€has€examined€at€least€oneÏof€these€three€dimensions€of€€community,€€(Turkle,€1984,€1995).€€A€few€researchers€suchÏas€Baym€(1995),€have€included€two€of€these€three€dimensions€of€community.€€However,Ïno€previous€studies€have€addressed€all€three€of€these€dimensions€of€community.€€MostÐ ,`'* Ðhave€ignored€the€second€of€these€three€dimensions€of€community,€the€geographyÏquestion,€completely.Ìà ` àThe€purpose€of€this€research€is€to€conduct€an€exploratory€study€of€socialÏinteraction€over€the€Internet€in€order€to€assess€how€networks€of€social€interaction,Ïmediated€by€the€Internet,€relate€to€the€three€dimensions€of€community€described€above.€ÏThe€goals€of€this€phase€of€the€analysis€will€be€threefold:€(1)€to€describe€the€ways€andÏextent€to€which€social€relationships€developed€over€the€Internet€represent€communalÏsocial€relationships;€(2)€to€describe€the€geographic€scale€of€the€networks€of€socialÏinteraction€mediated€by€the€Internet;€and€(3)€to€describe€the€extent€to€which€participantsÏin€these€social€interaction€networks€develop€community€sentiment€and€socially€defineÏthemselves€as€being€part€of€a€community€group.€€By€fulfilling€these€goals,€empiricalÏevidence€can€be€provided€as€to€whether€the€Internet€does€indeed,€represent€community€inÏa€sociological€sense.€€This€study€will€examine€these€three€dimensions€of€communityÏ(social€relations,€geographical€proximity,€and€community€attachment)€as€they€relate€to€anÏInternet€chat€room€setting.Ìò òForms€of€Computer€Mediated€Communication€as€a€Medium€for€Communityó óÐ Ð  Ðà ` àAs€discussed€in€chapter€three,€the€two€forms€of€Computer€MediatedÏCommunication€(CMC)€that€most€likely€could€facilitate€the€development€of€a€communityÏare€talkers€and€IRC/mIRC.€Like€the€type€of€interaction€which€takes€place€in€traditionalÏcommunities,€the€interaction€which€takes€place€over€these€two€mediums€of€€CMC€occursÏin€real-time.€Both€of€these€types€of€CMC€seem€to€result€in€the€formation€of€socialÏrelationships.Ð ,`'* Ðà ` àAs€stated€in€Chapter€three,€talkers€typically€have€a€much€smaller€number€of€usersÏthan€other€forms€of€CMC€and€therefore€might€more€easily€facilitate€the€development€ofÏcommunity.€€One€might€argue€that€this€smaller€number€of€participants€allows€for€on-lineÏrelationships€to€more€easily€develop.€€Due€to€the€nature€of€talkers,€it€seems€that€theseÏcould€indeed€facilitate€the€formation€of€intimate€social€relationships€like€those€found€inÏIRC/mIRC.€€The€problem€with€talkers,€however,€is€that€they€are€generally€limited€to€oneÏInternet€site€and€are€not€very€widely€accessible€to€large€numbers€of€users.€The€typicalÏnumber€of€users€on€any€given€talker€is€far€too€small€to€create€a€sample€size€of€anyÏconsequence.Ìà ` àAs€stated€in€chapter€three,€IRC/mIRC€is€perhaps€the€most€widespread€means€ofÏreal-time€Internet€communication,€in€terms€of€the€total€number€of€sites€(called€servers)€onÏwhich€IRC€exists,€and€in€terms€of€the€total€number€of€users.€€It€is€for€this€reason€thatÏIRC/mIRC€is€the€form€of€CMC€that€will€be€examined€in€this€study.€€If€one€form€of€CMCÏmust€be€chosen€to€represent€real-time€communication€over€the€Internet,€IRC/mIRC€isÏperhaps€the€best€choice€because€IRC/mIRC€is€so€widespread€and€has€such€a€large€numberÏof€users.€Ìà ` àMany€IRC/mIRC€chat€rooms,€(called€channels)€are€organized€around€a€specificÏtopic€and€are€often€politically€charged.€€A€chat€room/channel€of€a€non-political€nature€ofÏgeneral€interest,€òò#friends׃×Ý ƒ ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×óó,€will€be€chosen€for€this€study.€The€sole€purpose€of€thisÐ p&À!$ Ðparticular€IRC/mIRC€Channel€is€"Making€Friends€Around€The€World."€€This€channel€hasÐ P( #& Ðas€its€sole€goal€the€formation€of€social€relationships,€and€€is€therefore€the€most€appropriateÏchoice€to€examine€the€formation€of€the€kinds€of€social€relationships€which€mightÏcharacterize€community.€€The€sole€purpose€of€this€channel€is€to€facilitate€the€formation€ofÏsocial€relationships,€and€this€may€allow€for€community€sentiment€to€develop€among€thoseÏpersons€who€use€it.€€Ìò òFormation€of€Communal€Social€Relations€Over€the€Internet:€Research€Issuesó óÐ `  Ðà ` àPrevious€research€on€the€Internet€as€a€community€has€failed€to€examine€whetherÏsocial€relations€established€over€the€Internet€represent€communal€social€relations.€€NoneÏof€the€research€has€examined€the€formation€of€primary€social€ties€or€strong€social€ties,€asÏconceptualized€by€Granovetter€(1973),€over€the€Internet.Ìà ` àSurratt€(1996)€only€examined€community€in€the€context€of€the€first€of€these€threeÏdimensions€of€community,€the€idea€of€social€relationships€or€social€interaction.€SurrattÏ(1996:1)€equates€the€notion€of€social€relationships€or€social€interaction€with€what€she€hasÏtermed€"real€community."€Surratt€(1996),€€found€that€subjects€demonstrated€standards€ofÏacceptable/unacceptable€behavior;€they€derived€meaning€in€specific€situations;€they€heldÏmembers€accountable€for€their€actions;€and,€they€were€serious€about€their€interactionsÏ(563-564).€€This€was€utilized€as€evidence€by€Surratt€that€the€Internet€was€a€community.€ÏThe€establishment€of€specific€norms€and€values€alone€should€not€be€considered€sufficientÏevidence€for€the€existence€of€community,€however.€€While€the€formation€of€norms€andÏvalues€suggests€the€development€of€a€"collective€will"€€for€governing€social€relationshipsÏ(as€conceived€by€Tnnies)€over€the€Internet,€it€does€not€provide€evidence€of€communalÏrelationships.€€Business€relationships,€for€example,€are€not€normally€consideredÐ ,`'* Ð"communal"€relationships€€in€a€sociological€sense,€yet€these€relationships€are€governed€byÏtheir€own€set€of€norms€and€values.Ìà ` àNo€previous€research€has€been€conducted€that€attempts€to€situate€the€socialÏrelationships€developed€by€an€individual€over€the€Internet€with€the€social€relationshipsÏdeveloped€by€the€Individual€on€a€face-to-face€basis.€€Heavy€Internet€users€have€beenÏportrayed€as€potential€social€isolates€that€spend€most€of€their€time€interacting€with€othersÏthrough€the€virtual€world€of€the€Internet.€€Here€they€may€make€up€new€personalities€orÏroles€that€they€may€not€have€in€the€context€of€physical,€face-to-face€interactions€withÏothers€(Allen,€1996;€€Dalaimo,€1995;€Turkle,€1984,€1995;€Young,€1998).€Ìà ` àThis€raises€a€number€of€interesting€questions.€€For€example,€"Do€frequent€InternetÏusers€participate€in€both€virtual€and€traditional€communities?"׃×Ý ƒ ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Or,€"Are€frequentÐ pÀ ÐInternet€users€social€isolates€who€are€only€able€to€participate€in€a€community€through€theÏopportunities€available€over€the€Internet?"€€Finally,€"In€what€ways€does€participation€in€aÏvirtual€community€complement,€or€augment€participation€in€a€traditional€community?"€ÏThis€research€will€provide€empirical€evidence€to€address€these€questions.Ìò òGeographic€Scale€of€Communities€Developed€Over€the€Internet:€Research€Issuesó óÐ Ð  Ðà ` àPrevious€research€has€never€examined€the€geographic€scale€of€the€socialÏinteraction€networks€developed€over€the€Internet.€€Wellman's€(1979)€study€providedÏevidence€of€liberated€communities€at€the€scale€of€a€metropolitan€region.€€A€largeÐ p&À!$ Ðproportion€of€individuals€in€Wellman's€sample€of€persons€living€in€the€East€York€boroughÏof€Toronto€were€found€to€have€primary€ties€with€persons€residing€in€other€areas€of€theÏmetropolitan€region.€€One€problem€with€his€study€is€that€Wellman€did€not€measure€whenÏthe€primary€ties€held€by€an€individual€were€established.€€Thus,€there€is€no€way€ofÏdetermining€where€the€individuals€involved€in€a€network€of€communal€ties€were€residingÏat€the€time€the€communal€relationships€were€òòinitiallyóó€òòestablishedóó.€€It€is€quite€possible€thatÐ `  Ðmany€of€the€communal€ties€held€by€an€individual€were€initially€established€when€theÏpersons€involved€did€live€in€close€geographic€proximity.€The€use€of€communicationsÏtechnology€would€then€facilitate€the€òòmaintenance€óóof€communal€ties€once€the€individualsÐ ° Ðinvolved€migrated€to€different€geographic€areas.€€Alternatively,€it€is€possible€thatÏcommunal€ties€could€be€initially€established€over€greater€geographic€distances€throughÏthe€use€of€communications€technology€such€as€the€Internet.€€Moreover,€social€relationsÏestablished€over€the€Internet€could€lead€to€face-to-face€relationships.€€This€possibility,Ïparticularly€the€established€establishment€of€romantic€relationships,€has€received€recentÏattention€by€the€mass€media€in€the€U.S.€€This€study€will€provide€empirical€evidence€toÏdetermine€which€of€these€scenarios€is€more€prevalent€in€the€formation€of€social€ties€overÏthe€Internet€and€will€describe€the€geographic€scale€at€which€networks€of€primary€ties€overÏthe€Internet€are€most€prevalent.Ìò òDevelopment€of€Community€Sentiment€Over€the€Internet:€Research€Issuesó óÐ p&À!$ Ðò òà ` àó óSeveral€studies€seem€to€provide€some€evidence€that€community€sentiment€existsÐ P( #& Ðover€the€Internet€(Allen,€1996;€Braddle,€1993;€Bromberg€1996;€Giese,€1996;€Reid,€1991;ÏRheingold,€1993;€Young,€1998).€€Reid€(1991)€investigated€a€community€in€terms€ofÐ ,`'* ÐGeertz's€(1963)€notion€of€community--a€"system€of€meanings€that€give€significance€toÏshared€behaviours€which€must€be€interpreted€from€the€perspective€of€those€engaged€inÏthem."€€Bromberg€(1996)€investigated€the€presence€of€€a€"sense€of€community."€€TheÏpsychological€research€conducted€by€Turkle€(1984,€1995),€Young€(1998),€Giese€(1996),ÏDalaimo€(1995),€and€Allen€(1995)€also€falls€into€this€category.€€€These€studies€have€allÏused€anecdotal€and€qualitative€evidence€to€provide€evidence€of€the€existence€ofÏcommunity€sentiment.€€None€have€attempted€to€investigate€how€prevalent€communityÏsentiment€is€among€a€population€of€€Internet€users.€€This€study€will€quantitativelyÏmeasure€the€extent€to€which€community€sentiment€is€developed€among€participants€in€anÏInternet€chat€room.€ÌÐ  pÀ ÐÑ€ ÀÀ` ÑÑ7€´’XXdðXXdð7ÑÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óò òÑ€ ¿r ÑÑ€}@¸Ñ›à@¾¾)àÔ‡ Ñ XX´’ÔChapter€Vó óˆÐ ° ÐÔ#†X´’X  Ñ'Ç#Ôà@%àò òResearch€Methodsó óˆÐ 0€ Ѐà ` àThe€data€required€to€meet€the€objectives€of€this€exploratory€study€were€collectedÐ  ` Ðthrough€the€use€of€a€sample€survey€of€participants€in€the€Internet€IRC€Chatroom,€#friends.€ÏTherefore,€the€population€for€the€study€consisted€of€all€users€of€#friends€during€the€April,Ï1998€to€June€1998€time€period.€€A€structured€questionnaire€was€administered€to€a€sampleÏof€participants€selected€from€the€study€population€through€the€sampling€procedureÏdescribed€below.€€The€survey€questionnaire€contained€questions€designed€to€measure€theÏkey€study€variables€described€in€Chapter€4.Ìà ` àThe€survey€was€administered€over€the€Internet.€€Respondents€in€the€sample€wereÏmailed€a€cover€letter€and€a€survey€questionnaire€in€a€single€message€via€e-mail.€ÏAlternatively,€a€copy€of€the€survey€was€made€available€on€the€project€website€atÏhttp://www-personal.ksu.edu/~irsurvey€for€respondents€to€download€the€survey.€€Then,Ïthey€could€print,€fill€out€the€survey€by€hand€and€send€it€by€regular€U.S.€Mail.€€One€weekÏafter€the€initial€mailing,€respondents€who€had€not€returned€their€survey€were€sent€anÏelectronic€notice€reminding€them€to€fill€out€and€return€the€survey.€€Three€weeks€after€theÏinitial€mailing,€respondents€who€had€still€not€returned€a€survey€were€sent€a€second€coverÏletter€and€copy€of€the€survey.Ìò òSampling€Procedureó óÐ '`"$ Ðà ` àA€sample€of€500€participants€of€the€#friends€IRC€channel€was€drawn€by€loggingÏon€to€#friends€for€one€hour€intervals€at€randomly€selected€times.€€Two€one€hour€timeÐ Ð* &( Ðintervals€per€day€were€used€until€a€sample€of€500€participants€was€drawn.€€When€loggingÏon€to€#friends,€participants'€e-mail€addresses€are€displayed€on€the€screen.€€All€personsÏwhose€e-mail€addresses€were€displayed€during€the€randomly€selected€times€were€includedÏin€the€sample.€€This€strategy€approximated€a€cluster€sampling€design€with€the€time€unitÏrepresenting€the€clustering€variable.€It€is€a€random€intercept€sampling€technique€in€theÏsense€that€persons€logged€into€#friends€at€the€randomly€selected€times€were€"intercepted,"Ïor€chosen€as€members€of€the€sample€pool.€If€an€e-mail€address€had€already€been€collectedÏonce,€it€was€not€collected€a€second€time€as€a€duplicate.€Ìò òResponse€RateÐ ° Ðà ` àó óIn€distributing€the€survey€questionnaire€to€the€sample€of€500€participants€inÐ à Ð#friends,€it€was€found€that€e-mail€addresses€displayed€for€participants€were€not€alwaysÏvalid.€€A€significant€proportion€of€these€e-mailed€questionnaires€were€returned€asÏundeliverable€SMTP€failures.€In€total,€259€of€the€surveys€actually€got€through€toÏrespondents€over€the€course€of€the€initial€mailing€and€follow-up€mailings.€Out€of€theÏgrand€total€of€259€surveys€that€actually€got€through,€a€total€of€53€were€returned,€resultingÏin€a€response€rate€of€20.46%.€€There€is€no€logical€reason€to€suspect€that€those€who€did€notÏrespond€would€have€answered€the€questionnaire€any€differently€than€those€who€didÏrespond.€€Thus,€nonresponse€bias€would€appear€to€be€minimal.Ìò òOrganization€of€the€Survey€Questionnaireó óÐ p&À!$ Ðà ` àThe€survey€questionnaire€(see€Appendix€A)€is€divided€into€four€sections.€€The€firstÏsection€asks€respondents€about€the€social€relationships€they€have€in€#friends,€to€addressÏthe€first€dimension€of€community;€that€is,€communal€relationships.€€This€is€also€addressedÐ ,`'* Ðby€another€section€which€asks€respondents€about€their€traditional€face-to-face€socialÏrelationships.€€Ô‡{X´’XXX´’ÔThe€second€section€of€the€surveyÔ#†X´’XX{X´’’Õ#Ô€establishes€the€geographic€proximity€ofÐ à Ðrespondents€to€one€another,€which€addresses€the€second€dimension€of€community.€A€thirdÏsection€asks€questions€measure€the€presence€of€community€sentiment€or€attachment--theÏthird€dimension.€€The€final€section€asks€for€some€basic€demographic€information.€€Ô‡{X´’XXX´’ÔEachÐ 0 € Ðsection€of€the€survey€is€discussed€in€detail€œbelow.€Ô#†X´’XX{X´’0×#ÔÐ `  Ðò òMeasurement€of€Communal€Relationsó óÐ ð@  Ðà ` àCommunal€Relations€were€measured€according€to€the€four€dimensions€of€theÏstrength€of€a€social€tie€specified€by€Granovetter€(1973).€€›These€œinclude€the€duration€of€aÏtie,€the€emotional€attachment€involved,€the€level€of€intimacy,€and€€the€reciprocal€exchangeÏof€services.€€Respondents€were€asked€if€there€are€any€people€that€they€talk€with€throughÏ#friends€that€they€consider€to€be€close€friends.€€If€a€respondent€answered€"yes"€to€thisÏquestion,€he/she€was€asked€to€list€the€number€of€people€that€he/she€talks€with€throughÏ#friends€that€he/she€considers€to€be€close€friends.€€Respondents€were€then€asked€a€seriesÏof€further€contingency€questions€designed€to€measure€the€duration€of€these€ties€andÏwhether€or€not€they€involve€emotional€attachment,€intimacy,€and€exchange€of€services.€Ìâ âà ` àThe€€duration€of€social€ties€established€over€#friends€was€measured€by€askingÐ °"  Ѐrespondents€€how€long€they€have€known€their€"close€friends"׃#×Ý ƒ ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€on€#friends.€Additionally,Ð ° Ðâ ârespondents€were€asked€to€indicate€the€number€of€"close€friends"€they€have€known€onÏ#friends€for€each€of€several€time€intervals€ranging€from€"less€than€6€months"€to€"5€orÏmore€years."Ìà ` àWhether€or€not€social€ties€established€over€#friends€involve€emotional€attachment,Ïintimacy,€and€reciprocity,€was€measured€using€a€series€of€items€adapted€from€GranovetterÏ(1973),€Wellman€(1979),€Parks€and€Floyd€(1996),€and€Kasarda€and€Janowitz€(1974).€ÏRespondents€were€asked€to€indicate€the€ways€in€which€the€persons€they€know€throughÏ#friends€represent€close€friends€to€them.€€Respondents€were€asked€to€check€which€of€theÏfollowing€characteristics€provide€a€basis€for€their€friendship€with€those€they€identify€asÏclose€friends:€(a)€We€strongly€care€about€each€other;€(b)€We€talk€about€close€personalÏmatters€that€are€important€to€us;€(c)€We€provide€each€other€help€concerning€personalÏproblems;€(d)€We€are€"romantically"€involved;€and€(e)€We€are€related€by€family€(seeÏquestion€3-B€in€the€survey).€€In€addition,€respondents€were€asked€to€list€the€number€ofÏclose€friends€they€have€through€#friends€to€which€each€of€these€reasons€applies.€€It€isÏcontended€that€items€a,€d,€and€e€directly€reflect€emotional€attachment€in€a€social€tie.€ÏItems€b€and€c€directly€reflect€intimacy€in€a€social€tie,€€Finally,€all€items€imply€a€reciprocalÏexchange€of€services€of€some€type€between€the€parties€involved.€€Ð $à" Ðà ` àThe€number€and€strength€of€close€social€ties€held€by€respondents€outside€ofÏCyberspace€(e.g.,€on€a€face-to-face€basis)€were€measured€using€the€same€series€ofÏquestions€(see€question€7€and€related€contingency€questions€in€the€survey).€€TheÏrelationships€between€responses€to€the€questions,€the€number€of€strong€ties€developedÏthrough€#friends,€and€the€frequency€of€contact€with€others€through€#friends€(see€questionsÏ1,€2,€and€17€in€the€survey)€was€used€to€assess€the€extent€to€which€participants€in€#friendsÏare€social€isolates€in€their€physical€location€who€engage€in€social€relationships€onlyÏthrough€the€Internet.€€Additionally,€respondents€were€asked€whether€there€are€any€personsÏthat€they€initially€met€through€#friends€with€whom€they€have€established€face-to-faceÏrelationships,€including€relationships€that€have€turned€into€romantic€relationshipsÏinvolving€dating€or€marriage€(see€question€9€and€related€contingency€questions€in€theÏsurvey).Ìò òMeasurement€of€the€Geographic€Scale€of€Communityó óÐ 0€ Ðà ` àThe€geographical€proximity€of€a€respondentððs€network€of€close€ties€was€measuredÏby€first€asking€respondents€to€indicate€the€city,€state/province,€(and€country€if€outsideÏUSA),€of€their€5€closest€friends€on€#friends,€and€respondents€were€then€asked€to€list€theÏlocation€of€their€5€closest€friends€that€they€did€not€meet€and€get€to€know€through€#friends.€Ïà ` àThe€survey€also€measured€the€extent€to€which€a€respondent's€network€of€close€tiesÏoutside€of€Cyberspace€resides€in€the€same€location€as€the€respondent.€€The€extent€toÏwhich€a€respondent's€network€of€close€ties€once€lived€in€the€same€location,€but€migratedÏelsewhere€was€also€measured.€€Additionally,€the€means€by€which€these€ties€areÏmaintained€through€social€contact,€including€the€use€of€#friends,€was€also€measured.€€TheÐ ,`'* ÐÑ}@¸CÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑ}@¸CÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ}@¸:ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññresponses€to€these€questions,€combined€with€the€data€on€the€number€of€strong€tiesÏdeveloped€solely€through€#friends,€were€used€to€provide€insight€into€the€extent€to€whichÏclose€geographical€proximity€is€important€in€the€formation€of€social€ties.€€In€other€words,Ïusing€Wellman's€terminology€(1979),€this€provides€insight€into€the€extent€to€whichÏparticipation€in€ððliberatedðð€communities€represents€the€maintenance€of€communal€tiesÏinitially€established€within€the€context€of€a€traditional,€proximate,€community€setting.€ÌÔ‡X´’XXX´’Ôà ` àIn€an€effort€to€determine€the€geographic€scale€of€social€relations€of€respondents€inÐ ð@  Ðboth€#friends€and€in€a€face-to-face€setting,€respondents€were€asked€to€list€the€city,Ïstate/province,€and€country€(if€other€than€USA)€for€up€to€five€of€their€closest€friends€inÏ#friends€and€for€their€face-to-face€relationships.€€These€locations€were€then€compared€toÏthe€value€the€respondent€indicated€for€their€location€in€question€11.€€Using€thisÏcomparison€for€each€of€these€relationships,€the€following€€dummy€variables€were€created:Ïwithin€city,€within€state,€within€country,€within€continent€and€cross-continent.€€ValuesÏwere€assigned€in€the€following€manner:€1€=€within€city,€2€=€within€state,€3€=€withinÏcountry,€4€=€within€continent,€5€=€cross€continent,€and€9€=€unknown.€€The€lowest€possibleÏlevel€was€coded€for€each€variable.€€For€example,€if€€a€respondent€was€within€the€sameÏcity,€€presumably€he€or€she€would€also€be€within€the€same€state,€country,€and€continent,Ïyet€this€would€be€coded€with€a€value€of€1=within€city.€€The€categories€of€within€continentÏand€cross€continent€were€later€collapsed€into€a€category€labeled€ð ðcross€national.ðð€€ThisÏprocedure€was€used€for€the€variables€in€questions€3-D,€7-E,€and€9-B.€€A€frequency€ofÏâ âcombinations€of€different€locational€patterns€was€taken.Ð 0*€%( ÐÔ#†X´’XXX´’Êë#Ôò òÔ&   Ôâ ââ ââ âMeasurement€of€Community€Sentimentó óÐ ° Ðà ` àCommunity€sentiment€was€measured€by€items€adapted€from€scales€of€communityÏÔ' °WñÔattachment€and€community€sentiment€developed€by€›Kasarda€and€Janowitz€(1974),€GoudyÏ(1982,€1990),€and€Buttel€et€al.€(1979).€€Ô‡{X´’XXX´’ÔThe€wording€of€the€items€was€adapted€to€fit€theÐ P   Ðcontext€of€Cyberspace€and€the€specific€chatroom.Ô#†X´’XX{X´’¢ò#Ô€€œThe€first€€question€which€was€beenÐ 0 € Ðadapted€from€Kasarda€and€Janowitz€(1974:331)€was€utilized€for€the€purposes€of€thisÏsurvey€to€read€as€follows:€"Would€you€say€you€belong€to€and€feel€'at€home'€when€youÏparticipate€in€#friends?"€€Kasarda€and€Janowitz€(1974:331)€coded€this€question€as€aÏyes/no€response,€Goudy€(1982:183)€chose€to€use€a€three€point€likert€type€scale:€(1)Ïdefinitely€not€or€probably€not,€(2)€probably,€€(3)€definitely€(1982:381-2)."€€For€theÏpurposes€of€this€survey€however,€the€scale€was€modified€to€a€four€point€likert€type€scaleÏranging€from€ð ðdefinitely€notðð€to€ð ðdefinitely.ððÌà ` àGoudy€(1982:183)€uses€the€notion€of€"Length€of€residence"€as€a€factor€to€measureÏcommunity€attachment.€€Obviously,€one€does€not€take€up€"residence"€in€#friends€in€aÏliteral€sense.€€But€perhaps€one€can€have€"residence"€in€#friends€in€a€figurative€sense.€TheÏlength€of€residence€in€a€real-world€„„€physical,€geographically€bounded€community€„„Ïhelps€to€shape€the€length€of€acquaintance€with€other€community€members.€€So€too€shouldÏthe€length€of€"residence"€in€#friends€help€to€shape€the€length€of€acquaintance€with€friendsÏformed€in€#friends.€Granovetter's€time€dimension€also€comes€into€play€here.€€QuestionÏ3-C€was€used€to€measure€the€temporal€length€of€the€ties.€Ìà ` àAnother€question€used€in€the€survey€to€measure€community€attachment€which€wasÏalso€adapted€from€Kasarda€and€Janowitz€(1974:331)€was,€"How€interested€are€you€toÐ ,`'* Ðknow€what€goes€on€in€#friends?"€€Response€choices€for€this€question€were€coded€using€a€Ìthree€point€likert€type€scale€with€the€responses€(1)€no€interest,€(2)€some€interest,€and€(3)Ïmuch€interest.Ìà ` àYet€another€question€from€Kasarda€and€Janowitz€(1974:331)€was€adapted€to€readÏas,€ð ðSuppose€that€for€some€reason€that€you€were€not€allowed€to€participate€in€or€log€on€toÏ#friends€for€an€extended€period€of€time.€€How€would€you€feel€about€being€unable€to€haveÏaccess€to€#friends?ðð€€Response€choices€for€this€question€are€coded€as€(1)€very€sorry,€(2)Ïsomewhat€sorry,€(3)€somewhat€pleased,€and€(4)€very€pleased.à  àÐ Ð  Ðà ` àA€factor€analysis€using€the€principal€components€methods€of€extraction€wasÏconducted€on€the€three€indicators€of€community€attachment€for€the€sample€of€#friendsÏusers.€€The€following€results€were€obtained:€ÌÓÓÔ*»ƒ"'d SdÏtt Ftt „tt ûtt 9tt îtt ûtt (#(#»ÔÔ,Üdd ÔÔ,Üdd"ÔÔ,Üdd"ÔÔ,Üdd"ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  P  ……ÐÔ& Ü ÔEigenvalues€of€€the€Correlation€Matrix:€€€Total=3€€€€€€€Average=1Ð  ´ ÐÔ‡ôeI ôXX´’Ô€FactorÐ 4* 8ˆ  ð?1‰ð?‰4Ð1Ð SI(8ˆ  ð?1 ð?  @2‰@‰SÐ2Ð SI(8ˆ  @2 @  @3‰@‰SÐ3Ð 4*(8ˆ  @3 @ 4ÐEigenvalue€Ð B8 ”ä ı.n£@2.0008„„‰Ä±.n£@‰BÐ2.0008Ð oe6”ä" ı.n£@2.0008 ı.n£@ ®Gáz®ã?0.6150„„‰®Gáz®ã?‰oÐ0.6150Ð oe6”ä" ®Gáz®ã?0.6150 ®Gáz®ã? ‚âǘ»–Ø?0.3842„„‰‚âǘ»–Ø?‰oÐ0.3842Ð B86”ä" ‚âǘ»–Ø?0.3842 ‚âǘ»–Ø? BÐDifferenceÐ B8 ð@  ±¿ìž<,ö?1.3858„„‰±¿ìž<,ö?‰BÐ1.3858Ô#†X´’X ôôeIZþ#ÔÔ‡ôeI ôXX´’ÔÐ oe6ð@!" ±¿ìž<,ö?1.3858 ±¿ìž<,ö? ´Yõ¹ÚŠÍ?0.2308„„‰´Yõ¹ÚŠÍ?‰oÐ0.2308Ô#†X´’X ôôeI…#ÔÔ‡ôeI ôXX´’ÔÐ KA6ð@"" ´Yõ¹ÚŠÍ?0.2308 ´Yõ¹ÚŠÍ? „„KÐÐ ð@#" ÐProportionÐ B8 Lœ$ z6«>Wå?0.6669„„‰z6«>Wå?‰BÐ0.6669Ð oe6Lœ%" z6«>Wå?0.6669 z6«>Wå? = ×£p=Ê?0.2050„„‰= ×£p=Ê?‰oÐ0.2050Ð oe6Lœ&" = ×£p=Ê?0.2050 = ×£p=Ê? „ O¯”eÀ?0.1281„„‰„ O¯”eÀ?‰oÐ0.1281Ð B86Lœ'" „ O¯”eÀ?0.1281 „ O¯”eÀ? BÐCumulativeÐ B8 ¨ ø( z6«>Wå?0.6669„„‰z6«>Wå?‰BÐ0.6669Ð oe6¨ ø)" z6«>Wå?0.6669 z6«>Wå? Ÿ<,Ôšæë?0.8719„„‰Ÿ<,Ôšæë?‰oÐ0.8719Ð oe6¨ ø*" Ÿ<,Ôšæë?0.8719 Ÿ<,Ôšæë? ð?1.0000„„‰ð?‰oÐ1.0000Ô#†X´’X ôôeI<#ÔÐF<:¨ ø+" ð?1.0000  ð? FÐÔ'Ü´õýÔÌà ` àÌÔ*ˆƒ!(ddÜdd Üdd"Üdd"Üdd""'(#(#ˆÔÔ,cdd ÔÔ,Fdd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  €#Ð- ÐÔ& ì Ôà@tttàQuestionnaire€ItemˆÐ  ä#4. ÐFactor€PatternÐ  ä#4/ ÐÔ‡ôeI ôXX´’Ô4.)€Would€you€say€you€belong€to€and€feel€'at€home'€when€you€participate€inÐ h%¸ 0 Ѐ€€€€€#friends?Ð 9/ 0&€!1 䃞ͪÏë?0.8691‰äƒžÍªÏë?‰9Ð0.8691Ð 9/-h%¸ 2 䃞ͪÏë?0.8691 䃞ͪÏë? 9Ð5.)€How€much€interest€do€you€have€in€knowing€what€goes€on€in€#friends?Ð :0 Œ'Ü"3 ³˜Ø|\ê?0.81584‰³˜Ø|\ê?‰:Ð0.81584Ð :0.Œ'Ü"4 ³˜Ø|\ê?0.81584 ³˜Ø|\ê? :Ð6.)€How€would€you€feel€about€being€unable€to€have€access€to€#friends?Ð :0 è(8$5 ®dÇF ^è?0.76149‰®dÇF ^è?‰:Ð0.76149Ô#†X´’X ôôeIO#ÔÐ>42è(8$6 ®dÇF ^è?0.76149  ®dÇF ^è? >ÐÔ'ìä#æÔÌÌÓÓà ` àOnly€1€factor€was€found€with€an€Eigenvalue€>€1.0.€€This€factor€explained€66.7%Ð À+'8 Ðof€the€variance€among€the€three€indicators€of€community€sentiment.€€BivariateÏcorrelations€among€the€three€indicators€ranged€from€.37€to€.59.€€Scores€on€each€of€theÏthree€community€sentiment€items€were€summed€to€form€a€composite€index€of€communityÏsentiment.€€Possible€values€for€the€composite€index€of€community€sentiment€would€rangeÏfrom€3€to€11.€€A€score€of€3€would€indicate€an€extremely€low€level€of€communityÏsentiment€or€a€lack€of€community€sentiment,€and€a€score€of€11€would€indicate€a€high€levelÏof€community€sentiment.€Chronbach's€alpha€was€also€computed€as€an€indicator€ofÏreliability€of€the€index.€€Coefficient€Ô‡)XJ XXX´’ÔaÔ#†X´’X X)XJ #ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’Ô€was€found€to€be€.745€indicating€that€the€reliabilityÐ Ð  Ðof€the€index€is€somewhat€less€than€ideal.€Ìò òMethod€of€Data€Analysis€ó óÐ ”ä Ðà ` àThe€responses€were€collected€and€analyzed€through€the€use€of€descriptiveÏstatistics.€€Correlations€between€the€number€of€on-line€friends€and€face-to-face€friendsÏwere€also€run.€€Descriptive€data€from€the€measures€of€communal€relations,€geography€ofÏcommunal€relations,€and€€community€sentiment€are€used€to€assess€the€ways€in€which€Ìsocial€participation€on€the€#friends€IRC€channel€represents€a€community€in€a€sociologicalÏsense.€Ô#†X´’XXX´’C #ÔÐ  Ô $ ÐÑ ¿rGÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑ ¿r>ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑ€ ÀÀ` ÑÑ7€´’XXdðXXdð7ÑÓ?+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒX?Óà@ŠŠ(àò òÔ‡ Ñ XX´’ÔChapter€VIˆÐ ° ÐÔ#†X´’X  Ñô#ÔÓ  Ó€Findingsó óÔ‡ Ñ XX´’ÔÐ 0€ ÐÔ#†X´’X  Ñn#ÔÓVÓò òCharacteristics€of€the€Sampleó óÐ  ` Ðà ` àRespondents€of€the€survey€were€found€to€range€in€age€from€13€to€50€years€of€age.€ÏThe€mean€age€for€the€sample€was€found€to€be€22.9€years€(see€Table€6.1).€€The€genderÏcomposition€of€the€sample€consisted€of€59.6%€males€and€40.4%€females.€€These€findingsÏare€somewhat€consistent€with€those€of€the€sample€studied€by€Parks€and€Floyd€(1996).€ÏThe€typical€respondent€in€Parks€and€Floyd's€study€also€tended€to€be€male€and€singleÏ(1996:85).€€However,€the€average€age€in€Parks€and€Floyd's€sample€was€much€higher.€€ò òÐ P  Ðó óNearly€27.5%€of€the€respondents€were€found€to€have€a€college€degree€or€advancedÐ 0€ Ðgraduate€training.€€Approximately€one-third€of€the€sample€had€a€high€school€degree€orÏsome€high€school€while€39.2%€reported€having€some€college.€€Moreover,€57.1%€of€€theÏrespondents€reported€that€they€were€students.€€Finally,€69.8%€of€the€respondents€reportedÏthat€they€were€single.€€These€sample€characteristics€suggest€that€the€typical€respondentÏtended€to€be€a€single,€€male,€college€or€high€school€student.Ìà ` àRespondents€in€the€sample€were€found€to€reside€in€17€different€nations,Ïrepresenting€every€continent€except€Antarcticaò ò€ó ó(See€Table€6.2€for€a€complete€list€ofÐ P#   Ðcountries€represented).€€The€United€States€had€the€highest€representation€with€a€total€ofÏ26€responses€(52%€of€the€sample).€€The€second€highest€representation€came€from€CanadaÏâ âwith€a€total€of€6€responses€(12%€of€the€sample).€€This€was€followed€by€3€responses€fromÐ ð(@$& ÐAustralia€and€€2€responses€from€the€Philippines.€€All€other€nations€represented€in€theÏsample€had€only€one€response.€Ìâ âà ` àTo€evaluate€the€composition€of€the€sample,€it€is€useful€to€compare€these€sampleÏcharacteristics€with€those€of€other€Internet€studies.€€By€far,€the€most€comprehensiveÏsource€of€Internet€demographics€is€the€GVU€user€survey€of€Internet€demographics€thatÏattempts€to€provide€insight€into€the€characteristics€of€the€population€of€Internet€users.׃_×Ý ƒ ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р`  ÐAdvertisements€inviting€Internet€users€to€participate€in€the€GVU€survey€are€found€acrossÏa€variety€of€different€Internet€sites.€€Internet€users€that€are€interested€log€on€to€the€surveyÏsite€and€fill€out€the€survey€questionnaire€on-line.€While€it€is€unknown€how€wellÏparticipants€in€the€GVU€survey€represent€the€population€of€Internet€users,€those€that€doÏparticipate€are€drawn€from€a€wide€cross-section€of€Internet€sites.€€Table€6.1€gives€aÏcomparison€of€the€#friends€sample€characteristics€with€those€of€the€Ninth€GVU€SurveyÏ(1998).€€These€data€indicate€that€the€#friends€sample€and€participants€in€the€GVU€surveyÏhave€a€similar€gender€composition;€that€is,€there€are€approximately€1.5-1.6€male€users€forÏevery€female€user.€€However,€the€comparison€also€suggests€that€#friends€participants€tendÏto€be€younger€in€age,€have€less€education,€are€more€likely€to€be€single,€and€are€moreÏlikely€to€be€students€compared€to€participants€in€the€GVU€survey.€€This€suggests€that€theÏâ â#friends€chatroom€tends€to€be€a€more€specialized€Internet€site€that€appeals€primarily€toÐ $à" Ðsingle€students€seeking€out€interaction€with€others,€compared€to€users€of€other€sites€forÏInternet€communication.€Ìâ âò òFrequency€of€Participation€in€#friends€and€in€other€chat€rooms€€ó óÐ pÀ Ðà ` àOut€of€53€respondents€total,€17€respondents€(32.1%)€indicated€that€they€usedÏfriends€"several€times€a€day"€while€6€respondents€(11.3%)€indicated€that€they€used€€Ï#friends€€"once€a€day"€(see€Table€6.3).€€Thus,€43.4%€of€the€sample€participated€inÏ#friends€at€least€once€a€day.€€A€95%€confidence€interval€for€this€indicator€was€found€to€beÏðð13.3%.€€This€indicates€that€the€population€percentage€of€€#friends€users€that€participateÏin€the€chat€room€at€least€once€a€day€is€95%€likely€to€be€at€least€30.1%€but€not€more€thanÏ57.7%.€€Thus,€it€is€possible€that€the€majority€(>€50%)€of€the€population€of€#friends€usersÏparticipate€in€the€chat€room€every€day.€Ìà ` àAn€additional€17€respondents€(32.1%)€stated€that€they€used€#friends€"a€few€timesÏa€week."€€Adding€to€the€previous€estimate,€over€75%€of€the€respondents€in€the€sampleÏstated€that€they€participated€in€#friends€at€least€several€times€a€week.€The€magnitude€ofÏthis€estimate€indicates€that€it€is€highly€likely€that€the€majority€of€the€population€ofÏ#friends€users€participates€in€the€chat€room€at€least€several€times€a€week.€€Ð  Ð  ÐÓ*` Àƒ°Ø'™XŒX*ÓÓÓÓ®ÇÓÓ5‡E°5ÓÑ  Ñà@)àÓK+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#` Àƒ°Ø'™XKÓò òTable€6.1ó óˆÐ á1 ÐÓ*` Àƒ°Ø'™XŒX*Óò òà@‚ ‚ àComparison€of€this€sample€with€Ninth€GVU€Surveyó óˆÐ ½  ÐÔ‡&<ÿ &XX´’ÔÌòòò òCharacteristicóóà‘ÀÀ(Ààˆà‘!pàòò#friends€Sampleó󀀈à‘  < àˆà‘DD0Ð à€€€€€òò9th€GVU€Surveyóó€€€ó óˆÐ d´ Ðò òà ` àà‘TT&Ààòòòòfóóóó€ˆà‘¸¸1pàòò%óóˆà‘XX8 àòòòòfóóóó€€€ˆà‘  EÐ àòò%óóó óˆÐ / Ðò òGenderó óÐ úJ Ðà ` àMaleà‘&Àà32ˆà‘...pà60.4ˆà‘°°8 à7716ˆà‘ŽŽBÐ à61.3ˆÐ Å  Ðà ` àFemaleà‘&Àà21ˆà‘...pà39.6ˆà‘°°8 à4875ˆà‘ŽŽBÐ à38.7ˆÐ  à Ðà ` àTotalà‘&Àà53ˆà‘ÒÒ-pà100.0ˆà‘TT7 à12591ˆà‘22AÐ à100.0ˆÐ [ « Ðà ` àò òÌAgeó óÐ Ð   Ðà ` àUnder€11à‘dd'Àà0ˆà‘ŠŠ/pà0.0ˆà‘ÄÄ; à9ˆà‘t t EÐ à0ˆÐ › ë  Ѐà ` à11-15à‘dd'Àà5ˆà‘...pà10.0ˆà‘ÞÞ8 à261€ˆà‘êêCÐ à2.1ˆÐ f¶  Ѐà ` à16-20€€à‘&Àà16ˆà‘...pà32.0ˆà‘°°8 à1366ˆà‘ŽŽBÐ à11.0ˆÐ 1  Ðà ` à21-25à‘&Àà17ˆà‘...pà34.0ˆà‘°°8 à1911ˆà‘ŽŽBÐ à15.4ˆÐ üL  Ðà ` à26-30à‘dd'Àà6ˆà‘...pà12.0ˆà‘°°8 à1971ˆà‘ŽŽBÐ à15.8ˆÐ Ç  Ðà ` à31+à‘dd'Àà6ˆà‘...pà12.0ˆà‘°°8 à6925ˆà‘ŽŽBÐ à55.7ˆÐ ’â  Ðà ` àTotalà‘&Àà50ˆà‘ÒÒ-pà100.0ˆà‘TT7 à12443ˆà‘22AÐ à100.0ˆÐ ]­  Ðà ` àMissingà‘dd'Àà3ˆà‘pp2pàˆà‘  9 à148ˆÐ (x ÐÌò òEducationÐ ¾ Ðó óà ` àSome€High€Schoolà‘&Àà10ˆà‘...pà19.6ˆà‘  9 à393ˆà‘êêCÐ à3.2ˆÐ ‰Ù Ðà ` àHigh€School€Grad.à‘dd'Àà7ˆà‘...pà13.7ˆà‘°°8 à1285ˆà‘ŽŽBÐ à10.3ˆÐ T¤ Ðà ` àSome€Collegeà‘&Àà20ˆà‘...pà39.2ˆà‘°°8 à4392ˆà‘ŽŽBÐ à35.5ˆÐ o Ðà ` àCollege€Degreeà‘dd'Àà9ˆà‘...pà17.6ˆà‘°°8 à3817ˆà‘ŽŽBÐ à30.8ˆÐ ê: Ðà ` àSome€Grad€Schoolà‘dd'Àà2ˆà‘ŠŠ/pà3.9ˆà‘¤¤: à--ˆà‘T T DÐ à--ˆÐ µ Ðà ` àAdvanced€Degreeà‘dd'Àà3ˆà‘ŠŠ/pà5.9ˆà‘°°8 à2490ˆà‘ŽŽBÐ à20.1ˆÐ €Ð Ðà ` àTotalà‘&Àà51ˆà‘ÒÒ-pà100.0ˆà‘TT7 à12377ˆà‘22AÐ à100.0ˆÐ K› Ðà ` àMissingòòà‘dd'Ààóó2ˆà‘pp2pàˆà‘  9 à214ˆÐ f Ðò òÌOccupationó óÐ ¬ü Ðà ` àComputer€Relatedà‘dd'Àà7ˆà‘...pà14.3ˆà‘°°8 à2811ˆà‘ŽŽBÐ à22.3ˆÐ wÇ Ðà ` àManagementà‘dd'Àà1ˆà‘ŠŠ/pà2.0ˆà‘°°8 à1415ˆà‘ŽŽBÐ à11.2ˆÐ B’  Ðà ` àProfessionalà‘&Àà10ˆà‘...pà20.4ˆà‘  9 à731ˆà‘ŽŽBÐ à21.7ˆÐ  ]! Ðà ` àEducator€or€Studentà‘&Àà26ˆà‘...pà53.0ˆà‘°°8 à3304ˆà‘ŽŽBÐ à26.2ˆÐ Ø(" Ðà ` àOtherà‘dd'Àà5ˆà‘...pà10.2ˆà‘°°8 à2330ˆà‘ŽŽBÐ à18.5ˆÐ £ ó# Ðà ` àTotalà‘&Àà49ˆà‘ÒÒ-pà100.0ˆà‘TT7 à12591ˆà‘22AÐ à100.0ˆÐ n!¾$ Ðà ` àMissingà‘dd'Àà4ˆà‘pp2pàˆà‘¤¤: à„„ˆÐ 9"‰% ÐÌò òMarital€Statusó óÐ Ï#' Ðà ` àSingleà‘&Àà37ˆà‘...pà74.0ˆà‘°°8 à4873ˆà‘ŽŽBÐ à38.7ˆÐ š$ê( Ðà ` àMarriedà‘dd'Àà7ˆà‘...pà14.0ˆà‘°°8 à5172ˆà‘ŽŽBÐ à41.0ˆÐ e%µ ) Ðà ` àDivorcedà‘dd'Àà1ˆà‘ŠŠ/pà2.0ˆà‘  9 à861ˆà‘ŽŽBÐ à6.84ˆÐ 0&€!* Ðà ` àWidowedà‘dd'Àà1ˆà‘ŠŠ/pà2.0ˆà‘  9 à134ˆà‘êêCÐ à1.1ˆÐ û&K"+ Ðà ` àOtherà‘dd'Àà4ˆà‘ŠŠ/pà8.0ˆà‘°°8 à1361ˆà‘ŽŽBÐ à10.8ˆÐ Æ'#, Ðà ` àTotalà‘&Àà50ˆà‘ÒÒ-pà100.0ò òˆà‘TT7 àó ó12591ˆà‘22AÐ à100.0ˆÐ ‘(á#- Ðà ` àMissingòòà‘dd'Ààóó3ˆà‘pp2pàˆà‘¤¤: à„-ˆÐ \)¬$. ÐÓ®Ç$ÓÔ#†X´’X &&<ÿp%#ÔÐ  '*w%/ ÐÓ@†Ú–Ö¦ Ðá1!!11!&$@ÓÑ[$ÑÔ& µ& ÔÓ5‡E°5ÓÑ€`¿rÑà@)àò òTable€6.2ˆÐ á1 Ðà@ÎÎàCountries€Represented€by€the€SampleˆÌÔ‡&<ÿ &XX´’ÔÌòòÓ9¸ ÀÈxÐ Ø'™X` Àƒ°Ø'™X9Óà ¸ àContinentóóà À àòòCountryóóà‘ŠŠ6Èàòòòòfóóóóˆà‘ÀÀ@xàòò%óóó óˆÐ þN ÐÌò òà ¸ àAfricaó óà À àSouth€Africaà‘ll6Èà1ˆà‘’’>xà1.9ˆÐ ô D Ðà ¸ àà À àTotalà‘ll6Èà1ˆà‘’’>xà1.9ˆÐ ï ? ÐÌò òà ¸ àAsiaó óà À àIndiaà‘ll6Èà1ˆà‘’’>xà1.9ˆÐ å 5 Ðà ¸ àà À àPhilippinesà‘ll6Èà2ˆà‘’’>xà3.8ˆÐ à 0  Ðà ¸ àà À àRepublic€of€Georgiaà‘ll6Èà1ˆà‘’’>xà1.9ˆÐ Û+  Ðà ¸ àà À àTotalà‘ll6Èà4ˆà‘’’>xà7.5ˆÐ Ö&  Ðà ¸ àÌò òà ¸ àAustraliaó óà À àAustraliaà‘ll6Èà3ˆà‘’’>xà5.7ˆÐ Ì  Ðà ¸ àà À àTotalà‘ll6Èà3ˆà‘’’>xà5.7ˆÐ Ç Ðà ¸ àÌò òà ¸ àEuropeó óà À àHollandà‘ll6Èà1ˆà‘’’>xà1.9ˆÐ ½  Ðà ¸ àà À àNorwayà‘ll6Èà1ˆà‘’’>xà1.9ˆÐ ¸ Ðà ¸ àà À àRomaniaà‘ll6Èà1ˆà‘’’>xà1.9ˆÐ ³ Ðà ¸ àà À àSwedenà‘ll6Èà1ˆà‘’’>xà1.9ˆÐ ®þ Ðà ¸ àà À àUnited€Kingdomà‘ll6Èà1ˆà‘’’>xà1.9ˆÐ ©ù Ðà ¸ àà À àTotalà‘ll6Èà5ˆà‘’’>xà9.4ˆÐ ¤ô ÐÌò òà ¸ àNorth€Americaó óà À àUSAà‘5Èà26ˆà‘66=xà49.1ˆÐ šê Ðà ¸ àà À àCanadaà‘ll6Èà6ˆà‘66=xà11.3ˆÐ •å Ðà ¸ àà À àMexicoà‘ll6Èà1ˆà‘’’>xà1.9ˆÐ à Ðà ¸ àà À àTotalà‘5Èà33ˆà‘66=xà62.3ˆÐ ‹Û ÐÌò òà ¸ àOceaniaó óà À àNew€Zealandà‘ll6Èà1ˆà‘’’>xà1.9ˆÐ  Ñ Ðà ¸ àà À àTotalà‘ll6Èà1ˆà‘’’>xà1.9ˆÐ |!Ì ÐÌò òà ¸ àSouth€Americaó óà À àColumbiaà‘ll6Èà1ˆà‘’’>xà1.9ˆÐ r# Ðà ¸ àà À àUruguayà‘ll6Èà1ˆà‘’’>xà1.9ˆÐ m$½  Ðà ¸ àà À àVenezuelaà‘ll6Èà1ˆà‘’’>xà1.9ˆÐ h%¸ ! Ðà ¸ àà À àTotalà‘ll6Èà3ˆà‘’’>xà5.7ˆÐ c&³!" Ðà ¸ àÌà ¸ àà À àGrand€Totalà‘5Èà53ˆà‘ÚÚ<xà100.0ˆÐ Y(©#$ ÐÔ#†X´’X &&<ÿs9#Ôò òÑ€a@¸ÑÑ€b¿r ÑÑ€c@¸ÑÑ€d¿r ÑÑ€e@¸ ÑÑ€f¿r ÑÑ€g@¸ ÑÑ€h@¸ÑÌÔ'µ&°¶8ÔÓ@†Ç+ññzu*Å%!!11!Â8@ÓÐ  u*Å%& ÐÑ€U¿rÑÑ€S@¸ ÑÓ5‡E°5Óà@e e àTable€6.3€Frequency€of€participation€in€#friends€chatroomˆÌÌòòÓ9` p Ø'™X¸ ÀÈxÐ Ø'™X9ÓÔ‡&<ÿ &XX´’Ôà ` àFrequency€of€Useóóà‘221pàòòòòfóóóóˆà‘hh; àòò%óóˆÐ S ÐÌà ` àó óseveral€times€a€dayà‘¸¸0pà17ˆà‘ÞÞ8 à32.1ˆÐ ùI Ðà ` àonce€a€dayà‘1pà6ˆà‘ÞÞ8 à11.3ˆÐ ô D Ðà ` àa€few€times€a€weekà‘¸¸0pà17ˆà‘ÞÞ8 à32.1ˆÐ ï ? Ðà ` àonce€a€weekà‘1pà5ˆà‘::9 à9.4ˆÐ ê : Ðà ` àa€few€times€a€monthà‘1pà5ˆà‘::9 à9.4ˆÐ å 5 Ðà ` àonce€a€month€or€lessà‘1pà3ˆà‘::9 à5.7ˆÐ à 0  Ðà ` àTotalà‘¸¸0pà53ˆà‘  9 à100ˆÐ Û+  ÐÔ#†X´’X &&<ÿ!F#ÔÓ@†h *" Gæ6 !!11!bE@ÓÌÓÓò òOn-line€Friendships€in€#friendsó óÐ Ö&  Ðà ` àAltogether,€34€of€the€53€respondents€(64.2%)€indicated€that€they€regularly€talkÏwith€specific€people€in€#friends€on€a€frequent€basis.€For€this€indicator,€the€95%Ïconfidence€interval€was€found€to€be€ðð12.9%.€€This€indicates€that€the€populationÏpercentage€of€#friends€users€that€regularly€talk€with€people€in€#friends€on€a€frequent€basisÏappears€to€be€at€least€51.3%€but€no€more€than€77.1%.€€This€suggests€that€for€the€majorityÏof€users,€the€#friends€chatroom€serves€as€a€forum€for€regular€communication€with€specificÏpeople.€€€Ìà ` àIn€total,€36€of€the€53€respondents€(67.9%)€stated€that€they€did€consider€some€ofÏthe€people€they€talked€with€through€#friends€to€be€close€friends.€€For€this€indicator,€theÏ95%€confidence€interval€was€found€to€be€ðð12.6%.€€Thus,€the€population€percentage€ofÏ#friends€users€that€perceive€themselves€as€having€developed€close€friendship€ties€throughÏ#friends€is€95%€likely€to€fall€between€55.3€%€and€80.5%.€€€This€suggests€that€the€majorityÏof€the€population€of€#friends€users€would€perceive€themselves€as€having€developed€closeÏfriendships€with€others€through€participating€in€the€chat€room.€€Ð +f&( ÐÑ`¿rMÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑ`¿rDÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññà ` àOn€average,€respondents€in€the€sample€stated€that€they€had€developed€closeÏfriendships€with€approximately€5€other€persons€through€#friends€(mean=5.12).€€A€95%Ïconfidence€interval€was€ðð.94.€€Thus,€the€population€mean€for€the€number€of€close€friendsÏdeveloped€through€participation€in€#friends€is€95%€likely€to€fall€between€4€and€6€persons.€Ïò òNature€of€On-Line€relationships€in€#friendsó óÐ 0 € Ðà ` àIn€general,€the€establishment€of€friendships€with€others€was€found€to€be€the€mostÏimportant€reason€for€participating€in€#friends.€€As€one€respondent€put€it,€the€mostÏimportant€reason€for€participating€in€friends€is:ÌÓÓà0 ` àTo€make€friends€...€real€friends€who€go€beyond€the€scope€of€being€just€anÏacquaintance€for€casual€chat.€I€strongly€look€upon€the€Internet€as€a€€medium€toÏmake€the€world€a€smaller€place,€through€better€understanding€of€cultures€andÏregional€habit.€To€a€large€extent,€our€environment€imposes€a€large€number€ofÏhabits€on€us,€habits€that€are€considered€"crude"€and€"not€classy".€It€is€my€endeavorÏto€discover€these€traits€and€adapt€myself€to€them,€so€that€I€become€a€part€of€aÏreally€global€family.€The€basic€purpose€of€the€Internet€/€IRC€should€be€to€serve€asÏa€zone€where€such€"habits"€and€"environments"€break€down€(gimme€a€prize€forÏidealism€:-))Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓÓThe€intensity€of€this€quote€illustrates€the€passionate€feelings€of€some€#friends€users€aboutÏthe€importance€of€participating€in€the€chatroom€in€order€to€make€friends.€€The€part€of€theÏfirst€sentence€of€the€quote€which€reads€"real€friends€who€go€beyond€the€scope€of€being€Ïjust€an€acquaintance€for€casual€chat"€€illustrates€precisely€the€kind€of€strong€friendshipÏties€that€make€up€"community."Ìà ` àThe€data€for€the€characteristics€of€close€friendship€ties€developed€in€#friendsÏrevealed€that€the€majority€of€respondents€in€the€sample€had€established€at€least€oneÏfriendship€tie€that€they€perceived€as€involving€some€form€of€emotional€attachment,Ïintimacy,€and€a€reciprocal€exchange€of€services.€€In€total,€64.2%€of€the€respondents€in€theÐ ,`'* ÐÑh@¸NÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑh@¸NÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑh@¸EÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññsample€stated€that€they€had€developed€a€close€friendship€tie€in€#friends€where€the€personsÏprovided€each€other€with€help€concerning€personal€problems€(see€Table€6.4).€€Out€of€theÏ36€respondents€stating€that€they€had€developed€close€friendship€ties€in€#friends,€the€meanÏpercentage€of€close€friendship€ties€with€this€characteristic€was€estimated€to€be€71.6%.€€ToÏput€this€another€way,€on€average,€an€estimated€7€out€of€every€10€close€friendship€tiesÏdeveloped€in€#friends€had€this€attribute.€Ìà ` àIn€addition,€58.5%€of€the€respondents€in€the€sample€stated€that€they€had€developedÏa€close€friendship€tie€in€#friends€where€the€persons€strongly€cared€about€each€otherððs€wellÏbeing,€or€talked€about€close€personal€matters€that€were€important€to€them€(see€Table€6.4).€ÏOut€of€the€36€respondents€stating€that€they€had€developed€close€friendship€ties€in€#friendsÏthe€mean€percentage€of€close€friendship€ties€with€each€of€these€characteristics€wasÏestimated€to€be€64.9%€and€57.9%,€respectively.€€These€findings€suggest€that€the€majorityÏof€friendship€ties€developed€in€#friends€were€found€to€be€characterized€by€these€forms€ofÏintimacy€and/or€attachment,€also€implying€that€these€relationships€involve€a€reciprocalÏexchange€of€services€between€the€persons€involved.€Ìà ` àIn€contrast,€friendship€ties€in€#friends€based€on€romantic€involvement€or€familyÏrelations€were€found€to€occur€much€less€frequently.€€In€total,€20.8%€of€the€respondentsÏstated€that€they€had€developed€at€least€one€close€friendship€tie€in€#friends€where€theÏpersons€were€romantically€involved€(see€Table€6.4).€€Out€of€36€persons€who€hadÏdeveloped€close€ties€via€#friends,€the€mean€percentage€of€close€friendship€ties€with€thisÏcharacteristic€was€estimated€to€be€14%.€€Only€1€out€of€the€53€respondents€(1.9%)€statedÏthat€he€had€developed€at€least€one€close€friendship€tie€in€#friends€involving€familyÐ ,`'* Ðrelations.ÌÔ*`ƒ\i ddcdd Fdd !((#(#`ÔÔ,× << ÔÔ,ô<< ÔÔ,±<< ÔÔ,[<< ÔÔ,}<< ÔÔ+  ÔÐ 7€& à €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„……7ÐÓÓÓ  Óò òÔ& Ä ÔTable€6.4Ð h ÐCharacteristics€of€Close€Friendship€Ties€Developed€in€#friendsÐ OE-XC! ˆ ‘  €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„OÐÓ  ÓòòòŒòòŽòòŒòòŽòÌÌÌCharacteristicԇ³\ÂXX´’ÔóŒóóŒóó óóŽóóŽóóó*Ð 'P  C! „C„'ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ#†X´’X³\C3  S@76 S@ ÍÌÌÌÌÌ?@31.8„C„‰ÍÌÌÌÌÌ?@‰iÐ31.8Ð ka4øH?C3 ÍÌÌÌÌÌ?@31.8 ÍÌÌÌÌÌ?@ ffffffJ@52.8„C„‰ffffffJ@‰kÐ52.8Ð aW?øH@C3 ffffffJ@52.8 x ‘ ffffffJ@ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„aÐԇ³\ÂXX´’Ô3-4€yearsÔ#†X´’X³\Ç#ÔÐ F<`°AC  @6„C„‰@‰FÐ6Ð h^1`°BC3  @6 @ š™™™™™&@11.3„C„‰š™™™™™&@‰hÐ11.3Ð i_4`°CC3 š™™™™™&@11.3 š™™™™™&@  @@32„C„‰@@‰iÐ32Ð i_2`°DC3  @@32 @@ ÍÌÌÌÌÌ*@13.4„C„‰ÍÌÌÌÌÌ*@‰iÐ13.4Ð ka4`°EC3 ÍÌÌÌÌÌ*@13.4 ÍÌÌÌÌÌ*@ 33333³0@16.7„C„‰33333³0@‰kÐ16.7Ð h€W?`°FC3 33333³0@16.7 x ‘ 33333³0@ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„hÐԇ³\ÂXX´’Ô5€or€more€yearsÔ#†X´’X³\t„#ÔÐ Z€IÈGC  @5„C„‰@‰ZÐ5Ð {€j>ÈHC3  @5 @ ÍÌÌÌÌÌ"@9.4„C„‰ÍÌÌÌÌÌ"@‰{Ð9.4Ð {€j@ÈIC3 ÍÌÌÌÌÌ"@9.4 ÍÌÌÌÌÌ"@   @8„C„‰ @‰{Ð8Ð {€j>ÈJC3   @8  @ ffffff @3.3„C„‰ffffff @‰{Ð3.3Ð ~€m@ÈKC3 ffffff @3.3 ffffff @ ÍÌÌÌÌÌ+@13.9„C„‰ÍÌÌÌÌÌ+@‰~Ð13.9Ð\RPÈLC3 ÍÌÌÌÌÌ+@13.9 x ‘  ÍÌÌÌÌÌ+@ \ÐÌÔ'˜vÔÌÓÓò òTraditional€Face-to-Face€Relationships€Outside€of€€Cyberspaceó óÐ ¨øN Ѐ€à ` àIn€total,€49€out€of€the€53€respondents€(92.5%)€stated€that€they€had€closeÐ ˆ ØP Ðrelationships€with€other€people€that€they€met€and€got€to€know€outside€of€Cyberspace€(i.e.Ïoutside€of€chatting€on€the€computer).€€For€this€indicator,€the€95%€confidence€interval€wasÏfound€to€be€ðð7.1%.€€This€indicates€that€the€population€percentage€of€#friends€users€€thatÏappears€to€be€at€least€85.4%€but€no€more€than€99.6%.Ìà ` àOn€average,€respondents€in€this€sample€stated€that€they€had€developed€closeÏfriendships€with€approximately€7€other€persons€(mean=7.27)€outside€of€Cyberspace.€€TheÐ È+'\ ÐÑa@¸QÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑa@¸QÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑa@¸HÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññ95%€confidence€interval€for€this€estimate€was€found€to€be€Ô#†X´’XXX´’íy#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’ÔððÔ#†X´’XXX´’G‹#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’Ô1.6.€€This€means€that€there€isÐ ° Ða€95%€likelihood€that€for€the€population€of€#friends€users,€the€average€number€of€closeÏfriendship€ties€of€respondents€is€between€about€6€and€8€close€friendship€ties.ÌÔ#†X´’XXX´’‹#Ôà ` àThe€data€for€the€characteristics€of€close€friendship€ties€developed€outside€ofÐ P   ÐCyberspace€revealed€that€the€majority€of€respondents€in€the€sample€had€established€atÏleast€one€friendship€tie€that€they€perceived€as€involving€some€form€of€emotionalÏattachment,€intimacy,€and€a€reciprocal€exchange€of€services.€€In€total,€84.9%€of€theÏrespondents€in€the€sample€stated€that€they€had€developed€a€close€friendship€tie€outside€ofÏCyberspace€where€the€persons€strongly€cared€about€each€otherððs€well€being€(see€TableÏ6.6).€€Out€of€the€49€respondents€stating€that€they€had€developed€close€friendship€tiesÏoutside€of€Cyberspace,€the€mean€percentage€of€close€friendship€ties€with€thisÏcharacteristic€was€estimated€to€be€80.1%.€€To€put€this€another€way,€on€average,€anÏestimated€8€out€of€every€10€close€friendship€ties€developed€outside€of€Cyberspace€had€thisÏattribute.€€Among€those€respondents€that€stated€they€had€a€close€tie€outside€ofÏCyberspace,€91.8%€had€this€characteristic.€Ìà ` àIn€addition,€81.1%€of€the€respondents€in€the€sample€stated€that€they€had€developedÏa€close€friendship€tie€outside€of€Cyberspace€where€the€persons€talked€about€close€personalÏmatters€that€were€important€to€them€(see€Table€6.6).€€Out€of€the€49€respondents€statingÏthat€they€had€developed€close€friendship€ties€outside€of€Cyberspace€the€mean€percentageÏof€close€friendship€ties€with€this€characteristic€was€estimated€to€be€60.3%.€€About€threeÏquarters€of€respondents€(75.5%,€40€respondents)€indicated€that€they€provided€helpÏconcerning€personal€problems€to€at€least€one€close€friendship€tie€outside€of€Cyberspace.€Ð ,`'* ÐAmong€those€respondents€that€stated€they€had€a€close€tie€outside€of€Cyberspace,€81.6%Ïhad€this€characteristic.€These€findings€suggest€that€the€majority€of€friendship€tiesÏdeveloped€outside€of€Cyberspace€were€found€to€be€characterized€by€these€forms€ofÏintimacy€and/or€attachment,€also€implying€that€these€relationships€involve€a€reciprocalÏexchange€of€services€between€the€persons€involved.€Ìà ` àAs€was€the€case€for€close€friendship€ties€developed€in€#friends,€close€friendshipÏties€outside€of€Cyberspace€based€on€romantic€involvement€or€family€relations€were€foundÏto€occur€much€less€frequently.€€In€total,€34.0%€of€the€respondents€stated€that€they€hadÏdeveloped€at€least€one€close€friendship€tie€outside€of€Cyberspace€where€the€persons€wereÏromantically€involved€€(see€Table€6.6).€€Out€of€49€persons€who€had€developed€close€tiesÏoutside€of€Cyberspace,€the€mean€percentage€of€close€friendship€ties€with€thisÏcharacteristic€was€estimated€to€be€13.2%.€€A€total€of€8€out€of€the€53€respondents€(15.1%)Ïstated€that€he€had€developed€at€least€one€close€friendship€tie€outside€of€CyberspaceÏinvolving€family€relations.Ô‡X´’XXX´’Ôâ âÐ ` ÐÑc@¸SÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑc@¸SÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑc@¸JÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÔ*¤ƒ[k dd Xxx ,xx ,xx ,xx ,xx ]j(#(#¤ÔÔ, dd ÔÔ,Xdd#ÔÔ,ˆdd#ÔÔ,ˆdd#ÔÔ,ˆdd#ÔÔ+  ÔÐ 7€& ° €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„……7ÐÓÓÓ  ÓÔ& Ð Ôâ âà@@¥¥ àò òTable€6.6€€Ð 8ˆ ÐCharacteristics€of€Close€Friendship€Ties€Developed€Outside€of€CyberspaceÐ OE-(xC! ˆ ‘  €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„OÐÓ´™ÓÔ‡ôeI ôXX´’ÔÓ  ÓÔ#†ôeI ô ôôeIy—#ÔòòòŒòòŽòÌÌÌÌCharacteristicóŒóó óóŽóóó*€€Ð 'À C! „C„'ÐÓ  Óòòò òòòÌÌÌÌfóóó óóóÐ 'À  C! „C„'Ðò òòòÌÌ%€of€totalÏsampleóóó óÐ ø H Ðò ò(n=53)ó óÐ 'À C3 „C„'Ðò òòòÌ%€of€personsÏthat€stated€theyÏhad€a€close€tieó óóóÐ ø H Ðò ò(n=49)ó óÐ 'À C3 „C„'Ðò òòòMeanÐ  ð Ðpercentage€of€Ïclose€friendshipÏties€withÏcharacteristicóóó óÐ ?5À C3 x ‘ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„?Ðwe€strongly€care€about€eachÏother's€personal€well€beingÐ G=È C  €F@45„C„‰€F@‰GÐ45Ð i_2 PC  €F@45 €F@ š™™™™9U@84.9„C„‰š™™™™9U@‰iÐ84.9Ð ka4 PC3 š™™™™9U@84.9 š™™™™9U@ 33333óV@91.8„C„‰33333óV@‰kÐ91.8Ð I?4 P C3 33333óV@91.8 33333óV@ „C„IÐ80.1Ð ?5 P!C3 x ‘ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„?Ðwe€talk€about€close€personalÏmatters€that€are€importantÐ G=Ð #C  €E@43„C„‰€E@‰GÐ43Ð i_2X $C  €E@43 €E@ fffffFT@81.1„C„‰fffffFT@‰iÐ81.1Ð ka4X %C3 fffffFT@81.1 fffffFT@ 33333óU@87.8„C„‰33333óU@‰kÐ87.8Ð I?4X &C3 33333óU@87.8 33333óU@ „C„IÐ60.3Ð ?5X 'C3 x ‘ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„?Ðwe€provide€each€other€withÏhelp€concerning€personalÏproblemsÐ G= ð *C  D@40„C„‰D@‰GÐ40Ð i_2` +C  D@40 D@ àR@75.5„C„‰àR@‰iÐ75.5Ð ka4` ,C3 àR@75.5 àR@ ffffffT@81.6„C„‰ffffffT@‰kÐ81.6Ð I?4` -C3 ffffffT@81.6 ffffffT@ „C„IÐ69.1Ð ?5` .C3 x ‘ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„?Ðwe€are"romantically"€involvedÐ G=à0/C  2@18„C„‰2@‰GÐ18Ð i_2à00C  2@18 2@ A@34.0„C„‰A@‰iÐ34.0Ð ka4à01C3 A@34.0 A@ š™™™™YB@36.7„C„‰š™™™™YB@‰kÐ36.7Ð I?4à02C3 š™™™™YB@36.7 š™™™™YB@ „C„IÐ13.2Ð ?5à03C3 x ‘ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„?Ðwe€are€related€by€familyÐ F< p4C   @8„C„‰ @‰FЀ€8Ð h^1 p5C   @8  @ 333333.@15.1„C„‰333333.@‰hÐ15.1Ð ka4 p6C3 333333.@15.1 333333.@ ÍÌÌÌÌL0@16.3„C„‰ÍÌÌÌÌL0@‰kÐ16.3Ð I?4 p7C3 ÍÌÌÌÌL0@16.3 ÍÌÌÌÌL0@ „C„IÐ6.1Ð J€9 p8C3 x ‘ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„……JÐÔ#†X´’X ôôeI²š#ÔÐ=31`°9C x ‘   =ÐÔ‡ôeI ôXX´’Ô*Categories€are€not€mutually€exclusiveÔ#†X´’X ôôeIݦ#ÔÐ `°9 ÐÓÓÔ'Ð8À™ÔÌà ` àThe€data€for€the€duration€of€ties€revealed€that€the€majority€of€close€friendship€ties€Ìdeveloped€outside€of€Cyberspace€(62.2%)€had€lasted€for€three€years€or€more€(see€TableÏ6.7).€€€Out€of€he€46€persons€who€stated€they€had€developed€a€close€friendship€tie€outsideÏof€Cyberspace,€56.5%€had€at€least€one€tie€that€had€been€established€for€5€or€more€years€inÏlength,€while€50.0%€had€at€least€one€close€tie€that€had€been€established€between€1€and€2Ïyears€in€length.€Moreover,€45.2%€of€the€total€friendship€ties€established€outside€ofÏCyberspace€had€been€established€for€5€or€more€years€in€length€while€25.0%€of€the€totalÏties€had€been€established€between€1€and€2€years.€€Thus,€the€majority€of€all€close€tiesÏ(62.2%)€outside€of€Cyberspace€had€been€established€for€3€or€more€years.€Ìà ` àOnly€8.6%€of€all€close€ties€developed€outside€of€Cyberspace€had€been€establishedÏless€than€6€months€(see€Table€6.7).€€Thus,€37.8%€of€all€close€ties€outside€of€CyberspaceÐ È+'P ÐÑb¿rTÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑb¿rTÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑb¿rKÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññhad€been€established€for€two€years€or€less.€€In€total,€only€12.8%€of€the€close€friendshipÏties€established€in€#friends€had€been€in€existence€for€less€than€1€year.ÌÌÔ*“ƒZl dd dd Xdd#ˆdd#ˆdd#ˆdd#[k(#(#“ÔÔ, dd ÔÔ,Xdd#ÔÔ,,dd#ÔÔ,,dd#ÔÔ,,dd#ÔÔ,,dd#ÔÔ+  ÔÐ 7€& P   €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„……7ÐÔ&   ÔÓÓÓ  Óò òTable€6.7Ð Ø ( ÐDuration€of€close€friendship€ties€developed€outside€of€Cyberspaceó óÐ OE-È C! ˆ ‘  €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„OÐÔ‡ôeI ôXX´’ÔÓ  Óòòò òòŒòòŽòÌÌÌÌÌDurationóŒóó óóŽóóóÐ '(x C! „C„'Ðòòòòò òÌÌÌÌÌfó óóóóóÐ '(x C3 „C„'Ðòòò òÌÌÌ%of€totalÏsampleóóÐ `°  Ð(n=53)ó óÐ '(x C3 „C„'Ðòòò òÌTotalÏNumber€ofÏcloseÏfriendshipÏtiesó óóóÐ '(x C3 „C„'Ðò òòòÌÌÌÌ%€of€allÏclose€tiesóóó óÐ '(x &C3 „C„'Ðòòò ò%€ofÐ @ ' ÐpersonsÏthat€statedÏthey€had€aÏclose€tieÏóó(n=46)ó óÐ ?5(x ,C3 x ‘ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„?ÐÔ‡ôeI ô ôôeIÔless€than€6€monthsÐ G=h¸ -C  &@11„C„‰&@‰GÐ11Ð i_2h¸ .C3  &@11 &@ ÍÌÌÌÌÌ4@20.8„C„‰ÍÌÌÌÌÌ4@‰iÐ20.8Ð i_4h¸ /C3 ÍÌÌÌÌÌ4@20.8 ÍÌÌÌÌÌ4@  ;@27„C„‰;@‰iÐ27Ð h^2h¸ 0C3  ;@27 ;@ 333333!@8.6„C„‰333333!@‰hÐ8.6Ð j`3h¸ 1C3 333333!@8.6 333333!@ fffffæ7@23.9„C„‰fffffæ7@‰jÐ23.9Ð aW?h¸ 2C3 fffffæ7@23.9 x ‘ fffffæ7@ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„aÐless€than€1€year€but€more€thanÏ6€monthsÐ F<pÀ4C  @4„C„‰@‰FÐ4Ð g]1¨ø5C3  @4 @ @7.5„C„‰@‰gÐ7.5Ð h^3¨ø6C3 @7.5 @  *@13„C„‰*@‰hÐ13Ð h^2¨ø7C3  *@13 *@ ÍÌÌÌÌÌ@4.2„C„‰ÍÌÌÌÌÌ@‰hÐ4.2Ð i_3¨ø8C3 ÍÌÌÌÌÌ@4.2 ÍÌÌÌÌÌ@ ffffff!@8.7„C„‰ffffff!@‰iÐ8.7Ð `V>¨ø9C3 ffffff!@8.7 x ‘ ffffff!@ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„`Ð1-2€yearsÐ G=°:C  7@23„C„‰7@‰GÐ23Ð i_2°;C3  7@23 7@ 33333³E@43.4„C„‰33333³E@‰iÐ43.4Ð i_4°<C3 33333³E@43.4 33333³E@  €S@78„C„‰€S@‰iÐ78Ð i_2°=C3  €S@78 €S@ 9@25.0„C„‰9@‰iÐ25.0Ð ka4°>C3 9@25.0 9@ I@50.0„C„‰I@‰kÐ50.0Ð aW?°?C3 I@50.0 x ‘ I@ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„aÐ3-4€yearsÐ G=ð@@C  ,@14„C„‰,@‰GÐ14Ð i_2ð@AC3  ,@14 ,@ ffffff:@26.4„C„‰ffffff:@‰iÐ26.4Ð i_4ð@BC3 ffffff:@26.4 ffffff:@  €J@53„C„‰€J@‰iÐ53Ð i_2ð@CC3  €J@53 €J@ 1@17.0„C„‰1@‰iÐ17.0Ð ka4ð@DC3 1@17.0 1@ ffffff>@30.4„C„‰ffffff>@‰kÐ30.4Ð h€W?ð@EC3 ffffff>@30.4 x ‘ ffffff>@ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„hÐ5€or€more€yearsÐ [€J0€FC  :@26„C„‰:@‰[Ð26Ð }€l?0€GC3  :@26 :@ ÍÌÌÌÌŒH@49.1„C„‰ÍÌÌÌÌŒH@‰}Ð49.1Ð ~€mA0€HC3 ÍÌÌÌÌŒH@49.1 ÍÌÌÌÌŒH@  a@141„C„‰ a@‰~Ð141Ð ~€m@0€IC3  a@141  a@ š™™™™™F@45.2„C„‰š™™™™™F@‰~Ð45.2Ð €nA0€JC3 š™™™™™F@45.2 š™™™™™F@ @L@56.5„C„‰@L@‰Ð56.5Ô#†X´’X ôôeIÔ®#ÔÐ\RP0€KC3 @L@56.5 x ‘  @L@ \ÐÔ' Ø ö­ÔÌÓÓà ` àIn€all,€23€out€of€the€53€respondents€(43.4%)Ô‡ Ñ XX´’Ô€Ô#†X´’X  ÑK¾#Ôindicated€that€at€least€one€of€theirÐ øHL Ðclose€friends€had,€at€one€time,€lived€in€the€same€location€as€they€themselves€did,€but€nowÏlived€elsewhere.€€For€this€indicator,€the€95%€confidence€interval€was€found€to€be€ðð13.3%.€ÏThis€indicates€that€the€population€percentage€of€#friends€users€that€have€at€least€one€closeÏfriend€that€at€one€time€lived€in€the€same€location€but€now€live€elsewhere€appears€to€be€atÏleast€30.1%€but€no€more€than€56.7%.€This€signifies€that€it€is€possible,€though€not€highlyÏlikely,€that€a€majority€(€>€50%)€of€the€population€of€#friends€users€had€nonlocalÏcommunal€ties€which€were€initially€established€when€the€person€involved€lived€inÏâ âproximity.€€Ð ˜)è$\ ÐÑe@¸UÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑe@¸UÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑe@¸LÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññà ` àAmong€the€valid€responses,€respondents€had€an€average€of€about€8€close€face„to„¼â âface€friendship€ties€outside€of€Cyberspace€(Mean€=€8.5).€€Out€of€these€8€or€so€closeÏfriendship€ties,€an€average€of€about€3€close€friendship€ties€were€non„local€(Mean€=€3.42).ÏOut€of€these€non„local€friendship€ties€of€respondents,€roughly€67.8%€(or€2€out€of€3)€non„¼local€friendship€ties€once€lived€in€the€same€location€but€now€live€elsewhere.€€€Out€of€theseÏ8€or€so€close€friendship€ties,€an€average€of€about€5€(mean€=€5.09)€close€friendship€tiesÏwere€local€in€nature.€This€indicates€that€proximity€does€appear€to€be€an€important€factorÏin€the€formation€and€maintenance€of€close€face„to„face€friendship€ties€that€exist€outside€ofÏCyberspace.€€Ô#†X´’XXX´’!±#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’ÔÐ ° Ðà ` à€A€total€of€14€out€of€the€53€respondents€(26.4%)€indicated€that€one€or€bothÏtraveled€to€meet€face-to-faceÔ‡ Ñ XX´’Ô€Ô#†X´’X  Ñ•Å#Ôwith€their€friends€who€once€lived€in€the€same€location€asÐ pÀ Ðthey€did.€€€Given€this,€it€can€be€reasonably€concluded€that€a€fair€number€of€relationshipsÏ›with€others€living€in€a€different€location€œresulted€in€face-to-face€contact€at€some€point.€€Ìà ` àIn€total,€14€of€€the€53€respondents€(26.4%)€indicated€that€they€talked€over€theÏtelephone€with€their€friends€who€had€once€lived€in€the€same€location€as€they€did.ÏAdditionally,€19€out€of€the€53€respondents€(35.8%)€€indicated€that€they€used€e-mail€toÏcommunicate€with€their€friends€who€had€once€lived€in€the€same€location.€€About€54.2%€ofÏthose€who€responded€to€question€7-G2€indicated€that€they€wrote€letters€to€their€friendsÏwho€had€once€lived€in€the€same€location€as€they€did.€€In€total,€6€out€of€those€that€answeredÏquestion€7-G2€indicated€an€"other"€response,€meaning€that€they€communicated€with€theirÏfriends€by€some€other€means€than€what€was€listed.€Two€examples€given€for€the€otherÐ Ð* &( ÐÑd¿rVÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑd¿rVÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑd¿rMÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññcategory€were€FAXes,€and€ICQ.€€Only€7€out€of€the€53€respondents€(13.2%)€€indicated€thatÏthere€are€persons€they€talk€with€through€#friends€that€they€first€met€face-to-face.€€This€lowÏnumber€would€seem€to€indicate€that€participants€of€#friends€are€not€using€this€medium€to€Ïmaintain€once€existing€face-to-face€ties,€but€that€they€are€using€#friends€to€form€newÏfriendship€ties.€€For€those€who€did€use€#friends€to€maintain€contact€with€once€existingÏface-to-face€ties,€however,€the€mean€number€of€friends€that€did€use€#friends€to€maintainÏties€with€€was€about€2€friends€(Mean€=€2.33).€Ì€Ô#†X´’XXX´’ìÄ#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’Ôò òThe€Relationship€Between€Close€Ties€in€#friends€&€Close€Ties€Outside€Cyberspaceó óÐ Ð  Ðà ` àThe€data€for€close€friendship€ties€indicate€that€the€majority€of€respondents€tendedÏto€have€close€friendship€ties,€both€in€#friends,€and€outside€of€Cyberspace.€€In€total,€66.7%Ï(34/53)€of€the€respondents€reported€having€at€least€one€close€tie€in€#friends€and€at€leastÏone€close€tie€outside€of€Cyberspace€(see€Table€6.8).€€€Additionally,€25.5%€of€theÏrespondents€(13/53)€reported€having€at€least€one€close€friendship€tie€outside€ofÏCyberspace€while€having€no€close€friendship€ties€in€#friends.€€The€opposite€scenario€wasÏfound€to€be€much€more€infrequent€in€the€sample.€€Only€1€respondent€out€of€53€(1.9%)Ïreported€having€close€friends€in€#friends,€while€having€no€close€friendship€ties€outside€ofÏCyberspace.€€Further,€only€3€respondents€reported€having€no€close€friendship€ties€in€eitherÏsocial€situation.€€These€data€suggest€that€contrary€to€stereotypes,€participants€in€theÏ#friends€chatroom€tend€not€to€be€reclusive€Internet€users€that€avoid€developing€any€closeÏsocial€relationships€with€others€outside€of€Cyberspace.€Ìò òâ âÐ 0*€%( ÐÑg@¸WÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑg@¸WÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑg@¸NÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÔ*ªƒYmdd dd Xdd#,dd#,dd#,dd#,dd#Zl(#(#ªÔÔ,—dt ÔÔ,Stt ÔÔ,½tt ÔÔ,çtd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ :€) ° €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„……‹‹:Ðâ âÓÓÓ  ÓÔ& p ÔTable€6.8Ì€€Joint€Distribution€of€respondents€with€close€friends€in€#friends€vs.€thoseÏwith€close€friends€outside€of€Cyberspace.€ó óÐ h ÐÓ  ÓÐ QG-XC ˆ ‘  ‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„……‹‹QÐÐ D:( àC ˆ  €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ‹‹DÐÔ‡ôeI ôXX´’ÔÐ 3€$ X „C„‹‹3ÐÔ#†ôeI ô ôôeIšÌ#ÔHave€No€CloseÐ  X ÐFriendship€ties€outsideÏCyberspaceÐ <€-˜ è C3 „C„‹‹<ÐHave€CloseÏFriendship€tiesÏoutside€CyberspaceÐ @€-˜ è C3 „C„‹‹@ÐTotalÐ R€E* X C3 x ‘  €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„‹‹RÐHave€No€Close€FriendshipÏTies€in€#friendsÐ 9€*À C „C„9Ð3Ì€5.88%Ð 9€*À C3 „C„9Ð13Ì25.49%Ð =€*À C3 „C„=Ð16Ì31.37%Ð R€E*À C3 ˆ ‘  €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„‹‹RÐHave€Close€Friendship€TiesÏin€#friendsÐ 9€*è8 C „C„9Ð1Ì1.96%Ð 9€*è8 C3 „C„9Ð34Ì66.67%Ð =€*è8 C3 „C„=Ð35Ì68.63%Ð V€E*è8 C3 ˆ ‘  €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„‹‹VÐTotalÐ ;€*H˜ C „C„;Ð4Ì7.84%Ð ;€*` C3 „C„;Ð47Ì92.16%Ð =€*`"C3 „C„=Ð53Ì100.0%Ô#†X´’X ôôeI—Ô#ÔÐ:0.`$C3 ˆ ‘   :ÐÌÔ‡X´’XXX´’ÔÓÓÔ'p8QÓÔà ` àA€correlational€analysis,€however,€between€the€number€of€strong€ties€in€#friendsÐ È% Ðand€the€number€of€strong€ties€outside€of€Cyberspace€revealed€an€insignificant,€positiveÏcorrelation€that€would€be€weak€in€magnitude,€at€best,€in€the€case€of€a€Type€II€errorÏ(r=.2749,€p=.0514).€€This€suggests€that€the€number€of€close€ties€developed€in€#friends€andÏthe€number€of€close€ties€developed€outside€of€Cyberspace€is€independent.€€Thus,€thoseÏthat€develop€a€large€number€of€strong€ties€outside€of€Cyberspace€do€no€tend€to€develop€aÏhigh€number€of€strong€ties€in€#friends€and€vice€versa.€€Nor,€do€those€with€a€large€numberÏof€strong€ties€in€one€social€situation€tend€to€develop€a€small€number€in€the€other.€€ÌÔ#†X´’XXX´’Ú#ÔÔ‡X´’XXX´’Ôò òThe€Effects€of€Internet€Participation€on€Other€Activitiesó óÐ È#5 Ѐà ` àA€total€of€39€out€of€the€53€respondents€(73.6%)€indicated€that€they€believed€thatÐ ¨%ø 7 Ðthe€time€they€spent€on€the€Internet€had€an€important€effect€on€their€participation€in€otherÏactivities.€€The€major€impact€of€time€spent€on€the€Internet€however,€was€on€time€spentÏwatching€television.€€Nearly€two-thirds€of€the€respondents€(35€respondents,€66%)Ð H+˜&= ÐÑ f¿rXS@¸XÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑ f¿rXS@¸XÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ f¿rOS@¸OÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññindicated€that€they€spend€less€time€watching€TV€as€a€result€of€their€Internet€use€(see€TableÏ6.9).€€€Seven€or€fewer€respondents€reported€that€spending€time€on€the€Internet€resulted€inÏspending€less€time€on€schoolwork,€less€time€with€friends,€or€less€time€with€family.€€ThisÏsuggests€that€Internet€use€among€#friends€participants€is€largely€a€recreational€activityÏthat€replaces€television€viewing€during€leisure€time.ÌÔ*ˆƒOQdd—dt Stt ½tt çtd Ym(#(#ˆÔÔ,Ldd ÔÔ,Ìdd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ $€ `  ……‹‹$ÐÓ  ÓÔ& l ÔÓÓò òTable€6.9Ð tÄ  ÐEffects€of€Internet€Participation€on€Other€Activitiesó óÐ 1'"d´   ‹‹1ÐÓ¢âÓò òCharacteristicó óÐ %è8  ‹‹%ÐÓ  Óòòòòò òfó óóóóóÐ .$è8 0 ‹‹.ÐÓŸãÓò òÓ  Óòò%€of€total€sampleóóó óÐ .$è8 0 ‹‹.ÐÓÿãÓspend€less€time€with€familyÐ D:l¼   @3‰@‰‹‹DÐÓ  Ó3Ð nd>l¼ 0  @3 @ ÍÌÌÌÌÌ@5.7‰ÍÌÌÌÌÌ@‰‹‹nÐÓÂäÓÓ  Ó5.7Ð OE@l¼ 0 ÍÌÌÌÌÌ@5.7 ÍÌÌÌÌÌ@ ‹‹OÐÓMåÓspend€less€time€with€friendsÐ D:ð@  @4‰@‰‹‹DÐÓ  Ó4Ð nd>ð@0  @4 @ @7.5‰@‰‹‹nÐÓæÓÓ  Ó7.5Ð OE@ð@0 @7.5 @ ‹‹OÐÓ¦æÓspend€less€time€watching€TVÐ E;tÄ  €A@35‰€A@‰‹‹EÐÓ  Ó35Ð pf?tÄ0  €A@35 €A@ €P@66.0‰€P@‰‹‹pÐÓtçÓÓ  Ó66.0Ð PFAtÄ0 €P@66.0 €P@ ‹‹PÐÓèÓspend€time€at€work€using€the€Internet€for€personal€reasonsÐ D:øH  @6‰@‰‹‹DÐÓ  Ó6Ð oe>øH0  @6 @ š™™™™™&@11.3‰š™™™™™&@‰‹‹oÐÓðèÓÓ  Ó11.3Ð PFAøH0 š™™™™™&@11.3 š™™™™™&@ ‹‹PÐÓ|éÓspend€less€time€on€schoolworkÐ D:|Ì  @7‰@‰‹‹DÐÓ  Ó7Ð oe>|Ì0  @7 @ ffffff*@13.2‰ffffff*@‰‹‹oÐÓMêÓÓ  Ó13.2Ð W€FA|Ì0 ffffff*@13.2 ffffff*@ ‹‹WÐÓÙêÓmissed€important€appointments€or€other€social€eventsÐ K€:P  ð?1‰ð?‰‹‹KÐÓ  Ó1Ð u€d>P 0  ð?1 ð? ffffffþ?1.9‰ffffffþ?‰‹‹uÐÓÏëÓÓ  ÓÓºâÓÔ'l t®âÔ1.9ÐPFDP!0 ffffffþ?1.9  ffffffþ? PÐÓaìÓ€€ò òÐ  p! ÐGeographic€Scale€of€Close€Friendship€Ties€in€#friendsó óÐ P# Ðà ` àThe€majority€of€close€friendship€ties€developed€in€#friends€were€found€to€be€crossÏnational€in€their€geographic€scale.€€In€total,€52.1%€of€the€total€close€friendship€tiesÏreported€by€respondents€involved€relationships€that€existed€across€national€boundariesÏ(see€Table€6.10).€€A€substantial€percentage€of€close€friendship€ties€in€#friends€wereÏnational€in€scale€and€extended€across€the€boundaries€of€states€or€provinces.€€An€estimatedÏ30.8%€of€the€close€friendship€ties€in€#friends€were€found€to€be€at€this€level€of€geographicÏscale.€€€The€findings€indicated€that€the€close€friendship€ties€developed€in€#friends€did€notÏtend€to€occur€at€more€proximate€geographic€scales.€€Only€4.3%€of€all€close€friendship€tiesÐ ,P'3 Ðinvolved€persons€living€in€the€same€city€or€town€while€only€7.7%€of€all€ties€involvedÏpersons€living€within€the€same€state€or€province.€€These€data€suggest€that€networks€ofÏclose€friendship€ties€in€#friends€tend€to€be€passive€and€diffuse€in€geographic€scale€and€areÏnot€characterized€by€physical€proximity.Ìà ` àÔ& ˆ ÔÌÔ*wƒXnddLdd Ìdd dd OQ(#(#wÔÔ,‡dd ÔÔ,£dd ÔÔ,«dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ 7€& `  €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„……7ÐÓ  Óò òTable€6.10€€Geographic€Scale€of€Close€Ties€in€#friendsÐ OE-˜è C! ˆ ‘  €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„OÐÔ‡ôeI ôXX´’ÔÌòòLocation€of€Close€Friendship€Tiesó óóóÐ ' ð C „C„'ÐÓ  Óòòò òòòfóóó óóóÐ '` C1 „C„'ÐÓ  Óòòò ò%ó óóóÐ ?5` C1 x ‘ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„?ÐÔ#†ôeI ô ôôeIFÝ#Ôwithin€cityÐ F<à0C  @5„C„‰@‰FÐÓ  Ó5Ð g]1à0C1  @5 @ 333333@4.3„C„‰333333@‰gÐÓ  Ó4.3Ð `V>à0C1 333333@4.3 x ‘ 333333@ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„`Ðwithin€state/provinceÐ F< pC  "@9„C„‰"@‰FÐÓ  Ó9Ð g]1 pC1  "@9 "@ ÍÌÌÌÌÌ@7.7„C„‰ÍÌÌÌÌÌ@‰gÐÓ  Ó7.7Ð `V> pC1 ÍÌÌÌÌÌ@7.7 x ‘ ÍÌÌÌÌÌ@ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„`Ðwithin€countryÐ G=`°C  B@36„C„‰B@‰GÐÓ  Ó36Ð i_2`°C1  B@36 B@ ÍÌÌÌÌÌ>@30.8„C„‰ÍÌÌÌÌÌ>@‰iÐÓ  Ó30.8Ð aW?`°C1 ÍÌÌÌÌÌ>@30.8 x ‘ ÍÌÌÌÌÌ>@ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„aÐcross€nationalÐ G= ðC  €N@61„C„‰€N@‰GÐÓ  Ó61Ð i_2 ðC1  €N@61 €N@ ÍÌÌÌÌ J@52.1„C„‰ÍÌÌÌÌ J@‰iÐÓ  Ó52.1Ð aW? ðC1 ÍÌÌÌÌ J@52.1 x ‘ ÍÌÌÌÌ J@ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„aÐunknownÐ F<à0C  @6„C„‰@‰FÐÓ  Ó6Ð g]1à0C1  @6 @ ffffff@5.1„C„‰ffffff@‰gÐÓ  Ó5.1Ð g€V>à0C1 ffffff@5.1 x ‘ ffffff@ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„gÐTotal€number€of€close€friendship€tiesÐ \€K p C @]@117„C„‰@]@‰\ÐÓ  Ó117Ð €n@ p!C1 @]@117 @]@ Y@100.0„C„‰Y@‰ÐÓ  Ó100.0Ô#†X´’X ôôeI0ó#ÔÐ]SQ p"C1 Y@100.0 x ‘  Y@ ]ÐÌò òÔ'ˆ0 †ñÔGeographic€Scale€of€Close€Friendship€Ties€Outside€of€Cyberspaceó óÐ Ø($ Ðà ` àThe€close€friendship€ties€developed€by€respondents€outside€of€Cyberspace€tendedÏto€exhibit€a€greater€degree€of€geographic€proximity€compared€to€close€ties€developed€inÏ#friends.€€An€estimated€39.3%€of€the€close€ties€developed€outside€of€Cyberspace€involvedÏpersons€within€the€same€city€or€town€(see€Table€6.11).€€An€additional€28.9%€involvedÏpersons€within€the€same€state€or€province.€€Thus,€over€two„thirds€of€the€total€closeÏfriendship€ties€developed€outside€of€Cyberspace€were€either€ð ðlocalðð€in€geographic€scaleÏâ â(i.e.,€within€the€same€city€or€town),€or€at€the€state€level.€€These€data€suggest€that€closeÐ ø(H$2 ÐÑU¿rZÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑU¿rZÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑU¿rQÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññsocial€ties€outside€of€Cyberspace€tend€to€be€more€geographically€circumscribed€withÏññÑU¿rZÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑU¿rZÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññspatial€proximity€playing€a€more€important€role€in€their€formation€and€maintenance.€€¹â âÑ  ÑÑ€o¿rÑÔ*wƒTpdd‡dd £dd «dd Xn(#(#wÔÔ,ßdd ÔÔ,€dd ÔÔ,vdd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ 7€& pÀ €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„……7ÐÔ& p ÔÓÓÓ  Óò òTable€6.11€€Ð øH ÐGeographic€Scale€of€Close€Ties€Outside€of€Cyberspaceó óÐ OE-è 8C! ˆ ‘  €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„OÐÔ‡ôeI ôXX´’Ôòòò òLocation€of€Close€Friendship€Tiesó óóóÐ '` °C „C„'ÐÓ  Óòòò òòòfóóó óóóÐ '` °C1 „C„'ÐÓ  Óòòò ò%ó óóóÐ ?5` ° C1 x ‘ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„?Ðwithin€city/townÐ G=  ð C  €J@53„C„‰€J@‰GÐÔ‡ôeI ô ôôeIÔÓ  Ó53Ð i_2  ð C1  €J@53 €J@ fffff¦C@39.3„C„‰fffff¦C@‰iÐÓ  Ó39.3Ð aW?  ð C1 fffff¦C@39.3 x ‘ fffff¦C@ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„aÐÔ#†ôeI ô ôôeI#Ôwithin€state/provinceÐ G=à 0 C  €C@39„C„‰€C@‰GÐÔ‡ôeI ô ôôeIÔÓ  Ó39Ð i_2à 0 C1  €C@39 €C@ fffffæ<@28.9„C„‰fffffæ<@‰iÐÓ  Ó28.9Ð aW?à 0 C1 fffffæ<@28.9 x ‘ fffffæ<@ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„aÐÔ#†ôeI ô ôôeI•#Ôwithin€countryÐ G= p C  1@17„C„‰1@‰GÐÔ‡ôeI ô ôôeIÔÓ  Ó17Ð i_2 p C1  1@17 1@ 333333)@12.6„C„‰333333)@‰iÐÓ  Ó12.6Ô#†ôeI ô ôôeI#ÔÔ‡ôeI ô ôôeIÔÐ aW? p C1 333333)@12.6 x ‘ 333333)@ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„aÐÔ#†ôeI ô ôôeIÝ#Ôcross€nationalÐ G=`° C  9@25„C„‰9@‰GÐÔ‡ôeI ô ôôeIÔÓ  Ó25Ð i_2`° C1  9@25 9@ €2@18.5„C„‰€2@‰iÐÓ  Ó18.5Ð h€W?`° C1 €2@18.5 x ‘ €2@ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„hÐÔ#†ôeI ô ôôeIÕ#ÔunknownÐ Z€I ð C  ð?1„C„‰ð?‰ZÐÔ‡ôeI ô ôôeIÔÓ  Ó1Ð {€j> ð C1  ð?1 ð? ffffffæ?0.7„C„‰ffffffæ?‰{ÐÓ  Ó0.7Ô#†ôeI ô ôôeIg #ÔÔ#†X´’X ôôeI§#ÔÔ'p øÓÔÐ[QO ð C1 ffffffæ?0.7 x ‘  ffffffæ? [ÐÌò òÓÓThe€Evolution€of€Cyberspace€Relationships€into€Face„to„Face€Relationshipsó óÐ X¨ ÐÓÕ ÓÓÓà ` àThe€development€of€a€face„to„face€relationship€with€a€person€that€they€initiallyÏmet€through€#friends€did€not€occur€with€high€frequency€among€respondents€in€theÏsample.€€In€total,€9€out€of€the€53€respondents€(17%)€reported€establishing€a€face„to„faceÏrelationship€with€someone€they€initially€met€in€#friends.€€While€this€percentage€is€notÏhigh,€it€indicates€that€an€estimated€1€out€of€every€6€#friends€participants€in€the€sample€hadÏdone€this.€€This€ratio€is€more€frequent€than€one€might€expect€given€the€dominance€ofÏclose€friendship€ties€among€#friends€participants€at€the€cross€national€level.€Ìà ` àOf€the€9€respondents€indicating€that€they€had€developed€face„to„face€ties€withÏpersons€they€met€in€#friends,€6€were€found€to€have€developed€face„to„face€relationshipsÏwith€multiple€persons.€€In€total,€the€9€respondents€developed€face„to„face€ties€with€22Ïother€persons.€€Out€of€these€22€ties,€8€involved€persons€within€the€same€state€or€provinceÏand€13€involved€persons€residing€within€the€same€country.€€Only€one€tie€was€found€to€beÏcross€national€in€scale.€€These€data€indicate€that€while€the€development€of€closeÐ ¸+'3 ÐÑo¿r[ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑo¿r[ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑo¿rRÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññfriendship€ties€in€#friends€predominantly€occurs€at€an€international€scale,€rarely€do€suchÏties€evolve€into€face„to„face€relationships€unless€the€persons€involved€live€in€the€sameÏcountry.€€A€total€of€7€out€of€the€53€respondents€(13.2%)€indicated€that€at€least€one€of€theirÏface„to„face€relationships€they€established€with€persons€they€first€met€through€#friendsÏturned€into€romantic€relationships€involving€dating€or€marriage.€ÌÓ^ ÓÓÓò òCommunity€Sentiment€Among€Participants€in€#friendsó óÐ `  Ðà ` àThe€majority€of€respondents€were€found€to€exhibit€moderate€to€high€levels€ofÏcommunity€sentiment€as€measured€by€the€three€community€sentiment€indicators.€€In€total,Ï57.7%€of€the€respondents€stated€that€they€ð ðdefinitelyðð€perceive€themselves€as€ð ðbelongingÏto€and€feeling€at€homeðð€when€they€participate€in€#friends€while€an€additional€26.9%Ïstated€that€they€ð ðprobablyðð€do€(see€Table€6.12).€€Only€15.3%€of€the€respondents€statedÏthat€they€probably€do€not€or€definitely€do€not€belong€to€and€feel€at€home€when€theyÏparticipate€in€#friends.Ìà ` àAdditionally,€54.7%€of€the€respondents€stated€that€they€have€ð ðsome€interestðð€inÏknowing€what€goes€on€in€#friends€while€39.6%€stated€that€they€have€ð ðmuch€interestðð€inÏknowing€what€goes€on€(see€Table€6.12).€€Finally,€49.1%€of€the€sample€stated€that€theyÏwould€be€ð ðvery€sorryðð€if€they€were€no€longer€able€to€access€#friends€while€50.9%€statedÏthat€they€would€be€ð ðsomewhat€sorryðð€if€they€no€longer€had€access€(see€Table€6.12).€€NoneÏof€the€respondents€stated€they€would€be€ð ðvery€pleasedðð€or€ð ðsomewhat€pleasedðð€if€they€noÏlonger€had€access.ÌÐ  0*€%( ÐÑ€q¿rÑÔ& 0 ÔÌÔ*qƒ^r ddßdd €dd vdd Tp(#(#qÔÔ,ßdd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,”dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ 7€& à €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„……7ÐÓÓò òÓ  ÓTable€6.12€Ð h ÐFrequency€Distributions€of€Community€Sentiment€Indicatorsó óÐ J@-XC! ˆ ‘  ‚x‚ƒƒ„C@„JÐÐ '€ ÐC@ „C„'Ðòòòòò òfóóó óóóÐ '€ ÐC3 „C„'Ðòòò ò%óóó óÐ >4€ ÐC3 x €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C@„……>ÐÓ^ÓÔ‡ôeI ôXX´’ÔWould€you€say€you€belong€to€and€feel€'at€home'€when€you€participate€inÐ è 8 Ѐ#friends?Ô#†X´’X ôôeIÌ#ÔÔ‡ôeI ôXX´’ÔÔ‡ôeI ô ôôeIÔÐ B8 °  C@ x ‘  €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„BÐÔ#†ôeI ô ôôeI’#Ôdefinitely€notÐ F<ð @ C  @2„C„‰@‰FÐÔ‡ôeI ô ôôeIÔ2Ð g]1ð @ C3  @2 @ ffffff@3.8„C„‰ffffff@‰gÐ3.8Ð `V>ð @ C3 ffffff@3.8 x ‘ ffffff@ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„`ÐÔ#†ôeI ô ôôeIj#ÔÔ‡ôeI ô ôôeIÔprobably€notÐ 0€  ÐÐ F<øH C  @6„C„‰@‰FÐÔ#†ôeI ô ôôeIw#ÔÔ‡ôeI ô ôôeIÔ6Ð h^10€ C3  @6 @ '@11.5„C„‰'@‰hÐ11.5Ð aW?0€ C3 '@11.5 x ‘ '@ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„aÐÔ#†ôeI ô ôôeI #ÔÔ‡ôeI ô ôôeIÔprobablyÐ G=8ˆ C  ,@14„C„‰,@‰GÐÔ#†ôeI ô ôôeI0#ÔÔ‡ôeI ô ôôeIÔ14Ð i_28ˆ C3  ,@14 ,@ fffffæ:@26.9„C„‰fffffæ:@‰iÐ26.9Ð \R?8ˆ C3 fffffæ:@26.9 x ‘ fffffæ:@ ‚x‚ƒƒ„C„\ÐdefinitelyÐ G=xÈ C  >@30„C„‰>@‰GÐ30Ð i_2xÈ C3  >@30 >@ š™™™™ÙL@57.7„C„‰š™™™™ÙL@‰iÐ57.7Ð WM:xÈ C3 š™™™™ÙL@57.7 x š™™™™ÙL@ ‚x‚ƒƒ„C„WÐTotalÐ G=¸C  €J@53„C„‰€J@‰GÐ53Ð j`2¸C3  €J@53 €J@ Y@100.0„C„‰Y@‰jÐ100.0Ð XN;¸C3 Y@100.0 x Y@ ‚x‚ƒƒ„C„XÐÐ 'øHC „C„'ÐÐ 'øHC3 „C„'ÐÐ 9/øHC3 x ‚x‚ƒƒ„C„……9ÐòòHow€much€interest€do€you€have€in€knowing€what€goes€on€in€€€#friends?Ô#†ôeI ô ôôeIÁ#ÔóóÐ * 8ˆC „C„*ÐÐ 5+8ˆC3 x ‚x‚ƒƒ„C„5Ðno€interestÐ F<xÈC  @3„C„‰@‰FÐ3Ð g]1xÈ C3  @3 @ ÍÌÌÌÌÌ@5.7„C„‰ÍÌÌÌÌÌ@‰gÐ5.7Ð VL9xÈ!C3 ÍÌÌÌÌÌ@5.7 x ÍÌÌÌÌÌ@ ‚x‚ƒƒ„C„VÐsome€interestÐ G=¸"C  =@29„C„‰=@‰GÐ29Ð i_2¸#C3  =@29 =@ š™™™™YK@54.7„C„‰š™™™™YK@‰iÐ54.7Ð WM:¸$C3 š™™™™YK@54.7 x š™™™™YK@ ‚x‚ƒƒ„C„WÐmuch€interestÐ G=øH%C  5@21„C„‰5@‰GÐ21Ð i_2øH&C3  5@21 5@ ÍÌÌÌÌÌC@39.6„C„‰ÍÌÌÌÌÌC@‰iÐ39.6Ð WM:øH'C3 ÍÌÌÌÌÌC@39.6 x ÍÌÌÌÌÌC@ ‚x‚ƒƒ„C„WÐTotalÐ G=8ˆ(C  €J@53„C„‰€J@‰GÐ53Ð j`28ˆ)C3  €J@53 €J@ Y@100.0„C„‰Y@‰jÐ100.0Ð XN;8ˆ*C3 Y@100.0 x Y@ ‚x‚ƒƒ„C„XÐÐ 'xÈ+C „C„'ÐÐ 'xÈ,C3 „C„'ÐÐ 9/xÈ-C3 x ‚x‚ƒƒ„C@„……9ÐHow€would€you€feel€about€being€unable€to€have€access€to€#friends?Ð * ¸.C@ „C„*ÐÐ 5+¸/C3 x ‚x‚ƒƒ„C„5Ðvery€sorryÐ G=øH0C  :@26„C„‰:@‰GÐ26Ð i_2øH1C3  :@26 :@ ÍÌÌÌÌŒH@49.1„C„‰ÍÌÌÌÌŒH@‰iÐ49.1Ð WM:øH2C3 ÍÌÌÌÌŒH@49.1 x ÍÌÌÌÌŒH@ ‚x‚ƒƒ„C„WÐsomewhat€sorryÐ G=8ˆ3C  ;@27„C„‰;@‰GÐ27Ð i_28ˆ4C3  ;@27 ;@ 33333sI@50.9„C„‰33333sI@‰iÐ50.9Ð ZP:8ˆ5C3 33333sI@50.9 x 33333sI@ ‚x‚ƒƒ„C„‹‹ZÐsomewhatÔ#†X´’X ôôeIs#ÔÔ‡ôeI ôXX´’Ô€pleasedÐ KAx È6C # „C„‰‰‹‹KÐ0Ð _U3x È7C3 #  # „C„‰‰‹‹_Ð0.0Ð YO9x È8C3 # x  ‚x‚ƒƒ„C„‹ ‹YÐvery€pleasedÐ KAÈ!9C  # „C„‰‰‹ ‹KÐ0Ð _U3È!:C3 #   # „C„‰‰‹‹_Ð0.0Ð b€Q9È!;C3 # x  €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„bÐTotalÐ [€J#h<C  €J@53„C„‰€J@‰[Ð53Ð ~€m?#h=C3  €J@53 €J@ Y@100.0„C„‰Y@‰~Ð100.0Ô#†X´’X ôôeI ,#ÔÐ]SQ#h>C3 Y@100.0 x ‘  Y@ ]ÐÔ'0 °9ÔÓIÓÌà ` àIn€combining€the€responses€to€the€3€indicators€to€form€the€index€of€communityÏsentiment,€the€mean€index€score€for€the€sample€was€found€to€be€9.23,€on€a€scale€of€3€toÏ11.€€Taken€together,€these€findings€suggest€that€#friends€users€in€the€sample€developed€aÏfairly€high€degree€of€community€sentiment€in€relation€to€their€participation€in€the€#friendsÐ p+À&F Ðchatroom.€€Thus,€participants€tend€to€define€themselves€as€being€part€of€a€group€in€whichÏthey€have€ð ðstakeðð€and€a€personal€interest.€Ìà ` àThe€level€of€community€sentiment€was€found€to€be€related€to€whether€or€not€aÏrespondent€had€developed€close€friendship€ties€in€#friends.€€The€mean€score€on€theÏcommunity€index€was€found€to€be€9.91€for€respondents€that€had€developed€closeÏfriendship€ties€in€#friends€(see€Table€6.13).€€In€comparison,€the€mean€index€score€forÏrespondents€without€close€friendship€ties€in€#friends€was€found€to€be€7.94.€€A€t„test€forÏdifferences€of€means€revealed€that€the€means€for€the€two€groups€were€significantlyÏdifferent€(t€=€„5.16,€p€=€.001).€€While€the€direction€of€causal€influence€cannot€beÏdetermined€because€of€the€cross„sectional€research€design,€this€finding€suggests€that€theÏformation€of€strong€ties€in€#friends€helps€promote€higher€levels€of€community€sentiment,Ïor€vice€versa.Ìò òÌÔ*qƒRs ddßdd dd ”dd ^r(#(#qÔÔ,5dd ÔÔ, dd ÔÔ,ždd ÔÔ,’dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ 7€& ` €‘€‚ˆ‚ƒƒ„C„……7ÐÓ  ÓÔ& Ð ÔÓÓTable€6.13ó óÐ ˜è Ðò òComparison€of€the€Means€on€the€Community€Sentiment€Index€betweenÐ ˆØ ÐPersons€With€Close€Friendship€Ties€Developed€in€#friends€and€ThoseÏWithout€Such€Tiesó óÐ OE-h ¸C! ˆ ‘  €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„OÐÓ<6ÓÔ‡ôeI ôXX´’ÔÌòòò òLocation€of€Close€Friendship€Tiesó óóóÐ 'p#À!C „C„'Ðò òòònó óóóÐ 'à!0"C3 „C„'Ðò òòòMeanó óóóÐ 'à!0#C3 „C„'Ðò òòòtó óóó€€€€€€€Ð ?5à!0$C3 x ‘ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„?ÐÓÓRespondents€without€close€friendship€ties€in€#friends€Ð G=°$ %C  2@18„C„‰2@‰GÐÓ¶8Ó18Ð i_2°$ &C3  2@18 2@ Ãõ(\Â@7.94„C„‰Ãõ(\Â@‰iÐ7.94Ð I?4°$ 'C3 Ãõ(\Â@7.94 Ãõ(\Â@ „C„IÐÐ ?5°$ (C3 x ‘ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„?ÐÓÓÐ 'ð%@!)C „C„'ÐÓR:ÓÐ 'ð%@!*C3 „C„'ÐÐ 'ð%@!+C3 „C„'Ð-5.16***Ð ?5ð%@!,C3 x ‘ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„?ÐÓÓRespondents€with€close€friendship€ties€in€#friendsÐ G=0'€"-C  A@34„C„‰A@‰GÐÓ6;Ó34Ð i_20'€".C3  A@34 A@ R¸…ëÑ#@9.91„C„‰R¸…ëÑ#@‰iÐ9.91Ð I?40'€"/C3 R¸…ëÑ#@9.91 R¸…ëÑ#@ „C„IÐÐ J€90'€"0C3 x ‘ €‘€‚x‚ƒƒ„C„……JÐÐ=31p(À#1C x ‘   =ÐÔ#†X´’X ôôeI„7#ÔÔ‡ôeI ôXX´’Ô***€p€<€.001Ð H)˜$1 ÐÔ'И06ÔÔ#†X´’X ôôeI9=#ÔÐ  Ø*(&3 ÐÑq¿r^ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑq¿rUÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑ€ ÀÀ` ÑÑ7€´’XXdðXXdð7ÑÓK+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#` p Ø'™XKÓò òÔ‡ Ñ XX´’ÔÑ€ ¿rÑÓÓÑ€¿r ÑÑ€9@¸ ÑÑ€‰@¸Ñà@VV(àChapter€VIIˆÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†X´’X  Ñ·>#ÔÌDiscussion€and€ConclusionsÔ‡ Ñ XX´’ÔÐ à0 Ðó óÌÔ#†X´’X  Ñ©?#ÔÓ_?ÓÓç>Óò òClose€Friendship€Ties€in€#friendsÐ  ` Ðó óà ` àThe€data€shows€that€the€majority€of€#friends€participants€in€the€sample€did€viewÐ ð @ Ðthemselves€as€having€close€friendship€ties€through€participating€in€#friends.€€In€looking€atÏthe€attributes€of€these€friendship€ties,€the€majority€do€tend€to€exhibit€three€ofÏGranovetter'sò ò€ó ócriteria€for€strong€social€ties,€i.e.€emotional€attachment,€intimacy,€and€theÐ à  Ðreciprocal€exchange€of€services.€€€Emotional€attachment,€represented€by€those€whoÏ"strongly€care€about€each€other's€personal€well€being"€appears€to€be€strong.€€Of€those€whoÏindicated€they€had€at€least€one€close€friendship€tie€in€friends,€86.1%€indicated€that€thisÏapplied.€Also€representing€emotional€attachment€were€items€asking€about€those€who€wereÏ"romantically€involved"€and€"related€€by€family."€€There€was€as€€high€a€level€number€ofÏ"romantic"€emotional€attachments€among€#friends€users€as€compared€to€those€whoÏð ðstrongly€care€about€each€other's€personal€well€being,"€but€there€still€is€some€emotionalÏattachment.€€Of€those€who€reported€they€had€friendship€ties€in€#friends,€30.6%€indicatedÏthey€were€romantically€involved€with€at€least€one€person€in€#friends.€As€far€as€familialÏemotional€attachment,€this€is€not€really€a€factor€in€#friends€use,€because€only€one€of€theÏ#friends€users€in€the€sample€indicated€that€he€used€friends€to€communicate€with€familyÏmembers.€Ìà ` àGranovetter's€dimension€of€intimacy€was€measured€using€items€asking€about€thoseÏwho€"talk€about€close€personal€matters€that€are€important"€in€#friends€and€items€askingÐ Ð* &( Ðabout€those€who€"provide€each€other€with€help€concerning€personal€problems"€inÏ#friends.€For€both€of€these€indicators,€a€large€majority€of€€respondents€who€indicated€theyÏhad€close€friendship€ties€in€#friends€indicated€that€they€did€"talk€about€close€personalÏmatters€that€are€important"€(86.1%)€and€that€they€did€"provide€each€other€with€helpÏconcerning€personal€problems"€(94.4%).€€These€indicators€suggest€a€high€degree€ofÏintimacy€among€friends€users€who€indicated€they€had€at€least€one€close€friendship€tie€inÏ#friends.€à ¸ àÐ ð@  Ðà ` àThese€results€signify€that€there€does€indeed€appear€to€be€a€high€level€of€intimacyÏin€close€friendship€ties€among€#friends€users,€and€that€there€are€high€levels€of€a€certainÏtype€of€emotional€attachment--strongly€caring€about€each€other's€personal€well€being.€ÏAlso,€there€does€appear€to€be€some€emotional€attachment€among€close€friendship€ties€inÏ#friends€as€evidenced€by€romantic€relationships,€though€this€is€not€quite€as€high€of€a€levelÏof€emotional€attachment.€€There€does€not€appear€to€be€much€of€any€familial€emotionalÏattachment€€among€close€friendship€ties€in€#friends.€This€may€be€a€question€of€semantics,Ïif€persons€did€not€consider€family€to€be€close€friends,€but€instead€placed€family€membersÏin€a€separate€category€than€friends,€they€may€not€have€indicated€family€ties€as€being€closeÏfriendship€ties€when€in€fact€they€may€have€had€close€ties€with€family€members.€€All€ofÏthese€items€involved€reciprocal€exchange€of€services,€so€this€too€seems€to€be€presentÏamong€the€close€friendship€ties€of€friends€users.Ìà ` àWhile€not€all€#friends€participants€developed€communal€relationships€in€#friends,Ïthe€majority€of€#friends€participants€in€the€sample€did€develop€such€relationships.€A€smallÏnumber€of€respondents€indicated€that€they€had€close€friendship€ties€in€#friends,€but€didÐ ,`'* Ðщ@¸`ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññщ@¸`ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñщ@¸WÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññnot€check€off€any€of€the€items€measuring€emotional€attachment,€intimacy,€or€reciprocalÏexchange€of€services.€€This€could€indicate€the€presence€of€false€communal€relations€inÏ#friends.€€While€respondents€felt€they€may€have€had€a€close€friendship€tie€in€these€case,ÏGranovetterððs€criteria€of€emotional€attachment,€intimacy,€or€reciprocal€exchange€ofÏservices€were€not€met€in€these€cases,€calling€into€question€the€sincerity€of€the€friendshipÏties.€€It€is€interesting€to€note€that€someone€could€actually€perceive€a€close€friendship€tieÏthat€does€not€exhibit€€the€characteristics€of€communal€relationships.Ìà ` àAs€for€Granovetter's€notion€of€duration€of€friendship€ties,€a€majority€of€closeÏfriendship€ties€in€#friends€indicated€by€respondents€(68.6%)€lasted€from€3€to€4€years.€ÏGiven€the€instantaneous€nature€of€Internet€communication€and€the€newness€of€the€InternetÏas€a€medium€for€communication€and€formation€of€friendship€ties,€this€seems€like€a€fairlyÏlong€duration€for€Internet-mediated€close€friendship€ties.€€The€number€of€relationshipsÏlasting€3€to€4€years€in€#friends€suggests€that€long€time€relationships€through€#friends€areÏpossible.€Ìà ` àGiven€these€findings,€it€seems€as€though€Granovetter's€criteria€needed€for€closeÏfriendship€ties€to€exist€are€present€in€the€close€friendship€ties€in€#friends.€€€There€are€highÏlevels€of€emotional€attachment,€intimacy,€and€reciprocity€among€the€close€friendship€tiesÏof€#friends€users€in€#friends.€€It€is€this€type€of€strong€friendship€tie€that€make€upÏcommunal€ties.€€Hence,€it€is€logical€to€conclude€that€the€majority€of€close€friendship€tiesÏâ âin€#friends€can€be€said€to€be€communal€ties.€€Ð P( #& Ðò òÔ&   Ôâ ââ ââ âRespondents'€Close€Friendship€Ties€Outside€of€Cyberspaceó óÐ ° Ðà ` àThe€majority€of€respondents'€close€friendship€ties€outside€of€Cyberspace€alsoÏÔ' °UÔappear€to€exhibit€Granovetter's€criteria€for€strong€social€ties€in€some€form€or€another.€ÏEmotional€attachment,€represented€by€those€who€"strongly€care€about€each€other'sÏpersonal€well€being"€appears€to€be€strong.€€Of€those€who€indicated€they€had€at€least€oneÏclose€friendship€tie€outside€of€Cyberspace,€95.7%€indicated€that€this€applied.€AlsoÏrepresenting€emotional€attachment€were€items€asking€about€those€who€were€"romanticallyÏinvolved"€and€"related€€by€family."€€There€was€not€as€high€of€a€number€of€"romantic"Ïemotional€attachments€among€#friends€users€as€the€level€exhibited€by€those€who€stronglyÏcare€about€each€other's€personal€well€being,"€but€there€still€is€some€romantic€emotionalÏattachment.€€Of€those€who€reported€they€had€close€friendship€ties€outside€of€Cyberspace,Ï38.3%€indicated€they€were€romantically€involved€with€at€least€one€person€outside€ofÏCyberspace.€As€far€as€familial€emotional€attachment,€this€is€somewhat€less€of€a€factor€inÏrespondents'€relationships€outside€of€Cyberspace,€because€only€11€of€the€respondentsÏindicated€that€they€had€close€ties€with€family€members.€€This€low€number€could€be€due€toÏa€question€of€semantics.€€Some€people€who€may€have€a€close€tie€with€family€membersÏmay€not€consider€such€a€tie€to€be€a€close€"friendship"€tie,€because€some€people€considerÏfriends€to€be€separate€from€family,€so€some€respondents€may€not€have€put€anything€whereÏthey€were€asked€to€indicate€the€number€of€close€"friendship"€ties.€€This€could€account€forÏthe€low€number€of€familial€ties€represented€among€the€close€face-to-face€"friendship"€tiesÏindicated€by€respondents.Ìà ` àGranovetter's€dimension€of€intimacy€was€measured€using€items€asking€about€thoseÐ ,`'* Ðwho€"talk€about€close€personal€matters€that€are€important"€with€others€outside€ofÏCyberspace,€and€items€asking€about€those€who€"provide€each€other€with€help€concerningÏpersonal€problems"€with€others€outside€of€Cyberspace.€€For€both€of€these€indicators,€aÏlarge€majority€of€€respondents€who€indicated€they€had€close€face-to-face€friendship€tiesÏoutside€of€Cyberspace€indicated€that€they€did€"talk€about€close€personal€mattes€that€areÏimportant"€(95.6%)€and€that€they€did€"provide€each€other€with€help€concerning€personalÏproblems"€(85.1%).€€These€indicators€suggest€a€high€degree€of€intimacy€among€friendsÏusers€who€indicated€they€had€at€least€one€close€friendship€tie€outside€of€#friends.€à Ð àÐ Ð  Ðà ` àThese€results€signify€that€there€does€indeed€appear€to€be€a€high€level€of€intimacyÏin€the€traditional,€face-to-face€close€friendship€ties€›held€by€respondentsœ€outside€ofÏCyberspace,€and€that€there€are€high€levels€of€a€certain€type€of€emotionalÏattachment--strongly€caring€about€each€other's€personal€well€being.€€Also,€there€doesÏappear€to€be€some€emotional€attachment€among€close€face-to-face€friendship€ties€ofÏrespondents€as€evidenced€by€romantic€relationships,€though€this€is€not€quite€as€high€of€aÏlevel€of€emotional€attachment.€€There€does€not€appear€to€be€much€of€any€familialÏemotional€attachment€€among€close€face-to-face€friendship€ties€of€respondents.€€Again,Ïthis€may€be€a€question€of€semantics,€if€persons€did€not€consider€family€to€be€close€friends,Ïbut€instead€placed€family€members€in€a€separate€category€than€friends,€they€may€not€haveÏindicated€family€ties€as€being€close€friendship€ties.€€All€of€these€items€involved€reciprocalÏexchange€of€services,€so€this€too€seems€to€be€present€among€the€close€friendship€ties€ofÏfriends€users.€€More€face„to„face€ties€outside€of€Cyberspace€exhibit€emotional€attachment,Ïintimacy,€and€reciprocal€exchange€of€services€than€the€relationships€in€#friends.€€Ð ,`'* Ðà ` àAs€for€Granovetter's€notion€of€duration€of€friendship€ties,€the€most€commonlyÏoccurring€pattern€of€close€face-to-face€outside€of€Cyberspace€friendship€ties€ofÏrespondents€indicated€by€respondents€(44.9%€of€all€close€ties)€lasted€from€3€to€4€years.€€ÌThese€ties€also€tend€to€be€much€longer€in€duration€than€those€in€#friends,€but€this€could€beÏdue€to€the€ð ðnewnessðð€of€the€technology.Ìà ` àGiven€these€findings,€it€seems€as€though€Granovetter's€criteria€needed€for€closeÏfriendship€ties€to€exist€are€present€in€a€majority€of€the€close€face-to-face€friendship€ties€ofÏrespondents.€€€There€are€high€levels€of€emotional€attachment,€intimacy,€and€reciprocityÏamong€the€close€friendship€ties€of€€respondents.€€Ìò òComparison€of€Close€Friendship€Ties€in€#friends€and€Close€Friendship€Ties€OutsideÐ à Ðof€CyberspaceÌà ` àó óThe€data€indicates€that€the€face„to„face€friendship€ties€outside€of€CyberspaceÐ P  Ðexhibited€higher€levels€of€emotional€attachment,€intimacy,€and€reciprocity€compared€toÏclose€ties€that€were€perceived€to€exist€in€#friends.€€This€shows€the€differences€in€theÏnature€of€friendship€ties€developed€through€this€technological€medium€and€traditionalÏface„to„face€friendship€ties.€ò òÐ Ð  Ðà ` àó óThis€chatroom€tends€to€consist€of€multiple€networks€of€close€ties€which€constituteÐ °"  Ðcommunal€relations.€€The€data€also€tell€us€that€most€#friends€users€tend€to€have€both€aÏnetwork€of€close€ties€in€#friends€and€a€network€of€close€ties€outside€of€Cyberspace.€€TheÏdata€also€echoes€the€sentiment€that€few€Internet€users€are€reclusive€and€isolated€behind€aÏcomputer€who€are€only€able€to€participate€in€a€community€through€the€opportunitiesÏavailable€over€the€#friends€channel€and€not€in€a€traditional€community.€€This€is€consistentÐ ,`'* ÐÑ ¿rdÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑ ¿rdÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ ¿r[ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññwith€the€findings€of€others€(Rhinegold,€1993;€Parks€and€Floyd,€1996;€Surratt€1996)€€thatÏsuggest€the€idea€of€socially€isolated€Internet€users€is€merely€a€stereotype.€€While€not€allÏ#friends€participants€become€integrated€into€a€network€of€communal€relations€in€#friends,Ïnearly€all€appeared€to€be€well€€integrated€into€traditional€face„to„face€social€networksÏoutside€of€Cyberspace.€ò ò€Ð 0 € Ðà ` àó óFrom€these€data,€it€is€evident€that€close€friendship€ties€in€#friends€and€face-to-faceÐ `  Ðfriendship€ties€of€respondents€outside€of€Cyberspace€constitute€two€separate€socialÏrealms.€€There€appears€to€be€no€significant€correlation€between€the€number€of€closeÏfriendship€ties€in€#friends€and€the€number€of€close€friendship€ties€outside€of€Cyberspace.€ÏThis€is€because€#friends€is€not€widely€used€to€maintain€existing€face-to-face€ties.€€This€isÏalso€evidenced€by€the€fact€that€very€few€respondents€had€no€social€ties€in€either€#friendsÏor€in€a€traditional€face-to-face€setting.€€Nearly€all€respondents€had€at€least€one€social€tieÏeither€in€a€face-to-face€setting€or€in€#friends.€€Those€that€had€a€high€number€of€closeÏfriendship€ties€in€#friends€did€not€necessarily€have€a€high€number€of€close€friendship€tiesÏoutside€of€Cyberspace€and€vice€versa,€further€indicating€that€#friends€and€friendship€tiesÏoutside€of€Cyberspace.€constitute€two€separate€social€realms.€€›The€data€show€that€the€sizeÏof€each€network€(#friends€vs.€face„to„face)€is€independent.œÌà ` àOn€a€limited€basis,€it€appears€that€some€#friends€users€use€#friends€to€discussÏpersonal€problems€because€of€the€anonymous€nature€of€#friends.€€It€is€uncertain€whetherÏor€not€the€problems€discussed€in€#friends€are€problems€which€participants€have€outside€ofÏ#friends€or€within€#friends,€so€it€is€difficult€to€say€if€respondents€are€using€#friends€as€aÏway€to€augment€their€participation€in€a€traditional€community€by€seeking€advice€inÐ ,`'* Ð#friends€about€personal€problems€they€are€experiencing€in€their€traditional€relationshipsÏoutside€of€Cyberspace.€ò òÐ à ÐGeographic€Scale€of€Close€Friendship€Ties€in€#friendsó óÐ pÀ Ðà ` àThe€geographic€scale€€of€close€friendship€ties€mediated€through€#friends€appearsÏto€be€very€broad€and€diffuse.€€These€close€friendship€ties€mediated€through€#friends€rangeÏfrom€ties€within€the€same€city€to€ties€ranging€across€continents.€€Ties€also€exist€at€everyÏlevel€between€these€two€extremes,€some€ties€in€#friends€exist€within€the€same€state€orÏprovince,€within€the€same€country,€€and€across€nations€within€the€same€continent.€€ItÏappears€that€most€of€the€relationships€in€#friends€occurred€either€within€the€same€countryÏor€across€countries.€€Relationships€in€#friends€did€not€generally€occur€within€the€sameÏstate/province€or€within€the€same€city.ò ò€€ó óThe€data€indicate€that€close€geographic€proximityÐ pÀ Ðdoes€not€appear€to€be€much€of€a€factor€in€the€formation€of€close€friendship€ties€inÏ#friends.Ìò òGeographic€Scale€€of€Close€Friendship€Ties€Outside€of€CyberspaceÐ ` Ðó óà ` àAs€one€might€expect,€higher€numbers€of€close€face-to-face,€traditional,€outside€ofÐ ð@ ÐCyberspace,€friendship€ties€of€respondents€occur€within€the€same€city€and€within€the€sameÏstate/province€than€for€ties€within€#friends.€€€Most€close€friendship€ties€outside€ofÏCyberspace€were€local€in€nature€(existing€either€within€the€same€city/town€orÏstate/province),€and€the€majority€€of€non„local€close€friendship€ties€outside€of€CyberspaceÏ(2€out€of€every€3€non„local€ties)€once€lived€in€the€same€location€but€now€live€elsewhere.€ÌOne€might€expect€that€the€bulk€of€one's€traditional,€face-to-face€close€friendship€tiesÏoutside€of€Cyberspace€would€live€in€close€geographic€proximity,€and€this€is€what€the€dataÐ ,`'* Ðdo€indeed€show.€€Therefore,€the€network€of€close€friendship€ties€outside€of€CyberspaceÏappears€to€be€much€less€diffuse€geographically.€€Close€geographic€proximity€appears€toÏbe€a€much€more€important€factor€in€the€formation€and€maintenance€of€the€traditional€face„¼to„face€relationships€of€respondents.€Ô& € ÔÌò òEstablishment/maintenance€of€Friendship€Tiesó óÐ 0 € Ðà ` àA€fair€number€of€respondents€(13.2%,€7€respondents)€indicated€that€they€useÏÔ'€P DzÔ#friends€to€talk€with€close€friends€that€they€first€met€face-to-face.€€These€respondents€areÏusing€#friends€to€maintain€existing€face-to-face€relationships€for€the€maintenance€ofÏsocial€ties.€€A€slightly€larger€share€of€respondents€indicated€that€there€are€persons€thatÏthey€first€me€through€#friends€that€they€have€established€a€face-to-face€relationship€with.ÏAbout€1€out€of€every€6€participants€in€#friends€had€developed€at€least€one€tie€in€#friendsÏthat€evolved€into€a€face„to„face€tie.€These€numbers€may€be€artificially€inflated€due€to€anÏinstitutionalized€mechanism--yearly€face-to-face€meetings€of€#friends€participants.€€EachÏyear,€an€informal€meeting€of€#friends€users€is€arranged€as€an€opportunity€for€#friendsÏusers€who€choose€to€do€so€to€meet€with€one€another€face-to-face€in€an€informal€setting.€ÏInitially,€the€aim€of€the€question€addressing€the€face-to-face€meeting€of€respondents€wasÏintended€to€measure€if€#friends€users€arranged€to€meet€other€#friends€users€face-to-faceÏon€their€own€initiative.€€€Respondents€were€asked€if€there€were€persons€which€theyÏconsidered€to€be€close€friends€they€talked€with€through€#friends€whom€they€had€first€metÏface-to-face€(see€Question€8€in€survey€questionnaire).€€On€the€other€hand,€respondentsÏwere€asked€if€there€were€persons€that€they€first€met€through€#friends€that€they€hadÏestablished€a€face-to-face€relationship€with€(see€Question€9€in€survey€questionnaire).€Ð ,`'* ÐÑ9@¸gÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑ9@¸^ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññThis€question€did€not€make€the€distinction€of€whether€or€not€persons€that€respondents€firstÏmet€through€#friends€were€close€friends€or€not.€€This€was€done€in€an€attempt€to€see€ifÏanyone€that€initially€met€through€friends€had€met€face-to-face€with€anyone€else€they€hadÏmet€through€#friends.€A€few€close€friendship€ties€established€through€#friends€actuallyÏturned€into€relationships€involving€dating€or€marriage.€€Often,€those€researching€the€net€Ìwill€talk€about€Cyber-dating,€where€participants€of€a€chat-room€such€as€friends€will€"date"Ïone€another€and€become€seriously€involved€without€ever€having€met€face-to-face.€ÏQuestion€9€tried€to€eliminate€this€circumstance€by€asking€if€any€of€the€"face-to-face"Ïrelationships€established€through€#friends€turned€into€romantic€relationships€involvingÏdating€or€marriage.ò ò€€ó óClose€geographic€proximity€serves€as€an€important€factor€in€theÐ à Ðevolution€of€€#friends€mediated€relationships€into€face„to„face€relationships.ò òÐ pÀ Ðà ` àó óFriends€who€met€face-to-face€and€maintained€contact€using€#friends€wereÐ P  Ðsomewhat€less€common.€€The€data€indicate€that€#friends€is€not€being€used€on€a€large€scaleÏto€maintain€previously€existing€face-to-face€relationships.€€Instead,€it€is€being€used€toÏfacilitate€the€formation€of€close€friendship€ties.€€This€is€what€Wellman€(1979)€failed€toÏinvestigate--when€the€friendship€ties€in€the€Toronto€borough€of€East€York€were€initiallyÏestablished.€€This€study€deduced€that€among€#friends€users,€most€of€the€close€friendshipÏties€in€#friends€were€initially€established€in€#friends,€and€that€#friends€was€not€generallyÏbeing€used€to€maintain€previously€existing€friendship€ties.€Ìà ` àWellmanððs€(1979)€notion€of€liberated€communities€is€influenced€by€geographicÏproximity.€€Wellmanððs€notion€of€proximity€was€slightly€different€than€what€is€used€here,Ïhowever.€€Wellman€used€the€neighborhood€level€of€analysis,€and€this€study€went€downÐ ,`'* Ðonly€to€the€city€or€town€level€of€analysis€due€to€the€wider€geographic€scale€ofÏrelationships€investigated€by€the€study.€There€does€appear€to€be€a€liberated€community€forÏthe€majority€of€#friends€participants€and€for€the€majority€of€the€face„to„face€ties€outside€ofÏCyberspace.€€The€formation€and€maintenance€of€face„to„face€ties€of€respondents€seem€toÏbe€heavily€influenced€by€close€geographic€proximity,€while€geographic€proximity€is€notÏimportant€for€the€formation€and€maintenance€of€close€friendship€ties€in€#friends.€Ìò òCommunity€Sentiment€among€#Friends€Usersó óÐ ð@  Ðà ` àAn€analysis€of€the€responses€indicates€that€there€does€appear€to€be€high€levels€ofÏcommunity€sentiment€among€friends€users.€€The€level€of€community€sentiment€was€foundÏto€be€influenced€by€whether€or€not€participants€developed€close€friendship€ties€inÏ#friends.€€There€was€a€significant€relationship€between€the€mean€score€on€the€communityÏsentiment€index€and€whether€or€not€participants€developed€at€least€one€close€friendship€tieÏin€#friends.€€›While€it€is€not€possible€to€determine€the€direction€of€causal€influence,€oneÏcan€conclude€from€this€that€strong€friendship€ties€in€#friends€promote€higher€levels€ofÏcommunity€sentiment€or€vice€versa.€€œÌà ` à€These€data€show€that€participants€are€more€likely€to€confide€in€other€#friendsÏusers€than€in€their€face-to-face€friends.€€This€could€largely€be€due€to€the€anonymousÏnature€of€#friends€and€the€Internet€in€general.€€Strictly€enforced€norms€of€kindness€andÏgenerosity€on€#friends€make€people€feel€comfortable€regardless€of€what€they€discuss.€ÏUsers€who€violate€the€norms€of€kindness€and€generosity€are€simply€ð ðkicked€offðð€orÏ"banned."€€These€norms€might€also€account€for€the€high€levels€of€community€sentimentÏamong€€#friends€users.€€Ð ,`'* ÐÑ¿riÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑ¿r`ÑññññÑ  ÑññññÑ  Ñññò òSummaryó óÐ ° Ðà ` àTo€summarize,€these€data€do€indicate€that€#friends€users€participate€in€both€virtualÏand€traditional€communities.€The€majority€of€relationships€in€#friends€are€communalÏrelationships.€€Not€all€participants€of€#friends€become€integrated€into€communal€networksÏor€develop€communal€networks€through€#friends,€but€the€majority€of€#friends€users€do.ÏThese€two€areas€of€close€friendship€ties€appear€to€comprise€two€separate€and€unrelatedÏsocial€realms.€€The€criteria€for€community€which€were€outlined€in€previous€chaptersÏappear€to€be€present€in€the€majority€of€the€friendship€ties€in€€#friends.€€There€is€aÏgeographic€territory€(albeit€a€very€diffuse€one),€there€does€appear€to€be€communalÏrelations,€and€there€does€appear€to€be€community€sentiment.Ì›à ` àThe€first€area€of€agreement€cited€by€œHillery›€(1955),€social€relationships,€whichÏœwas›€examined€in€terms€of€Granovetterððs€(1973)€four€dimensions€of€the€strength€of€a€socialÏtie,€appears€to€be€present€for€the€majority€of€#friends€users.€€The€second€of€Hilleryððs€areasÏof€agreement,€geographic€territory,€was€found€to€play€an€important€role€as€well.€€The€thirdÏof€Hilleryððs€areas€of€agreement,€psychological€identification€with€the€community€group,Ïexamined€in€terms€of€community€sentiment,€appears€to€be€present€among€#friends€users,Ïespecially€those€who€had€developed€close€friendship€ties€in€#friends.œÌò òDirections€for€Future€Researchà À àó óÐ $à" Ðà ` àThis€research€was€based€only€on€one€chat-room/channel€of€IRC,€and€therefore€theÏfindings€should€not€be€generalized€beyond€the€#friends€channel,€or€beyond€IRC€to€theÏInternet€at€large.€€Perhaps€this€research€design€can€be€extended€to€other€IRC€channels€orÏto€other€Internet€based€forms€of€CMC.€€The€#friends€IRC€channel€was€chosen€for€thisÐ ,`'* Ðresearch€because€of€its€uniqueness,€and€therefore,€this€research€design€as€applied€to€otherÏIRC€channels€or€other€Internet€based€forms€of€CMC€might€yield€a€different€result.Ô  Ôò ò€€ó óÐ à Ðà ` àThis€research€was€intended€as€preliminary€research€to€investigate€an€as€yetÏunexplored€topic.€Hopefully,€some€insight€as€to€whether€or€not€#friends€should€beÏconsidered€a€community€has€been€provided€here.€€Future€research€may€wish€to€investigateÏthese€issues€further.ò òÐ  `  ÐÓÓó óÑ€¿rÑÑ€~@¸Ñà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò òBibliographyó óÐ ° ÐÌÓB.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ŒXBÓà0 ÷ àà  àAllen,€Christina.€1996.€òòVirtual€Identities:€The€Social€Construction€of€Cybered€Selves.Ð à ÐóóPh.D.€Dissertation.€Evanston,€Illinois:Northwestern€University.ЀÐ÷(#÷(# ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà0 ÷ àà  àAnderson,€B.,€V.€Ryan,€and€W.€J.€Goudy.€1984.€"Consistency€in€Subjective€EvaluationsÏof€Community€Attributes."€òòSocial€Indicators€Research.óó€14:165-175ÐP  ÷(#÷(# ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà0 ÷ àà  àBarlow,€John€Perry.€1995.€"Is€There€a€There€in€Cyberspace."€€òòUTNE€Reader.óó€68:52-56.€Ð0 €÷(#÷(# ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓBaym,€Nancy€K.€1995.€"The€Emergence€of€Community€in€Computer-Mediated€ÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àCommunication"€pp.€138-163€in€Jones,€Steven,€Ed.€1995.€òòCyberSociety:€óóÐ P  ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓòòà ÷ àComputer-Mediated€Communication€and€Community.€óóThousand€Oaks,€California:€Ð ð@  ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àSage€Publications€Ltd.ÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓòòÌóóÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓBenedikt,€Michael,€ed.€1991.€òòCyberspace:€First€Stepsóó.€Cambridge:€MIT€Press.Ð À ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà0 ÷ àà  àBender,€Thomas.€1978.€òòCommunity€and€Social€Change€in€Americaóó.€New€Brunswick,€NJ:Ð  ð ÐRutgers€University€Press.Ð ÷(#÷(# ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓBraddle,€1993.€òòVirtual€Communities:Computer-Mediated€Communication€and€óóÐ pÀ ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓòòà ÷ àCommunities€of€Association.€óóDissertation.€Bloomington:Indiana€University.Ð `° ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà0 ÷ àà  àBromberg,€Heather.€1996.€"Are€MUDs€Communities?€Identity,€Belonging,€andÏConsciousness€in€Virtual€Worlds."€in€Shields,€Rob,€ed.€òòCultures€of€Internet:€VirtualÐ 0€ ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓSpaces,€Real€Histories,€Living€Bodies.€óóThousand€Oaks,€California:€Sage€Ð p÷(#÷(# ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àPublications€Ltd.ÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà0 ÷ àà  àButtel,€Frederick€H.,€Oscar€B.€Martinson,€&€E.€A.€Wilkening.€1979.€"Size€and€Place€of€ÏCommunity€Attachment:€A€Reconsideration."€òòSocial€Indicators€Researchóó.€à Ð àà @Ð àÐà0÷(#÷(# ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ à6:475-485.ÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓDalaimo,€Denise.€1995.€òòThe€Simulation€of€Selfhood€in€Cyberspace.€óóMaster's€thesis.€Ð °"  ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àLas€Vegas:University€of€Nevada.ÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌ›Dyson,€Esther.€1997.€òòRelease€2.0:€A€Design€for€Living€in€the€Digital€Ageóó.€€New€York:€Ð €%Ð # Ðà ÷ àBroadway€Books.ÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓœÌFischer,€Claude.€1977.€òòNetworks€and€Places€:€Social€Relations€in€the€Urban€Settingóó.€Ð P( #& ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àNew€York:€Free€Press.ÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓFischer,€Claude€and€S.€D.€Berkowitz.€1988.€òòSocial€Structures:€A€€Network€Approachóó.€Ð  +p&) ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àNew€York:€Cambridge.Ð ,`'* ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓFlora,€Cornelia€B.,€et€al.1992.€òòRural€Communities:€Legacy€and€Changeóó.€Boulder:€Ð  ð ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àWestview€Press.ÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓFurlong,€Mary€S.€1989.€"Crafting€an€Electronic€Community:€The€SeniorNet€Story."€ÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àòòInternational€Journal€of€Technology€and€Agingóó.€2:2€fall-winter,€125-134.Ð ` ° ÐÓ' ì(#÷o ¸ ŠX'Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÓB.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ì(#BÓGeertz,€Clifford.€1963.€òòOld€Societies€and€New€States:€The€Quest€for€Modernity€in€Asia€Ð @  ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àand€Africa.óó€New€York:€Free€Press€of€Glencoe.Ð 0 € ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà0 ÷ àà  àGiese,€Jon.€1996.€òòPlace€without€Space,€Identity€without€Body:€The€Role€of€CooperativeÐ `  ÐNarrative€in€Community€and€Identityà  àFormation€in€a€Text-Based€Electronic€ÐP ÷(#÷(# ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àCommunity.€óóDissertation.€Altoona,€Pennsylvania:Pennsylvania€State€University.Ð ð@  ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓGoudy,€Willis€J.€1990.€"Community€Attachment€in€a€Rural€Region."€òòRural€Sociologyóó.€Ð Ð  ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ à55:178-198.ÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà0 ÷ àà  àGoudy,€Willis€J.€1982.€"Further€Consideration€of€Indicators€of€Community€Attachment."€Ïòòà o àSocial€Indicators€Researchóó.€11:181-192.Ðà÷(#÷(# ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà0 ÷ àà  àGranovetter,€Mark€S.€1973.€"The€Strength€of€Weak€Ties."€òòAmerican€Journal€of€SociologyóóÐ pÀ Ð78:6.Ð ÷(#÷(# ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓGusfield,€Joseph.€1975.€òòCommunity:€A€Critical€Responseóó.€New€York:€Harper€and€Row.Ð @ ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà0 ÷ àà  àGVU€Center€for€Internet€Demographics.€1998.€Survey€of€Internet€Demographics.€online€à @À" à¼http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/user_surveyÐ ÷(#÷(# ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓHillery,€George€A.€1955.€"Definitions€of€Community:€Areas€of€Agreement."€òòRural€Ð ð@ ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àSociology.€óó20:111-123.Ð à0 ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌ›Hiltz,€Starr€Roxanne.€1984.€òòOnline€Communities:€A€Case€Study€of€the€Office€of€the€Ð À! Ðà ÷ àFuture.óó€€Norwood,€NJ:€Albex.Ð °"  МÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓHiltz,€Starr€Roxanne€and€Turoff,€Murray.€1978.€òòThe€Network€Nation:Human€Ð $à" ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àCommunication€via€Computer.€óóReading,€Massachusetts:€Addison-Wesley€Ð €%Ð # ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àPublishing€Company,€Inc.ÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà0 ÷ àà  àHunter,€Albert.€1978.€"Persistence€of€Local€Sentiments€in€Mass€Society."€pp.€134-156€inÏDavid€Street€(ed.),€òòHandbook€of€Contemporary€Urban€Lifeóó.€San€Francisco:€Ð@)$'÷(#÷(# ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àJosey-Bass.Ìâ âÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÐ  +p&) ÐÑ~@¸mÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑ~@¸dÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà0 ÷ àà  àJonassen,€Christen€T.€1959.€"Community€Typology."€in€Sussman,€ed.€1959.€òòCommunity€Ð ° Ðâ âStructure€and€Analysisóó.€(New€York:€Thomas€Y.€Crowell€Company),€pp.€15-36.€Ð ð÷(#÷(# ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓJones,€Steven,€ed.€1995.€òòCyberSociety:€Computer-Mediated€Communication€and€Ð €Ð ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àCommunity.€óóThousand€Oaks,€California:€Sage€Publications€Ltd.Ð pÀ ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà0 ÷ àà  àKasarda,€John€D,€and€Morris€Janowitz.€1974.€"Community€Attachment€in€Mass€Society."€ÏòòAmerican€Sociological€Reviewóó.€39:328-39Ð@ ÷(#÷(# ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓLudlow,€Peter.€1996.€òòHigh€Noon€on€the€Electronic€Frontier:€Conceptual€Issues€in€Ð  p  ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àCyberspace.€óóCambridge,€€Massachusetts:€MIT€Press.Ð `  ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓParks,€Malcolm€R.€and€Kory€Floyd.€1996.€"Making€Friends€in€Cyberspace."€òòJournal€of€Ð ð@  ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àCommunicationóó.€46:80-97Ð à0  ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓ€ÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓPorter,€David,€ed.€1997.€òòInternet€Cultureóó.€New€York:€Routledge.Ð À ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà0 ÷ àà  àReid,€E.€M.€1991.€òòElectropolis:€Communication€and€Community€on€Internet€Relay€Chat.óóÐ  ð ÐUniversity€of€Melbourne.€Honours€Thesis.€Available€on-line€at€Ð ÷(#÷(# ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àhttp://www.ee.mu.oz.au/papers/emrÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌà0 ÷ àà  àRheingold,€Howard.€1993.€òòThe€Virtual€Communityóó.€Reading,€Massachusetts:€Ð`°÷(#÷(# Ðà ÷ àAddison-Wesley€Publishing€Company.ÌÌà0 ÷ àà  àStoll,€Clifford.€1995.€òòSilicon€Snake€Oil:€Second€Thoughts€On€the€Information€Highwayóó.€Ð 0€ ÐNew€York:€Anchor€Books.Ð ÷(#÷(# ЀÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓSurratt,€Carla.€1996.€òòThe€Sociology€of€Everyday€Life€in€Computer-Mediated€Ð P ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àCommunitiesóó.€Ph.D.€Dissertation.€Tuscon:€Arizona€State€University.Ð ð@ ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓTilly,€Charles.€1973.€€"Do€Communities€Act?"€òòSociological€Inquiryóó.€43:209-240.Ð Ð  ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà0 ÷ àà  àTnnies,€Ferdinand.€[1887]€1959.€"From€òòGemeinschaft€und€Gesellschaftóó"€pp.€293-303€in€Ð °"  ÐòòThe€Making€of€Society:€An€Outline€of€Sociologyóó.€€Robert€Bierstedt,€Ed.€The€ModernÐ  #ð! ÐLibrary:€New€York.Ð ÷(#÷(# ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓÌÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓTurkle,€Sherry.€1984.€òòThe€Second€Self:€Computers€and€the€Human€Spiritóó.€New€York:€Ð p&À!$ ÐÓK.÷o ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#÷o ¸ ŠXKÓà ÷ àSimon€and€Schuster.ÌÌTurkle,€Sherry.€1995.€òòLife€on€the€Screen:€Identity€in€the€Age€of€the€Internetóó.€New€York:€Ð @)$' Ðà ÷ àSimon€and€Schuster.Ìâ âÐ  +p&) ЛÔ& Ð Ôâ âYoung,€Kimberly€S.€€1998.€òòCaught€in€the€Net:€How€to€Recognize€the€Signs€of€Internet€Ð ° Ðà ÷ àAddiction„„and€a€Winning€Strategy€for€Recovery.€óóNew€York:€John€Wiley€&€Sons.Ð  ð МÔ'аÔÔÌà0 ÷ àà  àWellman,€Barry.€1979.€"The€Community€Question."€òòAmerican€Journal€of€Sociologyóó.Ð €Ð Ð84:1201-1231.Ð ÷(#÷(# ÐÌWellman,€Barry,€Peter€Carrington,€and€Alan€Hall.€1988.€"Networks€as€Personal€Ìà ÷ àCommunites."€pp.€130-183€in€òòSocial€Structures:€A€Network€Approachóó.€Wellman€Ð @  Ðà ÷ àand€Berkowitz,€Eds.€New€York:€Cambrige€University€Press.ÌÌWellman,€Barry,€et€al.€1996.€"Computer€Networks€as€Social€Networks:€Collaborative€Ìà ÷ àWork,€Telework,€and€Virtual€Community."€òòAnnual€Review€of€Sociologyóó.€à Ð àÐ P  Ðà ÷ à22:213-238.ÌÐ  à0  ÐÑ¿roÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑ¿rfÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑ€|@¸ÑÑ€:@¸ÑÑ€‚@¸ÑÑ€;@¸ÑÑ€ƒ@¸ÑÑ€„@¸ÑÑ€†@¸ ÑÔ€ Ñ XX´’ÔÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAPPENDIX€AÌÌÌCover€Letter€and€€Survey€QuestionnaireÐ  ð@ ÐÑ|@¸pÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑ|@¸gÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÓ%ÙÓÌò òCover€Letteró óÐ ð@ ÐÔ‡X´’X  ÑÔÌHello,ÌÌMy€name€is€David€Coon,€and€I€am€a€student€at€Kansas€State€University€in€Manhattan,ÏKansas.€I€noticed€recently€that€you€were€logged€on€to€the€#friends€channel€of€IRC.€I€amÏconducting€some€research€that€examines€the€nature€of€the€relationships€that€peopleÏestablish€with€one€another€over€the€Internet.€€I€was€wondering€if€you€might€take€a€fewÏminutes€of€your€time€to€participate€in€this€research.€€Your€participation€would€involveÏanswering€the€questions€listed€below€and€mailing€the€response€back€to€me.€€TheÏquestionnaire€will€take€approximately€15€to€25€minutes€to€complete€and€seeksÏinformation€about€friendships€you€have€established€through€#friends,€and€your€use€of€theÏInternet.ÌÌYou€are€one€of€a€small€number€of€people€being€asked€to€give€your€opinion€on€thisÌissue.€You€were€randomly€chosen€as€one€of€a€small€number€of€users€from€the€#friendsÏchannel€of€IRC.€€In€order€that€the€results€will€truly€represent€the€thinking€of€the€peopleÏwho€participate€in€#friends,€it€is€very€important€that€this€questionnaire€be€completed€andÏreturned.ÌÌYour€participation€is€completely€voluntary.€€All€research€information€will€be€handled€inÏthe€strictest€confidence€and€your€participation€will€not€be€individually€identifiable€in€anyÏway.€€I€will€be€happy€to€answer€any€questions€that€you€have€about€the€study.€€If€you€haveÏany€questions€that€arise€about€the€research€or€any€other€concerns,€please€feel€free€toÏcontact€me,€David€Coon,€at€irsurvey@ksu.edu€.€€If€you€have€any€questions€about€the€roleÏof€the€university,€or€your€rights€as€a€participant€in€this€study,€contact€Clive€Fullagar,ÏChair,€Institutional€Review€Board,€Kansas€State€University,€€(785)€532-0608,Ïfullagar@ksu.edu€.ÌÌYou€may€be€assured€of€complete€confidentiality.€€If€you€are€so€inclined,€you€can€evenÏreturn€the€questionnaire€anonymously€by€e-mail.€€Instructions€for€doing€this€are€availableÏat€http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~irsurvey€€This€questionnaire€has€an€identificationÏnumber€on€it€for€mailing€purposes€only.€€This€is€so€that€your€name€may€be€checked€off€ofÏthe€mailing€list€when€your€questionnaire€is€returned.€€Neither€your€name,€nor€your€e-mailÏaddress,€will€ever€be€associated€with€the€information€on€the€questionnaire€itself.€€All€dataÏcollected€from€the€survey€will€be€summed€to€provide€an€aggregate€picture€of€#friendsÏusers.ÌÌThe€data€collected€from€the€survey€will€be€used€to€write€a€Master's€thesis.€The€results€ofÏthis€research€will€be€made€available€on€the€World€Wide€Web€(WWW)€and€to€anyone€whoÏrequests€a€copy.€Ð À+') ÐÑ:@¸qÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑ:@¸hÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìò òÔ#† Ñ XX´’Ú#ÔSurvey€Questionnaireó óÔ‡X´’X  ÑÔÐ  ð ÐÌIn€order€to€respond€to€the€survey,€please€use€the€REPLY€feature€of€your€e-mail€programÏand€include€this€message€in€your€reply.€Then€fill€in€the€appropriate€responses€to€theÏsurvey€questions€in€your€reply.€Your€e-mail€address€will€in€no€way€be€associated€withÏyour€response€and€your€anonymity€is€guaranteed,€but€if€you€are€still€concerned€aboutÏanonymity,€you€can€get€instructions€on€how€to€e-mail€the€survey€anonymously€atÏhttp://www-personal.ksu.edu/€~dcoon/email.html€€If€you€prefer,€you€can€print€out€theÏsurvey€and€complete€and€mail€the€printed€copy€to€David€Coon,€Dept.€of€Sociology,€204ÏWaters€Hall,€Kansas€State€University,€Manhattan,€KS€66506,€U.S.A.;€to€ensureÏanonymity,€do€not€include€a€return€address.ÌÌMost€of€the€questions€below€will€simply€ask€that€you€either€mark€the€appropriateÌresponse€choice€with€an€"X"€between€the€[€]'s€(brackets)€or€type€the€appropriate€€numberÏbetween€Ìthe€[€]'s€(brackets).€Thank€you€very€much€for€your€help€in€this€study.ÌÌFirst,€I€would€like€to€ask€you€several€questions€about€the€nature€of€the€relationships€thatÏyou€have€with€other€persons€that€you€talk€with€on€#friends.ÌÌÔ& € Ô1.)€How€often€do€you€log€on€to€or€join€#friends?Ì[€]several€times€a€dayÌ[€]once€a€dayÌ[€]a€few€times€a€weekÌ[€]once€a€weekÌ[€]a€few€times€a€monthÌ[€]once€a€month€or€lessÌÔ'€°IéÔÌÔ& ° Ô2.)€Are€there€people€that€you€talk€with€regularly€through€#friends?Ì[€]€Yes,€there€are€specific€people€that€I€talk€with€on€a€frequent€basis€€Ì[€]€Yes,€there€are€specific€people€that€I€talk€with€on€an€occasional€basis€Ì[€]€No,€I€don't€tend€to€talk€with€any€specific€persons€on€a€regular€basis€ÌÔ'°0 êÔÌÔ& ° Ô3.)€Out€of€the€people€that€you€talk€with€through€#friends,€do€you€consider€Ìany€of€them€to€be€a€"close"€friend?Ì[€]Yes€€-->€GO€TO€3-A€Ì[€]No€-->€SKIP€TO€QUESTION€4Ìâ âÔ'°à$XëÔÐ  (ð#& ÐÑ‚@¸rÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑ‚@¸iÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÔ& À Ôâ â3-A.)€How€many€of€the€people€that€you€talk€with€through€#friends€do€you€consider€to€beÏclose€friends?Ì[€]€Number€of€CLOSE€FRIENDS€€-->€GO€TO€3-BÌÔ'À°’ìÔÌÔ&  Ô3-B.)€In€which€of€the€following€ways€do€these€people€represent€close€friends€to€youÏ(check€all€that€apply)?€Also,€how€many€of€the€close€friends€listed€in€3-A€do€each€of€theseÏapply€(next€to€each€reason€you€check,€please€list€the€number€of€close€friends€to€which€theÏreason€applies)?ÌÌPlease€Mark€with€an€"X"€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Please€type€a€NumberÌ[€]€We€strongly€care€about€each€other's€personal€well€being.€€€€€€€€€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDS€€€€€Ì[€]€We€talk€about€close€personal€matters€that€are€important€to€us.€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDS€€€€€Ï[€]€We€provide€each€other€help€concerning€personal€problems.€€€€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDS€€€€Ï[€]€We€are€"romantically"€involved.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à È à€€€€€€€€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDS€Ð à0  Ð[€]€We€are€related€by€family.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à È à€€€€€€€€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDS€Ð Ð  Ð[€]€Other€__________________________________________€€€€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDSÌÌÔ' pMíÔÔ& 0 Ô3-C.)€How€long€have€you€known€your€close€friends€on€#friends?€(Check€all€Ìthat€apply)€Also,€how€many€of€the€close€friends€listed€in€3-A€fall€inÌeach€of€the€categories€(next€to€each€time€period€you€check,€please€list€Ìthe€number€of€close€friends€that€you€have€known€for€that€length€of€time)?Ì€ÌPlease€Mark€with€an€"X"€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Please€type€a€NumberÌ[€]€less€than€6€months€€€€€--------------------------->€€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDSÌ[€]€less€than€1€year,€but€more€than€6€months€--->€€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDSÌ[€]€1€-€2€years€€€€€------------------------------------>€€€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDSÌ[€]€3€-€4€years€€€€€------------------------------------>€€€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDSÌ[€]€5€or€more€years€€€------------------------------->€€€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDSÌâ  €€€€€€€€Ð ð@ ÐÑ;@¸sÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑ;@¸jÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÔ'ñ 0ñÔÔ& ` Ô3-D.)€Where€are€your€close€friends€on€#friends€located?€(Please€list€the€City/Town€ÌState/Province,€Country€if€outside€USA€for€up€to€5€persons;€If€you€don't€know€where€anyÏof€your€close€friends€are€located,€please€type€UNKNOWN€in€first€blank).ÌCity/Town:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€State/Province:€€€€€€€€€Country€if€outside€USA:ÌCity/Town:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€State/Province:€€€€€€€€€Country€if€outside€USA:ÌCity/Town:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€State/Province:€€€€€€€€€Country€if€outside€USA:ÌCity/Town:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€State/Province:€€€€€€€€€Country€if€outside€USA:ÌCity/Town:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€State/Province:€€€€€€€€€Country€if€outside€USA:Ì€€€€€€€€€€Ìâ âÔ'` °ÂôÔÔ&   Ôâ â3-E.)€Do€any€of€your€close€friends€on€#friends€live€in€the€same€location€as€you€do?Ì[€]€Yes€€------------->€How€many€live€in€the€same€location€as€you€do?€[€]Ì[€]€No€Ì[€]€I€Don't€knowÌÌÔ'  “÷ÔÌNext,€I€would€like€to€ask€you€several€questions€about€how€you€feel€about€yourÏparticipation€in€€the€#friends€chatroom.ÌÌÔ&   Ô4.)€Would€you€say€you€belong€to€and€feel€'at€home'€when€you€participate€in€€#friends?Ì[€]definitely€notÌ[€]probably€notÌ[€]probablyÌ[€]definitelyÌÔ' íøÔÌÔ& ° Ô5.)€How€much€interest€do€you€have€in€knowing€what€goes€on€in€#friends?Ì[€]no€interestÌ[€]€some€interestÌ[€]much€interest€ÌÔ'°0ŸùÔÌÔ& € Ô6.)€Suppose€that€for€some€reason€that€you€were€not€allowed€to€participate€in€or€log€on€toÏ#friends€for€an€extended€period€of€time.€How€would€feel€about€being€unable€to€haveÏaccess€to€#friends?Ì[€]€very€sorryÌ[€]€somewhat€sorry€€Ì[€]somewhat€pleased€Ì[€]€very€pleased€ÌÔ'€à9úÔÌNow,€I€would€like€to€ask€you€some€questions€about€your€relationships€with€other€personsÏoutside€of€#€friends.Ìâ âÐ @)$' Ðу@¸tÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññу@¸kÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÔ&   Ôâ â7.)€In€thinking€about€your€social€life,€are€there€other€people€that€you€consider€to€be€closeÏfriends€or€have€close€relationships€with€that€you€did€not€meet€and€get€to€know€throughÏchatting€on€the€computer?Ì[€]Yes€€-->€GO€TO€7-B€Ì[€]No€-->€SKIP€TO€QUESTION€8ÌÔ' °JüÔÔ&   ÔÌ7-B.)€How€many€people€do€you€know€that€you€consider€to€be€close€friends€or€have€closeÏrelationships€with€that€you€did€not€meet€and€get€to€know€through€chatting€on€theÏcomputer?Ì[€]€NUMBER€OF€CLOSE€FRIENDS/RELATIONSHIPS€€-->€GO€TO€QUESTION€7„C¼à ÷ àà o àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àÔ' ` uýÔÔ&  ÔÌ7-C.)€In€which€of€the€following€ways€do€you€have€close€relationships€with€these€peopleÏ(check€all€that€apply)?€Also,€how€many€of€the€close€friends€listed€in€7-B€do€each€of€€theseÏreasons€apply€(Next€to€each€reason€you€check,€please€list€the€number€of€€close€friends€toÏwhich€each€reason€applies)?ÌÌPlease€Mark€with€an€"X"€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Please€type€a€NumberÌ[€]€We€strongly€care€about€each€other's€personal€well€being.€€€€€€€€€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDS€€€€€€Ì[€]€We€talk€about€close€personal€matters€that€are€important€to€us.€[€]€CLOSE€€FRIENDS€€€€€Ï[€]€We€provide€each€other€help€concerning€personal€problems.€€€€€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDS€€€€€€Ì[€]€We€are€"romantically"€involved.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDS€€€€€Ì[€]€We€are€related€by€family.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDS€Ìâ â[€]€Other€_________________________________________€€€€€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDSÐ P  ÐÔ'÷ ÿÔÔ&  ÔÌ7-D.)€How€long€have€you€known€the€people€outside€of€#friends€that€you€consider€to€beÏclose€friends€or€have€close€relationships€with?€(Check€all€that€apply)€Also,€how€many€ofÏthese€close€friends€listed€in€7-B€fall€in€each€of€the€categories€(next€to€each€time€periodÏyou€check,€please€list€the€number€of€close€friends€that€you€have€known€for€that€length€of€€€Ïtime)?ÌÌPlease€Mark€with€an€"X"€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Please€type€a€NumberÌ[€]€less€than€6€months€€€€€--------------------------->€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDSÌ[€]€less€than€1€year,€but€more€than€6€months€--->€€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDSÌ[€]€1€-€2€years€€€€€------------------------------------>€€€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDSÌ[€]€3€-€4€years€€€€€------------------------------------>€€€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDSÌ[€]€5€or€more€years€€€------------------------------->€€€[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDSÌâ âÔ' ° ÔÔ& P Ôâ âÌ7-E.)€Where€are€the€people€outside€of€#friends€that€you€consider€to€be€closeÌfriends€or€have€close€relationships€with€located?€(Please€list€the€City/Town€ÌState/Province,€Country€if€outside€USA€for€up€to€5€persons)ÌCity/Town:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€State/Province:€€€€€€€€€Country€if€outside€USA:ÌCity/Town:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€State/Province:€€€€€€€€€Country€if€outside€USA:ÌCity/Town:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€State/Province:€€€€€€€€€Country€if€outside€USA:ÌCity/Town:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€State/Province:€€€€€€€€€Country€if€outside€USA:ÌCity/Town:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€State/Province:€€€€€€€€€Country€if€outside€USA:ÌÌÔ'P ànÔÔ&  Ô7-F.)€Do€any€of€the€people€outside€of€#friends€that€you€consider€to€be€closeÌfriends€or€have€close€relationships€with€live€in€the€same€location€as€you?€ÌÌ[€]€Yes€€------------->€How€many€live€in€the€same€location€as€you€do?€[€]Ì[€]€No€ÌÌÔ'@ ÔÔ&  Ô7-G.)€In€thinking€about€the€people€outside€of€#friends€that€you€consider€to€be€closeÏfriends€or€have€close€relationships€with,€did€any€of€them€live€in€the€same€location€as€youÏat€one€time,€but€now€live€elsewhere?€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì[€]Yes€€-->€GO€TO€7-G1€Ì[€]No€-->€SKIP€TO€QUESTION€8Ìâ âÐ $à" ÐÑ„@¸vÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÑ„@¸mÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÔ'Àåàa ÔÔ& À Ô7-G1.)€How€many€of€the€persons€you€listed€in€7-B€lived€in€the€same€location€as€you€atÏone€time,€but€now€live€elsewhere?Ì[€]€CLOSE€FRIENDS/RELATIONS€NOW€LIVE€ELSEWHEREÌâ âÔ'À° ÔÔ& ` Ôâ âÌ7-G2.)€How€do€you€keep€in€contact€and€maintain€your€relationship€with€these€people€thatÏnow€live€somewhere€else€(check€all€that€apply)?Ì[€]€One€or€both€of€us€travels€to€meet€face-to-faceÌ[€]€We€talk€over€the€telephoneÌ[€]€We€communicate€through€e-mailÌ[€]€We€write€letters€to€each€otherÌ[€]€Other€________________________________ÌÌÔ'` €Þ ÔÌNext,€I€want€to€ask€you€a€few€more€questions€about€your€relationships€with€othersÏthrough€#friends.ÌÌÔ& ° Ô8.)€Are€there€persons€that€you€talk€with€through€#friends,€that€you€first€met€face-to-face,Ïin€person?Ì[€]Yes€€-->€GO€TO€8-A€Ì[€]No€-->€SKIP€TO€QUESTION€9ÌÔ'°°¹ÔÌÔ& À Ô8-A).€How€many€persons€do€you€talk€with€through€#friends€that€you€first€metÏface-to-face?Ì[€]€PERSONS€Ìâ âÔ'À`tÔÐ 0€ ÐÔ&   Ô9.)€Are€there€persons€that€you€first€met€through€#friends,€that€you€have€established€aÏface-to-face€relationship€with?Ì[€]Yes€€-->€GO€TO€QUESTION€9-A€Ì[€]No€-->€SKIP€TO€QUESTION€10ÌÌâ âÔ' °ÔÔ&  Ôâ â9-A).€How€many€persons€have€you€established€face-to-face€relationships€with€that€youÏfirst€met€through€#friends?€Ì[€]€PERSONS€ÌÌ9-B.)€Where€were€these€people€located€when€you€established€a€face-to-face€relationshipÏwith€them?€(Please€list€the€City/Town€State/Province,€Country€if€outside€USA€for€up€to€5Ïpersons)ÌCity/Town:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€State/Province:€€€€€€€€€Country€if€outside€USA:ÌCity/Town:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€State/Province:€€€€€€€€€Country€if€outside€USA:ÌCity/Town:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€State/Province:€€€€€€€€€Country€if€outside€USA:ÌCity/Town:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€State/Province:€€€€€€€€€Country€if€outside€USA:ÌCity/Town:€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€State/Province:€€€€€€€€€Country€if€outside€USA:ÌÌÔ' ` øÔÔ&   Ô9-C).€Have€any€of€the€face-to-face€relationships€that€you've€established€with€persons€youÏfirst€met€through€#friends€turned€into€romantic€relationships€involving€dating€orÏmarriage?Ì[€]Yes€€Ì[€]No€ÌÔ' ÔÌÔ& Ð Ô10.€What€is€the€most€important€reason€why€you€participate€in€#friends?€(Please€type€inÏyour€answer€below)ÌÔ'Ð0êÔÌFinally,€I€want€to€ask€you€a€few€questions€about€yourself.ÌÌÔ& ° Ô11.€Where€are€you€located?ÌCITY:€_______________________ÌSTATE/PROVINCE:______________________ÌCOUNTRY:€€_____________________€(if€outside€USA).ÌÔ'°à°ÔÌÔ& À Ô12.€What€is€your€gender?€Ì[€]€MALE€€€Ì[€]€FEMALEÌÔ'À$aÔÌÔ& Ð Ô13.€What€is€your€age€(in€years)?Ì[€]€YEARSÌâ âÔ'ÐP(²ÔÐ 0*€%( Ðц@¸xÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñññц@¸oÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑññÔ& € Ôâ â14.€What€is€the€highest€level€of€education€that€you€have€completed?Ì[€]€SOME€HIGH€SCHOOLÌ[€]€HIGH€SCHOOL€GRADUATEÌ[€]€SOME€COLLEGE€€SPECIALTY€AREA:€_________Ì[€]€UNDERGRADUATE€COLLEGE€DEGREE€€SPECIALTY€AREA:€_________Ì[€]€SOME€SCHOOLING€TOWARD€ADVANCED€DEGREE€€SPECIALTY€AREA:____€Ì[€]€ADVANCED€DEGREE€€SPECIALTY€AREA:€_________ÌÔ'€°sÔÌ15.€What€is€your€occupation?€€__________________________ÌÌÔ&  Ô16.€What€is€your€marital€status?Ì[€]€SingleÌ[€]€MarriedÌ[€]€DivorcedÌ[€]€WidowedÌ[€]€Other€________________________________ÌÔ' ÔÌÔ& ° Ô17.€Are€there€other€Internet€sites€or€IRC€Channels€that€you€use€to€chat€with€other€peopleÏin€addition€to€#friends?Ì[€]€YES€€-------->€GO€TO€QUESTION€17-AÌ[€]€NOÌÔ'° ¼ÔÌÔ& À Ô17-A).€How€many€other€Internet€sites€or€IRC€Channels€do€you€use€to€chat€with€otherÏpeople€on€a€regular€basis?Ì[€]€Number€of€CHAT€ROOMSÌÔ'ÀP}ÔÌÌÔ& ° Ô18.€Do€you€believe€that€the€time€you€spend€on€the€Internet€has€an€important€effect€on€yourÌparticipation€in€other€activities?Ì[€]€YES€€€GO€TO€18-AÌ[€]€NO€€€€€€€€€SKIP€TO€FINAL€QUESTION€ÌÔ'°%ÔÌÔ& ` Ô18-A.€How€has€it€affected€your€participation€in€other€activities?€(check€all€that€apply)Ì[€]€I€spend€less€time€with€familyÌ[€]€I€spend€less€time€with€friendsÌ[€]€I€spend€less€time€watching€TVÌ[€]€I€spend€time€at€work€using€the€Internet€for€Personal€ReasonsÌ[€]€I€spend€less€time€on€schoolworkÌ[€]€I€have€missed€important€appointments€or€social€eventsÌ[€]€other€___________________________________ÌÌâ âÔ'` °"ÿÔÐ  +p&) ÐÔ& ° Ôâ âThank€you€for€responding€to€the€survey!€Would€you€like€a€summary€of€the€results€sent€toÏyou?Ì[€]€YESÌ[€]€NOÌÔ'°°ËÔÌThank€you€for€your€assistance.ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Sincerely,ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€David€A.€CoonÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ResearcherÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Kansas€State€UniversityÌÔ#† Ñ XX´’ñä#Ô