AN INVESTIGATION OF #FRIENDS INTERNET RELAY CHAT

AS A COMMUNITY

by

DAVID ALAN COON

B.A., Southeastern Louisiana University, 1996

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

A THESIS

submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work

College of Arts and Sciences

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY

Manhattan, Kansas

1998

Approved by:

Major Professor

Dr. W. Richard Goe

ABSTRACT

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................i

LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...................................................................................................v

CHAPTER

I.	INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1

II.	REVIEW OF LITERATURE..................................................................................5

Statement of the Problem.........................................................................................5

Sociological Definitions of the concept of Community".........................................5

Communal Social Relations.....................................................................................8

Communal Attachment and Common Ties............................................................11

Information Technology and Community.............................................................13

Research on the Internet as a Community.............................................................16	Psychological Internet Research............................................................................22

Social Relationships and Common Ties On-Line .................................................24

Geography and the Internet....................................................................................24

III.	TYPES OF COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION.............................26

IV.	RESEARCH OBJECTIVES..................................................................................38
Forms of CMC as a Medium for Community.......................................................40	Formation of Communal Social Relations Over the Internet................................42

Geographic Scale of Communities Developed Over the Internet..........................43

Development of Community Sentiment Over the Internet....................................44

V.	RESEARCH METHODS......................................................................................46

Sampling Procedure...............................................................................................46

Response Rate........................................................................................................47

Organization of The Survey Questionnaire...........................................................47	Measurement of Communal Relations...................................................................48

Measurement of the Geographic Scale of Community..........................................50

Measurement of Community Sentiment................................................................52

Method of Data Analysis.......................................................................................54

VI.	FINDINGS.............................................................................................................55

Characteristics of the Sample ................................................................................55

Frequency of Participation in #friends and in Other Chat Rooms.........................57	Online Friendships in #friends...............................................................................60

Nature of On-Line relationships in #friends..........................................................61

Traditional Face-to-Face Relationships Outside of Cyberspace..........................64

The relationship between close ties in #friends & close ties outside of

Cyberspace.............................................................................................................70

The Effects of Internet Participation on Other Activities......................................71

Geographic Scale of Close Friendship Ties in friends...........................................72

Geographic Scale of Close Friendship Ties Outside of Cyberspace.....................73

The Evolution of Cyberspace Relationships into Face-to-Face Relationships .....74

Community Sentiment Among Participants in #friends........................................75

VII.	DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS.................................................................78

Close Friendship Ties in #friends..........................................................................78

Respondents' Close Friendship Ties Outside of Cyberspace................................81

Comparison of Close Friendship Ties in #friends and Close Friendship Ties

Outside of Cyberspace...........................................................................................83

Geographic Scale of Close Friendship Ties in #friends.........................................85

Geographic Scale of Close Friendship Ties Outside of Cyberspace.....................85

Establishment/maintenance of Friendship Ties.....................................................86

Community Sentiment among #friends Users.......................................................88

Summary................................................................................................................89

Directions for Future Research..............................................................................89

BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................91

APPENDIX A....................................................................................................................95

Cover Letter...........................................................................................................96

Survey Questionnaire.............................................................................................97

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1:	Types of CMC & Characteristics of Each Type..............................36
Table 6.1:	Comparison of this sample with Ninth GVU Survey......................58
Table 6.2:	Countries Represented by the Sample.............................................59
Table 6.3:	Frequency of participation in #friends chatroom.............................60
Table 6.4:	Characteristics of Close Friendship Ties Developed in #friends.....63
Table 6.5:	Duration of close friendship ties developed in #friends..................64
Table 6.6:	Characteristics of Close Friendship Ties Developed Outside of Cyberspace.......................................................................................67
Table 6.7:	Duration of close friendship ties developed outside of

Cyberspace.......................................................................................68
Table 6.8:	Joint Distribution of respondents with close friends in #friends vs. Those with Close friends outside of Cyberspace.............................71
Table 6.9:	Effects of Internet Participation on Other Activities.......................72
Table 6.10:	Geographic Scale of Close Ties in #friends.....................................73
Table 6.11:	Geographic Scale of Close Ties Outside of Cyberspace..................74
Table 6.12:	Frequency Distributions of Community Sentiment Indicators........76
Table 6.13:	Comparison of the means on the Community Sentiment Index between Persons with Close Friendship Ties Developed in #friends and Those Without Such Ties..........................................................77

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................I

LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................iv CHAPTER

I.	INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1

II.	REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................

Sociological Research on Community ....................................................................	Research on the Internet as a Community ................................................................	Psychological Internet Research ..............................................................................

III. TYPES OF COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION

IV.	RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................
Forms of CMC as a Medium for Community .........................................................	Formation of Communal Social Relations Over the Internet....................................	Geographic Scale of Community Developed Over the Internet................................	Development of Community Sentiment Over the Internet .......................................

V.	RESEARCH METHODS..........................................................................................
Sampling Procedure...................................................................................................	response Rate...........................................................................................................

Organization of Questionnaire ..................................................................................	Measurement of Communal Relations.......................................................................	Measurement of the Geographic Scale of Community..............................................	Measurement of Community Sentiment....................................................................	Method of Data Analysis..........................................................................................

VI.	FINDINGS ...........................................................................................................

Characteristics of the Sample ....................................................................................

Frequency of Participation in #friends and in other chat rooms................................	Online Friendships in #friends .................................................................................

Nature of ONLINE relationships in #friends ..............................................................

Traditional Face-to-Face Relationships Outside of Cyberspace ..............................

Social Isolates..................................................................................

Internet Participation vs. Other Activities................................................

Geographic Scope of Communal Relations...............................................................

Geographic Scope of Friendship Ties Mediated Through #friends...........................

Geographic Scale of Traditional Face-To-Face Friendship Ties of #friends Users.	Persons that Met Face-to-Face With Someone They Met in #friends: Geographic	Scale...

Community Sentiment in #friends.............................................................................

VII. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Close Friendship Ties in #friends..............................................................................

Geographicc Scope of Close Friendship Ties in #friends..........................................

Community Sentiment among #Friends Users..........................................................

Close Friendship Ties Outside of Cyberspace..........................................................

Geographic Scope of Close Friendship Ties Outside of Cyberspace....................

Relocation /Establishment of Ties.....................................................................

BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................

APPENDIX A..........................................................................................................

Cover Letter......................................................................................................

Survey Questionnaire.......................................................................................

LIST OF TABLES

Chapter 3

Table 3.1	Types of CMC & Characteristics of Each Type

Chapter 5

Table 5.1	Factor Pattern of Community Sentiment Indicators

Chapter 6

Table 6.1

Comparison of this Sample with Ninth GVU Survey

Table 6.2	Countries Represented by the Sample

Table 6.3	Frequency of Participation in #friends Chatroom

Table 6.4	Characteristics of Close Friendship Ties Developed in

#friends

Table 6.5	Duration of close Face-to-Face friendship ties of

respondents

Table 6.6	Characteristics of Close Friendship Ties Developed

Outside of Cyberspace

Table 6.7	Duration of close friendship ties developed outside of

Cyberspace

Table 6.8	Joint Distribution of respondents with close	friends in #friends vs. those with close friends outside
of Cyberspace

Table 6.9	Internet Participation Affect on Other activities

Table 6.10	Geographic Scope of Close Ties Outside of

Cyberspace

Table 6.11	Geographic Scope of Face-to-Face Relationships

Established through #friends

Table 6.12	Community Sentiment Questions

Table 6.13	Comparison of the Means of the Community

Sentiment Index between persons with close

friendship ties developed in #friends and those

without close face-to-face friendship ties

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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

Chapter I

Introduction

Whether or not people realize it, computers are playing an increasingly important role in their daily lives. In particular, the computer network known as the Internet has experienced exponential growth. By one account, a new homepage on the World Wide Web (WWW), a part of the Internet, crops up every thirty seconds. The use of computers in varying capacities is replacing face-to-face social interaction between people. In some offices, co-workers will send e-mail messages to someone in the next cubicle rather than interact with that person face-to-face. Computer mediated communication (CMC) has become increasingly widespread. The extent to which face-to-face social interaction is being replaced by CMC should be an important topic of concern among sociologists.

By far, the largest forum for CMC to occur is the Internet. The Internet is a computer network that links computers all over the world. Started as the ARPANET during the Cold War by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the U.S. Department of Defense, it has grown into an international network which now includes academic institutions, governments, commercial establishments, and millions of private individuals from all around the world.

The Internet is a term which is sometimes misused and abused. Esther Dyson (1997:1-2) makes a distinction between the Net and the Internet. Dyson sees the Net as a linking of both formal and informal computer networks as well as commercial networks such as America On Line (AOL) that are linked to the Internet. The Internet for Dyson (1997:1-2) is strictly those computers hooked together using the Internet Protocol (IP). This distinction is probably a false one, however. Almost everyone uses the two terms, Net and Internet, interchangeably. While services like AOL may have services and features of their own which are separate and apart from those of the Internet, AOL itself is still connected to the Internet. For the purposes of this study, however, the Internet will be defined as any computer which has access to the forms of CMC that this study will examine.

The Internet allows people sitting behind computer screens, literally at different ends of the earth, to communicate with one another and interact socially in a way that is unparalleled throughout all of human history. One might argue that the telephone also allowed for such communication, but unlike the Internet, telephones require users to know the person they are contacting or at least the specific location, phone number, or name of the person they wish to contact. Someone can simply join a discussion of a particular topic of interest on the Internet without even knowing any of the others who are involved in the discussion. These persons can form interest groups, relationships, and even have digital romances over the Internet. It is in this manner that the technology mediates and facilitates the formation of social networks. Persons using various forms of CMC over the Internet can form networks of social interaction.

The forms of CMC that make up the Internet exist first and foremost to facilitate some form of communication between people. It is for this reason that these forms of CMC can serve to facilitate social interaction between people. The social interaction which takes place through the various forms of CMC can involve the formation of social ties and social networks, like those which form the basis of a real world, bounded, geographical community.

Both the popular press and even some of the academic literature has used the term "Virtual Community" to refer to the Internet ever since the publication of Howard Rhinegold's book in 1993. Rhinegold, also famous for his book, Virtual Reality, is the person who first coined the term "Virtual Community." Most of the research which has been done in this area, however, takes the usage of the term "Virtual Community" as a given, and does not evaluate this concept empirically in any critical fashion.

For this reason, the Internet has been frequently referred to as a "community" or a "virtual community" with little elaboration on how and why this is the case. Few studies have attempted to assess the ways in which the social interaction that takes place over the Internet represents a community in a sociological sense. Studies that have addressed this topic have given only a cursory treatment to the classical community literature. The few existing studies that have attempted to do this have been qualitatively-oriented and anecdotal. There is a lack of empirical, quantitatively-oriented research in this area. The purpose of this study, therefore, will be to assess the ways in which the networks of social interaction formed over the Internet meet a sociological definition of the concept of "community." An empirical examination of this issue will be accomplished through the use of a survey of social actors that interact through one of the various forms of CMC on the Internet.

A literature review of some of the classical community literature and some community/Internet research is presented in chapter two. Chapter two will first present some of the traditional sociological literature about community such as Tönnies [1887] and Hillery (1955), then it will move to a discussion of more recent work about traditional communities by Gusfield (1975), Wellman (1979, 1988), Goudy (1982, 1990) and others. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of some more recent research specifically about the Internet, some of which relates to the idea of "community."

Chapter three will discuss and attempt to classify some of the wide variety of various forms of CMC found on the Internet. There are many forms of CMC which allow social interaction to occur over the Internet. Real time forms of CMC are most like face-to-face communication which occurs in real world, geographical communities.

While non real-time communication does occur in traditional, real world, geographical communities, the mainstay of communication in these communities consists of real-time face-to-face interaction. Use of the term 'community' minimally implies some sort of social interaction among groups of people. The main form of "real time" communication between large groups of people over the Internet is comprised of various "chat rooms." The many types of on-line chat rooms will be discussed in chapter three.

Chapter four gives an overview of the research issues that were examined by this study. Chapter five discusses the research methods that were used. The findings are presented in chapter six. Finally, a discussion of the findings and conclusions about the findings are presented in chapter seven.

Chapter II

Review of Literature

Statement of the Problem

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

Sociological Definitions of the Concept of "Community"

Ferdinand Tönnies ([1887] 1959) was among the first to address the issue of what is meant by community. Tönnies argued that the notion of community, termed Gemeinschaft, represented an ideal type of a collective will governing social relationships among humans (Tönnies, [1887] 1959).1 Communal social relationships were based on emotional attachment, sentiment, and familiarity. In opposition to Gemeinschaft, or community, is a different form of collective will based on rational calculation, indifference and self-interest. This was termed Gesellschaft. Tönnies contended that societies were undergoing a shift from social relations based on community, to those based on Gesellschaft, as industrial capitalism developed within the nation states of Western Europe. Tönnies implicitly gave the concept of community a spatial form by contending that the prototypical form of community social organization could be found in the rural agrarian village. Tönnies set the stage for nearly all sociological conceptions of community which came later. Tönnies's view of what represented community has had major influence on the use of the concept of community in American Sociology.

Since Tönnies, there has been substantial debate about how to define the concept of "community" in sociology (Hillery, 1955; Jonassen, 1959; Gusfield, 1975) To date, there remains a lack of consensus over a precise definition of the concept. George Hillery (1955) argues that this problem exists with concepts in all disciplines. Hillery (1955) examined 94 different definitions of community that were presented in the literature in an effort to identify consensual definitions. Hillery found three areas of agreement, or factors, that most of the 94 definitions of community had in common. The first of these three factors which Hillery cited was that most definitions of community include in some way, people who are involved in social interaction. The second factor was that community involves a geographic area. And finally, the third factor found by Hillery was that community involves people who have common ties of some kind. The notion of common ties encompassed a broad array of phenomena including shared lifestyles, norms, and values, psychological identification with a community, and the use of shared institutions. Nearly all definitions of community in sociology can be classified in terms of the three areas of agreement which Hillery (1955) found: Social interaction, geographic area, and common ties. This research will attempt to frame the Internet in terms of these three concepts.

Jonassen, however, argues that Hillery found "agreement on only two points: namely no author denied that area "could," be an element of community, and all the definitions dealt with people (Jonassen, 1959:18)." By area, Jonassen is referring to physical geographic propinquity. Jonassen's emphasis on the word could most likely indicates that Hillery does not see area as a requirement for community, but merely something which might serve as a factor to indicate the presence of community. Some sociologists have referred to this as a "loose" conception of community because no limits are placed on the size of the geographic area and the concept of common ties encompasses such a broad array of phenomena, many of which do not precisely correspond to the Gemeinschaft social relations conceived by Tönnies (e.g. shared institutions as being sufficient for community).

Most sociological research of "community" fits into one or more of these three areas of agreement cited by Hillery (1955). These "three areas of agreement," as Hillery calls them, illustrate three different ways in which the concept of community has been defined in sociology. Frequently, these concepts have been used separately or in combination to define communities.

Joseph Gusfield (1975) describes two different usages of the term "community" in sociology. The first usage described by Gusfield is the territorial, physical, bounded geographical community. Here, the emphasis is on locality. Hillery never indicated that there were limits to the geographic area of community. This is an additional stipulation imposed by Gusfield. The second of the two uses of the term "community" which Gusfield observed was the relational aspect of community, where he argued that the emphasis "points to the quality or character of human relationships, without reference to location" (Gusfield; 1975:xvi). In this usage, a "communal" relationship represents an intimate, primary relationship involving emotional attachment as specified by Tönnies.

Flora et al. (1992:14) also outline three ways in which sociologists use the term community. But again, all of these involve people interacting in some way. Flora et al. indicate that the first usage of the term community "refers to a place, a location in which a group of people interact with one another" (Flora et al. 1992:14). The second use of the term they look at involves a look at the social systems which are said to make up communities and the organizations and organizational mechanisms in place which facilitate the interaction among people characteristic of communities (Flora et al. 1992). The third way which Flora et al. say that sociologists use the term community describes a "shared sense of identity held by a group of people" (Flora et al. 1992).

Communal Social Relations

Hillery indicated that social interaction underlies nearly all sociological definitions of community. Hillery's ideas of "social interaction" and "common ties" have been addressed by Mark Granovetter (1973), Claude Fischer (1977), Barry Wellman (1979), Willis Goudy (1982, 1990), and others. Wellman (1979; 1988) sees communities as social networks and has used a technique known as social network analysis2 to investigate this idea of how common social ties influence community. Claude Fischer (1977) examined social relations in urban settings and argued that social relations themselves comprised "community."

Wellman (1979; Wellman, Carrington, and Hall, 1988), discusses three arguments found in the sociological literature concerning change in community: The "Community Lost" argument; the "Community Saved" argument; and the "Community Liberated" argument. The "Community Lost" argument postulated that "community" in the Gemeinschaft sense would not survive in an era of urbanization as predicted by Tönnies (Wellman, 1979:1204; Wellman, Carrington, and Hall, 1988:133). The community saved argument used empirical evidence to show that proximate neighborhood and kinship groups (Gemeinschaft) "continued to be abundant and strong" in urban settings (Wellman, 1979:1205; Wellman, Carrington, and Hall, 1988:134). Wellman, Carrington, and Hall indicate that both the "Lost" and "Saved" arguments "define community as a solidarity, local, kinshiplike group" that is restricted to small geographic areas (Wellman, Carrington, and Hall, 1988:134).

The "Liberated" community argument is perhaps most useful in attempting to explain the Internet as a community. Wellman, Carrington, and Hall state that in this argument, community consists of individuals with "membership in multiple, interest-based communities, predominately composed of long distance friendship ties" (Wellman, 1979:1206; Wellman, Carrington, and Hall, 1988:133). In the liberated community, geographic proximity is no longer necessary for communal relations as technology permits primary ties to be developed and maintained over broader geographic spaces. The Internet would certainly meet these criteria. Internet users often participate in several interest groups, chatrooms, LISTSERVs, etc. (these are described in more detail in Chapter 3). Also, Internet relationships are "predominately composed" of long distance, friendship ties.

Mark Granovetter studied the notion of social ties. Communal ties are a form of social ties that are defined as a strong primary relationship between two persons (Gusfield, 1975). Granovetter's aim was to conceptually define and measure the strength of social ties. Granovetter (1973) ultimately determined that the strength of such ties could be determined by four factors: duration of the tie, emotional attachment involved, the level of intimacy, and extent of reciprocity i.e. the reciprocal exchange of services.

The first of Granovetter's (1973) four dimensions is duration. Granovetter sees duration as simply the length of time the social tie has existed. The second of Granovetter's (1973) four dimensions is emotional intensity. Granovetter defines this as the level of commitment between the participants of the social tie. Participants in the social tie experience an emotional bond to one another. Parties involved in the relationship have an emotional investment in the relationship. The third of Granovetter's four dimensions is intimacy. Intimacy involves a strong level of commitment between participants of the relationship. According to Granovetter, intimacy means that participants of the relationship feel free to talk about personal matters with one another. Granovetter's fourth and final dimension is reciprocity. This dimension involves the reciprocal exchange of services between participants in the relationship. To Granovetter, reciprocity means that all parties in the relationship mutually benefit from the relationship and gain from it.

Granovetter (1973:1361) suggests that a combination of these four factors should be used to define the strength of a social tie. Granovetter (1973:1361) says that these four factors can operate independently of one another, although they are "obviously highly intercorrelated." Using Granovetter's scheme, a "communal" tie would be a social relationships that involves: Extensive contact over a period of time, emotional attachment, intimacy, and a reciprocal exchange of services.

Communal Attachment and Common Ties

The concept of "communal attachment" would fall under Hillery's (1955) idea of people with common ties, because individuals who experience strong feelings of attachment to the community share this in common with one another. Willis Goudy (1982) addressed the concept of "communal attachment" as a facet of community. Communal attachment refers to an individual feeling psychologically attached to a community group, or feeling like a vital part of the community. Communal attachment is also referred to in the literature as communal sentiment (Gusfield, 1975; Fischer, 1977). Gusfield (1975) and Fischer (1977) equate communal attachment with Geertz's (1963) concept of primordial attachment. This involves an added dimension that the needs and the will of the individual must be subordinate to the needs and collective will of the group. But, the addition of this dimension results in a more restrictive view of communal attachment.

Charles Tilly (1973) and Albert Hunter (1978) took the idea of communal attachment one step further by introducing the concept of communal solidarity. Tilly and Hunter argue that this involves a group state when the vast majority of members psychologically identify themselves as members of a group with a collective interest. They see this as a measure of the extent of communal attachment among group members.

Tilly (1973) used community solidarity as a means of explaining collective action by communities. Tilly (1973) sees two conceptions of community solidarity. Tilly (1973:214) first conceptualizes solidarity as "the average strength of existing ties among members of the [community]." He defines strength (1973:214) in this case as the claims that any pair of individuals have to one another. Tilly's (1973:214) "alternative conception of solidarity" involves the extent to which individuals are willing to make commitments to other members of the group based solely on their common group membership alone.

Hunter posits (1978) "A Dynamic Model of Emergent Community Sentiments," in which he describes four stages of communities. The model describes a progression through four stages of community sentiment. The fourth stage becomes important in discussing this idea of community solidarity because Hunter describes this stage as vicarious or symbolic communities. Hunter (1978:150) says that vicarious communities are communities which are "consciously constructed." The symbolic attachment which community members share helps lead to communal solidarity. Scales for measuring the degree of community attachment have been developed by Kasarda and Janowitz (1974) and Goudy (1982).

Now that some of the basic sociological research on community has been discussed, the next section will try to present some of the research that has been done about information technologies in the context of how it relates to a discussion of community.

Information Technology and Community

Much has been written about the use of Information Technology (IT) which includes the Internet, as it relates to the concept of community. During the past twenty years or so, a great deal of literature has been developed about how to employ IT in the workplace. Some of this literature speaks of the "development" of "communities."

Hiltz and Turoff (1978) were among the first authors to systematically reference the idea of IT as it relates to the development of community in their 1978 book The Network Nation: Human Communication via Computer. Hiltz and Turoff draw on the notion of community as a social network and chronicle an early computer conferencing system known as EIES. However, their work primarily explores the behavior of workers by computer-mediation of work-related tasks. They argued, however, that eventually such forms of computer mediated communication would become widespread in their use and expand far beyond a few thousand users (xix).

Of the forms of communication noted by Hiltz and Turoff, Jones (1995) brings up the notion that face-to-face communication may not necessarily be more real than other media communication, despite the tendency to believe that it is. He states, "face-to-face interaction does not necessarily break down boundaries, and to adopt it as an ideal will likewise not necessarily facilitate communication, community building, or understanding among people" (Jones, 1995:29).

Hiltz and Turoff (1978) discuss models and forms in which telecommunication is substituted for travel. They discuss four distinct types of organizational dispersion patterns: The centralized organization has a single large headquarters to which everyone must commute. In the fragmentation pattern, "a few 'coherent subunits' in the organization break off and are located elsewhere" (Hiltz and Turoff, 1978:475). Usually communication to the main company is done via terminals. In dispersion, a number of work centers are located around one area, reporting to the nearest one, using computers and telecommunications. In diffusion, small, multicompany, neighborhood work centers, and work at home are utilized. Individuals walk or bicycle to work in this pattern (Hiltz and Turoff, 1978:475).

In discussing its impact on the various patterns of work, Hiltz and Turoff (1978) cite many problems with decreased face-to-face communication. They state, for example, "another problem is that employee morale and work-group cohesion may depend on the duration and number of face-to-face contacts, which decrease the further we go along the continuum from single centralized large offices to work at home. Whether 'electronic socializing' or substitution of socialization with friends and neighbors, rather than with co-workers, will occur, and whether they will be adequate substitutes to maintain the interpersonal supports that people need, is an unanswered question" (1978: 479).

Hiltz and Turoff (1978) add that "because of the factors of geographic mobility and commutation to work, there has been less overlapping of social ties among the various groups a person belongs to." Hiltz and Turoff (1978:481), state, "We believe that computerized conferencing can serve to substitute electronic mobility for physical mobility, and permit a person to exchange communications on a fairly deep and meaningful level with mainly different interest-oriented groups. At the same time, there is likely to be considerable connectedness among the various groups, with many overlapping memberships (481)."

Hiltz and Turoff (1978) go so far as to suggest the emergence of a new "tribal" form of economic organization involving groups of individuals in which members supply talents to the collective. Rhinegold (1993) also uses the tribal analogy in his description of IRC (the Internet Relay Chat) by using the term "real time tribes" Hiltz and Turoff (1978) see a rich diversity of communities growing out of computer-based communication systems. It is clear that Hiltz and Turoff anticipated the arrival of computer-based communication as community. In a slightly more recent work entitled Online Communities, Hiltz (1984) indicates that individual behaviors can be influenced by IT such as EIES, the system chronicled in her case study.

Barry Wellman et al. (1996:213) indicated that information technologies facilitate the development of computer-supported social networks which "are becoming important bases of virtual communities." Wellman et al. (1996) cite some of the limitations of using information technologies in the workplace, indicating that on-line communications are often more blunt and impersonal. This might seem to imply that the development of virtual communities is not likely.

Now that some of the basic sociological research on information technologies has been discussed, the next section will try to present some of the research that has been done about the Internet in the context of how it relates to a discussion of community.

Research on the Internet as a Community

The Internet has been termed everything from a "virtual community," to an "electronic community," to "online community," "computer community," to "cyber community." Much of the literature that examines this topic however, is from disciplines other than sociology, including psychology, computer science, and mass communications. A more limited amount of research on this topic has been conducted by sociologists. Some studies have been conducted about how different forms of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) relate to communities or can be considered communities.

Clifford Stoll, who was one of the founding members of the Internet when it was still known as the ARPANET, asserts in his 1995 Book, Silicon Snake Oil, that claims about the Internet as a community are false and that the Internet can only provide the illusion of community (Parks and Floyd, 1996:80, Young, 1998:88). Kimberly S. Young quotes Stoll, "Computer networks isolate us from one another, rather than bringing us together" (Quoted in Young, 1998:88). This quote would certainly seem to imply that computer networks do not allow for the formation of social ties, but that such networks prevent the formation of social ties, like the kind that characterize community. Parks and Floyd indicate that other analysts have also questioned claims about the Internet as a community and have similarly argued that "only the illusion of as community can be created by Cyberspace" (Parks and Floyd, 1996:80).

Heather Bromberg, (1996:146-149) argues that MUDs (Multiple User Dungeons/Dimensions) provide a sense of community for individuals who are isolated or needy (Bromberg, 1996:318). Perhaps this can be seen as some form of communal attachment, but Bromberg fails to clarify what she means by "a sense of community." She does not use accepted measures of communal attachment found in previous research (such as those used by Goudy, 1982, 1990; Buttel et al., 1979; and Kasarda and Janowitz, 1974) to determine this, but instead uses anecdotal evidence. Bromberg states that "MUDs...offer an antidote to loneliness and malaise, allow the exploration of alternate identities and personae, offer the promise of connectivity and community and allow users to experience the feeling of mastery over their environments" (Bromberg, 1996:146). However, Bromberg offers no empirical evidence that this conclusion can be generalized to a larger population of some type.

In reviewing community literature as it relates to the Internet, Steven Jones, (1995) uses Effrat's notion of community, which has three principal components: (1) community as solidarity institutions; (2) community as primary interaction; (3) community as institutionally distinct groups. Jones (1995) suggests that the third of these, community as institutionally distinct groups, makes the most sense in the context of CMC. Jones says that all three of these features appear in CMC.

Jones goes on to argue that there is a need to conceptualize community as a complex of social relationships, which has not been sufficiently explored. He argues that CMC is socially produced space, in which spatiality is distinguished from physical space. Jones is saying that this is, in effect, a new kind of space that is not physical space, but instead is a kind of socially created space. Since CMC decenters place, it challenges the traditional framework as community being based on proximate geographic space.

Jones addresses this issue when he states that "Communities formed by CMC have been called 'virtual communities' and defined as incontrovertibly social spaces in which people still meet face-to-face, but under new definitions of both 'meet' and 'face'" (Jones, 1995:19). Therefore, for Jones, community is predicated on the common beliefs, interests, knowledge, and information apart from physical space. Community consists of social networks and social interaction. Community is no longer a "where."

Jones reviews such early work as Licklider and Taylor who discuss what interactive communities on-line would not be-- communities with the same geographical area. These communities would be people with common interests and goals. This view of community differs from the traditional view of community sociology as that of "locality-based action" which emphasizes geographic area.

Jones (1995:24) uses Bender's (1978) definition of community, which views communities as social networks, not as places. This is similar to Wellman's (1979) notion of the "Liberated Community." Jones cites two reasons for using social networks as a definition useful for the study of community over the Internet and other forms of CMC. First, Jones argues that such a definition of community, is based on social interaction, which creates communities. Second, this definition shifts the focus away from place. Jones argues that in studying CMC, it is necessary to put less emphasis on (but not eliminate completely) the consideration of bounded geographical territory (Jones, 1995:24).

Jones goes on to discuss the literature related to pseudo-community and the decentering of place. Jones uses Beniger's definition of pseudo-community -- "reversal of a centuries old trend from organic community based on personal relationships--to impersonal associated integrated by mass means" (Beniger, 1987:369). Jones discussion takes us from the traditional communal relationships (Gemeinschaft) to highly impersonal associations (Gesellschaft), moving from face-to-face dialogue as community to symbolic or indirect group relationships. Jones borrowed the notion of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft from the work of Ferdinand Tönnies. Jones is unclear about what he means by the decentering of place, but obviously, the Internet removes the emphasis on place found in a traditional Gemeinschaft-type community. Jones suggests that the actual role of computer-mediated communication as community still has not been fully settled.

While not specifically investigating the Internet in the context of a sociological conception of community, Parks and Floyd (1996) examined the nature of relationships on the USENET part of the Internet. Recall that community typically involves social relationships of some kind. Parks and Floyd used a survey and came up with some empirical findings about the nature of relationships on USENET. They found for example that women were significantly more likely to have formed on-line relationships, and greater numbers of such relationships, than men.

Ludlow (1996) examines the social change brought about by the introduction of computer technology as it relates to the idea of community. He states that "With that change has come a sense of alienation and loss of community. Increasingly, though, it becomes possible to recreate that lost community in cyberspace, by forming communities of interest that are not bound by the accidents of geography." He continues by asking if they are really communities (Ludlow, 1996:xv). Ludlow addresses the issue of whether you can "really call someone a 'neighbor' if you can't see her face or hear her voice" (Ludlow, 1996:xv). He questions the idea of 'the virtual community.' He also asks that "If we give our allegiances to virtual communities, are we abandoning our geographic communities in a sort of 'urban flight'?" (Ludlow, 1996:xv). Ludlow also asks "to what extent should other communities, and the legal system itself, acknowledge and respect virtual communities?" (Ludlow, 1996:xv).

Rhinegold (1993) gives an in-depth discussion of community and CMC on the Internet Relay Chat (IRC). Communication on IRC is stripped to the bare essentials ...text on a computer screen (Rhinegold, 1993). His experiences as a member of the Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link (WELL) on-line community is the basis for much of his view of computer culture. He states that there is something real about the on-line community: "There's always another mind there. It's like having the corner bar, complete with old buddies and delightful newcomers ... and fresh graffiti and letters, except instead of putting on my coat, shutting down the computer and walking down to the corner, I just invoke my telecom program and there they are. It's a place" (Rhinegold, 1993:24).

Baym (1995:152) states "Like the smiley face dictionaries, list of nicknames are often compiled and posted to the group or e-mailed to confused newcomers. Again the synchronous collection and codification of the group's expressive forms demonstrates the self-reflexivity of [the] computer-mediated community."

Baym indicates that these factors are "the most salient preexisting forces on the development of computer-mediated community (Baym, 1995:161). Baym sees computer-mediated communication as a community. Many researchers discuss communication on the computer as being either synchronistic or asynchronistic. Baym defines these communication styles:

"With synchronistic communication, all participants are on-line simultaneously

and read and respond to one another immediately ...With asynchronistic

communication, participants need not be on-line simultaneously and can read and

respond at different times" (142).

If community can be defined as "group interest", then it could be concluded that community could involve Internet communication using both these types of communication.

In her dissertation, Clara Surratt (1996:1), examined if Internet communication allowed for interaction which was "as meaningful as face-to-face interaction" as it relates to the type of face-to-face interaction in what she has termed "real communit[ies]." Surratt argued that face-to-face communications have just as much potential to be anonymous as Internet communications. Surratt (1996:568) found that:

Every CMC system [she] analyzed in [her research] has evolved from a piece of communications software into a complex social system, complete with belief systems, sets of values, cultural norms, and systems of socialization, social control, and stratification requisite for any collection of individuals to be defined as a human community.

Surratt is unclear about how the presence of these criteria serves to form a "community."

Elizabeth Reid (1991) argues that chat-rooms are communities. As she attempts to construct communities, Reid (1991:32-33) quotes Geertz's (1963) understanding of culture as a "system of meanings that give significance to shared behaviours which must be interpreted from the perspective of those engaged in them." She continues quoting Geertz, who says that culture is "a set of control mechanisms -- plans, recipes, rules, instructions -- for the governing of behavior" (1991:33). Based on this definition, Geertz might see the Internet as a community since users have symbolic systems and textual significance to communicate as well as "netiquette," to punish those who abuse the rules (1991:33). Reid goes on to state that community does exist on the IRC. It is created through collective beliefs and symbolic strategies.

Sherry Turkle (1995:88) refers to MUDs (Multiple-User Dungeons/Dimensions) as "online communities." Just as can be found in physically bounded geographical communities, MUDs have rules and regulations according to Turkle.

Esther Dyson (1997), a technology analyst, refers to the Internet as a "community" throughout her book. She argues that there are many communities on-line. Dyson (1997:31) states that "Most individuals live in several communities online, just as they do in the physical world." She argues that the Internet can even be used to foster community development:

Used right, the Internet can be a powerful enabling technology fostering the

development of communities because it supports the very thing that creates a

community--human interaction. One benefit of the Internet is that it allows the

formation of communities independent of geography (Dyson, 1997:32).

Psychological Internet Research

Psychologists have conducted some research on the nature of Internet Relationships. Sociologist/Psychologist Sherry Turkle, in a 1984 book, first investigated the nature of person-computer relationships. In this work, Turkle (1984) argued that computers affect the development of self, and alter one's self concept. Most notably, Turkle (1984) measured the intensity of the relationship between computers and their users. While probably not developed to the level of intensity of relationships which characterize communal relationships, this was a preliminary attempt to examine computer-mediated relationships, even if they are one way relationships between a user and a computer.

In a more recent book, Turkle (1995) investigated how computer mediated social relationships/interactions influence individual identity. Turkle describes the virtual nature of MUDs. She discusses how the human interaction in MUDs is considered safer than real-world interaction, and she discusses the "unreal" or fantasy nature of the social interaction which takes place in MUDs. Turkle (1995:9) showed how the psychology of computer mediated human interaction suggested that it involves how users view their reflections in "the mirror of the machine (quoted in Allen; 1996:11)." Turkle's (1995) focuses mainly on the relationships that individuals have to their computers and how these relationships influence individuals' conceptions of self. This is only important in the context of community in that individuals' views of how others see them might influence the kinds of social relations which are needed for community to exist.

Christina Allen (1996) wrote a thesis which examined "Virtual Identities: The Social Construction of Cybered Selves." This is somewhat similar to Turkle's (1984) book in that it examines the role of computers in the construction of one's sense of self. Allen's thesis examined MOOs (discussed in Chapter 3) . It drew from several disciplines including psychology and sociology. The next section addresses Hillery's three areas of agreement as they relate specifically to the Internet.

Social Relationships & Common Ties On-Line

Two of Hillery's three areas of agreement, people involved in social interaction and people with common ties, are addressed by Wellman et al. (1996) when they indicate that the Internet and other computer based communications technologies encourage the formation of specialized relationships, and they go on to say that many on-line ties do meet the criteria for strong ties. Wellman et al (1996) also indicate that the very nature of the Internet and other computer based technologies encourage the development of weak on-line ties. Wellman et. al (1996) do suggest that on-line ties tend to be segmentalized because users can easily participate in different chat rooms. Parks and Floyd (1996) also examined on-line relationships and appear to have similar findings.

Geography and the Internet

The second of Hillery's three areas of agreement, geographic area, obviously is not as important as the other two in the case of the Internet. The Internet does indeed meet both of the two criteria which Jonassen (1959) says Hillery found were the only two points of agreement in defining a community. Benedikt (1991) argues that the Internet does indeed have physical and geographical aspects, and one might be able to stretch this to meet the area requirement of community. Benedikt is referring to the physical wiring and hardware aspects of the Internet as well as the people involved while sitting at their Internet connected computers. John Barlow (1995) tries to address the question of "Is there a there in cyberspace?" He seems to conclude that there really is no geographic

concomitant to the Internet and that "virtual communities" are not really communities at all.

The areas of agreement cited by Hillery (1955) will be used as the guiding framework of this research. The first area of agreement cited by Hillery, social relationships, will be examined in terms of Granovetter's (1973) four dimensions of the strength of a social tie, i.e. emotional attachment, intimacy, reciprocity, and duration.

Emotional attachment was also cited by Tönnies ([1887]1959) in his discussion of Gemeinschaft. The second of Hillery's areas of agreement that this research will examine is the role of geographic territory. The third of Hillery's areas of agreement which this study will examine is psychological identification with the community group. This dimension will be examined in terms of community attachment.

Chapter III

Types of Computer Mediated Communication

There are a number of different forms of computer mediated communication (CMC) by which people can communicate over the Internet. The purpose of this chapter will be to classify the major types of Internet communication into categories based on similar characteristics and determine which types might permit social interaction necessary for the formation of community.

A primary interest of this study in examining the types of CMC is that they can lead to the formation of Computer Mediated Interaction Networks (CMINs); that is, the formation of a social interaction network among persons that is mediated by computers. The formation of CMINs is possible through many of the synchronous types of CMC, but is not possible to the same extent using asynchronous types of CMC which will be discussed later because the nature of communication is fundamentally different. This distinction is necessary because CMC can be limited to one-way communication in the case of asynchronous types of communication. In synchronous types of CMC, there is multi-way communication in which two, three, four, or four-hundred people can interact simultaneously in real time. The ability to interact in this fashion is an important foundation of community.

One category of Internet communication is what I have termed synchronous or real-time communication. This type of Internet communication involves interaction which occurs live between participants who are logged on to different computers simultaneously. I call this "synchronous" because it requires immediate activity and immediate active response and involvement between the participants. It is probably this type of Internet communication which is most analogous to the type of face-to-face communication which takes place in bounded geographical communities. Examples of this type of communication include the various types of Internet Chatting.

The term "chatting" is used in this thesis as a general term to refer to any type of synchronous Internet communication which occurs between social actors. It is a real-time form of communication. The term "chat room" is used in this thesis as a general term to refer to any place or channel where synchronous communication is occurring in real time between social actors.

Another category of Internet communication is what I have termed asynchronous communication. Examples of this type of communication are e-mail, LISTSERVs, Usenet newsgroups, Gopher, the WWW, and even some of the advertisements found on the web. I call these asynchronous forms of Internet communication because they are passively read, and response time is typically much slower than in synchronous communication. This type of communication is synchronous in the sense that the user must actively read or seek out the information, but it does not have the same dynamic as real-time communication, because the nature and type of communication is somewhat different. While individuals can write in response to something else, they cannot get the same kind of immediate clarification of unclear thoughts or ideas, and participants are more likely to ask for clarification of unclear thoughts or ideas which occur in synchronous forms of Internet communication. In comparison, synchronous communication is written in real-time as a response to something that has just been written by someone else in real time. Also, asynchronous communication allows the user to spend more time in constructing a response because of its less immediate, delayed nature.

One type of "synchronous" Internet communication is IRC or mIRC3. IRC, or Internet Relay Chat, was first formed in 1988 by a Researcher in Finland as a text-based way of chatting. This is strictly a text-based means of CMC which is designed primarily to enable people from around the world to communicate on topics of specific interest. Discussions of varying topics are organized into different "Channels." Each channel hosts a discussion on a specific topic with different users which participate in real-time, live conversations. It is possible for users to join several "channels" at once. Users in IRC/mIRC must choose a nickname, sometimes referred to as a "nick," which enables them to communicate with one another.

IRC/mIRC is probably the most widespread means of real-time Internet Communication in terms of the total number of users. Other proprietary services such as CompuServe or AOL have their own forms of CMC which are more widespread on the services themselves, but not across the Internet. While no one knows the exact number of IRC users, the number is undoubtedly quite large. Unlike MUDs (Multiple User Dungeons/Dimensions, discussed later), which generally exist on only one Internet site, the same IRC channels may exist on hundreds of different Internet sites, called servers. Each of these servers has a large number of users. Each IRC channel or chatroom may have several hundred users on each IRC server, while other forms of synchronous CMC are generally limited to one site.

The type of social interaction which occurs in IRC/mIRC channels could be conducive to the formation of intimate social ties and social relationships that characterize a community. A high number of IRC/mIRC channels are specifically dedicated to allowing users to interact and form social relationships of some kind. A fair number of these channels which are organized around the formation of social relationships are even dedicated to the formation of romantic relationships. Anecdotal evidence suggests that people who initially met on IRC/mIRC have moved across the country to be with those whom they have met, and some have even gotten married. If any form of CMC has the potential for the formation of primary relationships,4 it would certainly be IRC/mIRC.

The total number of users of IRC is virtually unlimited, unlike some other types of synchronous CMC on the Internet. While specific channels may limit the number of users, these limits are generally quite high. IRC is less anarchistic than some other forms of CMC because the channel operator has the power to terminate undesired users at any time. This feature also exists on some other forms of CMC, but is far more common on IRC. IRC is typically accessed by means of a special program which resides either on an Internet connected Mainframe, or in the case of mIRC, on a PC or Mac that has a modem or a direct Internet connection.

The closest thing to emotions on IRC are emoticons, or textual representations of faces. Emoticons, are a "system of symbols which, when combined, yield pictures intended to convey body language and facial expressions" (Surratt, 1996:76). These are things like smiley faces. One of the more common examples of this is expressed as :). The colon represents the two eyes and the parenthesis represents the mouth (of a smiley that has been turned sideways). However, in IRC communication, there is simply no way to verify who is chatting with whom.

Many IRC channels or chatrooms, such as the #friends channel, have strictly enforced norms of kindness and generosity make people feel comfortable regardless of what they discuss. Users who violate the norms of kindness and generosity are simply temporarily "kicked off" or temporarily "banned." These norms might also account for the high levels of community sentiment among #friends users.

A recently developed part of the Internet known as the WorldWide Web (Web or WWW for short), has lately become a home for chatting to occur over the Internet. Initially, the web was designed as a place for one-way communication and dissemination of information. The WWW is similar to GOPHER, which was an earlier text-based information retrieval system developed by the University of Minnesota which could be used to navigate the Internet. While this type of communication still makes up the bulk of web traffic by far, recent innovations have allowed the formation of various ways in which people can chat in real time over the web. This type of CMC is what is referred to hereafter as Web chatting.

Web chatting is a type of CMC which is conducted over a part of the Internet known as the WorldWide Web (WWW). This type of chatting is usually text-based because of the nature of webpages, but sometimes, as mentioned above, an icon or photo can be associated with the on-line nickname of the chat participants. This type of chatting requires, at a minimum, a special piece of software called a web browser or Internet Browser (such as Netscape Navigator or Microsoft Internet Explorer), and generally requires other software programs or sub-programs which work with the browser. These programs are sometimes referred to as "plugins." One type of Web chatting is called ICQ (computer shorthand for "I seek you"). While the web itself does contain a fair amount of graphics, images, sounds, and even videos, this form of chatting, like IRC/mIRC, is also text-based.

Another type of synchronous CMC is MUDs5. In this thesis, I use the term MUDs as a general category which includes MUDs, MOOs6, MUSHs7, and MUCKs8. All of these are different types of MUDs which are basically on-line interactive role playing games which are based on MUD technology. Unlike IRC, interaction is constrained within the rules of a game. The types of interaction which occur in MUDs/MOOs fall within the confines of an overall objective of winning a game of some kind. This may involve things such as capturing a dragon for example. MUDs/MOOs are typically described as imaginary worlds in which people interact, but this interaction takes place only in the context of people's adopted roles in the framework of a game. In the context of MUDs, participants can create buildings, cities, etc. which remain after the participant leaves. MUD characters live and die. MUD cities are built and destroyed. MUDs are typically accessed through Telnet, a computer program/protocol which links Internet connected computers together and allows different types of Internet computers to communicate with one another. These types of relationships would clearly not be considered standard social relationships because the interaction is fantasy oriented and confined within the rules of the game. As a result, MUDs would probably not facilitate formation of the kind of real world social relationships which are found in other forms of CMC.

Talkers, as the name implies, are places on the Internet where users go to simply "talk." Really, participants aren't "talking" at all, but as in the case of IRC/mIRC and MUDs/MOOs, they are exchanging text-based messages in real time. Talkers are based on the same technology as MUDs. Like MUDs/MOOs, talkers are also accessed through Telnet. Essentially, they are MUDs that have simply de-emphasized the game aspect. The environment on talkers seems to be a bit more friendly than MUDs, and talkers typically have a much smaller number of users. One might argue that this smaller number of participants allows for on-line relationships to more easily develop. Due to the nature of talkers, it seems that these could indeed facilitate the formation of intimate social relationships like those found in IRC. While there is somewhat of a game aspect to talkers, it has been de-emphasized to such an extreme that it is not likely to interfere in the formation of relationships as it would in MUDs.

Up to this point, most of the types of "chatting" which have been discussed have been text-based. Most Internet chatting is text-based. Text-based chatting has far fewer computer hardware requirements and is generally easier to access than other types of Internet chatting. For this reason, text-based chatting also seems to be far more common than non-text-based mediums of chatting.

Generally speaking, non-text-based methods of chatting are essentially text-based chatting which is accompanied by pictures, photos, avatars, or icons. Some forms of non-text-based chatting are strictly cartoon-like graphical depictions of the chat participants. These cartoon-like characters are what are referred to as avatars. Some forms of web chatting allow for chat participants to include a photo, an icon, or any type of image desired. A few users include a photo of themselves or even have digital cameras on their computers which continuously update with live photos, but most include photos of inanimate objects or celebrities, and an even greater proportion include icons or non-photographic images of one sort or another.

This thesis will focus primarily on text-based forms of chatting because they are more common. The less widespread non-text-based modes of chatting will be de-emphasized because they are less common, are more demanding of computer hardware, and usually they still have many of the characteristics of text-based forms of Internet Chatting.

Some mainframe computer terminals which are connected to the Internet have support for the TALK command. This allows users who are simultaneously logged on to different computers to "TALK" or type text-based messages to one another on a split screen in real-time. This was devised in the 1970s as a way for computer engineers to communicate with one another. A similar feature is found on some VAX/VMS mainframe machines, the PHONE feature. The PHONE feature allows up to 6 users networked to a VAX/VMS machine to talk to one another simultaneously.

Electronic mail (e-mail) is one form of what I have termed 'asynchronous' Internet communication. By far, e-mail is undoubtedly the most ubiquitous form of Internet Communication. E-mail consists of text-based electronic messages which are sent out over the Internet, usually from one individual to another, or from one individual to a small number of other individuals. Sometimes these messages may have a photo, sound clip, video clip, computer file, or computer program attached, but generally, these are text-based messages. Again, these are asynchronous because they have a delayed reaction time and are generally not considered to be a form of real-time communication. E-mail messages are often exchanged in an effort to maintain social relationships with others but probably would not result in the formation of new primary social relations because the person initiating the contact must know the name or the e-mail address of the person to whom they are sending the message. While e-mail generally does place an emphasis on communication between individuals or small groups of individuals, it is probably not the ideal place for the formation of primary social relations that characterize a community. However, e-mail can be very useful to maintain or supplement such social relations. E-mail can indeed be used to supplement the interaction which has taken place over some other form of CMC such as IRC/mIRC or to supplement face-to-face human contact or telephone contact. This could perhaps lead to the development of primary social ties. However, this would not be as likely to occur as in IRC/mIRC.

One type of e-mail service is called LISTSERVs. LISTSERVs are basically electronic mailing lists. These are usually organized around specific subjects or topics of interest. Participants can compose a standard e-mail message and send it to the LISTSERV which can distribute the message to hundreds or thousands of participants, each of which can respond either to the initial sender or to the group as a whole. The message may go out to someone who the sender has never even met or interacted with. These LISTSERVs are sometimes referred to as communities because they often form around specific interest groups. This type of CMC might allow for the establishment of communal relations due to its subject specific nature. Participants of this type of CMC share a common interest in the subject or topic of the particular LISTSERV. Unlike IRC/mIRC, the main emphasis with LISTSERVs is generally not on the formation and maintenance of social relationships, but on the discussion of a specific subject or topic.

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

Table 3.1 lists many of the types of CMC found on the Internet and some of their characteristics.

Table 3.1

Type/Gener
al Category	Uses Text-based Communication	Allows Real Time Interaction	Allows Object Oriented Communication	Topic Focused	Focus on Game Playing	Allows high # of simultaneous users to interact
IRC/mIRC	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes
MUDs/MO Os/MUSHs	Yes	Yes	Sometimes	Sometim es	Yes	Yes
USENET	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Yes
ICQ	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
TALKERS	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Someti mes	No
GOPHER	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No
WWW	Yes	Sometimes	Yes	Yes	No	Sometimes
WEB CHATTIN G	Yes	Yes	Sometimes	Yes	No	Yes
E-MAIL	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No
LISTSERV s	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No

Below is an explanation of the characteristics listed in Table 3.1 as they apply to these various types of CMC. The first column of the table simply indicates the type or general category which each form of CMC falls into. The second column explains the nature of the type of CMC, whether or not it is a text-based form of CMC (which as indicated earlier, most forms of CMC are ultimately Text-based) or whether it is not a text-based form of CMC. The third column of the table indicates whether or not that particular form of CMC occurs in "real time" or is "Live." The fourth column indicates if each type of CMC allows object-oriented communication. The fifth column of the table indicates if each form of CMC is focused around a specific topic or not. The sixth column indicates if the main focus of each form of CMC is game playing or not. The seventh column of the table indicates if each form of CMC can support a large number of simultaneous users to interact with one another--a large number of social actors at one time.

Most of the forms of CMC examined in this chapter have been text-based forms of CMC. Most forms of CMC are indeed text-based. Because IRC, MUDs, (Multiple User Dungeons/Dimensions) and other forms of CMC are reduced to text on a computer screen, differences in gender, age, race, and appearance of the participants become unimportant.

Chapter IV

Research Objectives

While the literature seems to suggest that there is no precise definition of "community" in the field of sociology, sociologists in this area have come up with several concepts, or dimensions, which are typically used to indicate the presence or lack of community. In any examination of the sociology of community literature, these concepts or dimensions become evident.

The first of these concepts, as highlighted by Hillery's (1955) review, is social relationships or social interaction. Hillery states that interaction is involved in all 94 of the definitions of community which he examined (1955:119). Thus, community consists of people engaged in social relationships or social interaction. Therefore, it seems essential that a sociological definition of community include this first dimension, or the social dimension of community. One point of debate in the literature concerns the type of social relationships that represent "communal" relationships. Following the logic of Tönnies, communal relationships have been defined as primary ties based upon emotional attachment, tradition, and intimacy (Gusfield, 1975). Other community theorists, however, have utilized a less restrictive conception, contending that communal relations can involve merely the sharing of common institutions (Hillery, 1955). In the case of the Internet, membership in a particular chat room could serve as a commonly shared institution.

The second facet of community which appears in the literature is the geographical dimension. Another point of debate concerns whether or not communities are restricted in their geographic scale. Traditionally, communities were seen as systems of social relations which existed in small, proximate, geographic areas. With the advent of advanced communications and transportation technology, however, some contend that communities can be extended over wider and wider geographic areas. Proliferation of these new communication technologies led to the idea of the "liberated" community which de-emphasizes geographical proximity as a facet of community (Wellman, 1979). This indicates that communities which once were restricted to a small geographic area are no longer geographically limited, hence the term "liberated" community.

Another facet of community which becomes evident in an examination of the traditional sociology of community literature is the notion of community attachment or sentiment. This is where people psychologically feel a "sense of belonging" to a community group. This sense of belonging, or common identity, develops as persons socially define themselves as being members of a group with a collective interest (Gusfield, 1975). The concept of "community solidarity" was developed to refer to the extent to which group members share this sense of belonging and identify with the collective interest of the communal group.

Most of the research about the Internet as a community has examined at least one of these three dimensions of community, (Turkle, 1984, 1995). A few researchers such as Baym (1995), have included two of these three dimensions of community. However, no previous studies have addressed all three of these dimensions of community. Most have ignored the second of these three dimensions of community, the geography question, completely.

The purpose of this research is to conduct an exploratory study of social interaction over the Internet in order to assess how networks of social interaction, mediated by the Internet, relate to the three dimensions of community described above. The goals of this phase of the analysis will be threefold: (1) to describe the ways and extent to which social relationships developed over the Internet represent communal social relationships; (2) to describe the geographic scale of the networks of social interaction mediated by the Internet; and (3) to describe the extent to which participants in these social interaction networks develop community sentiment and socially define themselves as being part of a community group. By fulfilling these goals, empirical evidence can be provided as to whether the Internet does indeed, represent community in a sociological sense. This study will examine these three dimensions of community (social relations, geographical proximity, and community attachment) as they relate to an Internet chat room setting.

Forms of Computer Mediated Communication as a Medium for Community

As discussed in chapter three, the two forms of Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) that most likely could facilitate the development of a community are talkers and IRC/mIRC. Like the type of interaction which takes place in traditional communities, the interaction which takes place over these two mediums of CMC occurs in real-time. Both of these types of CMC seem to result in the formation of social relationships.

As stated in Chapter three, talkers typically have a much smaller number of users than other forms of CMC and therefore might more easily facilitate the development of community. One might argue that this smaller number of participants allows for on-line relationships to more easily develop. Due to the nature of talkers, it seems that these could indeed facilitate the formation of intimate social relationships like those found in IRC/mIRC. The problem with talkers, however, is that they are generally limited to one Internet site and are not very widely accessible to large numbers of users. The typical number of users on any given talker is far too small to create a sample size of any consequence.

As stated in chapter three, IRC/mIRC is perhaps the most widespread means of real-time Internet communication, in terms of the total number of sites (called servers) on which IRC exists, and in terms of the total number of users. It is for this reason that IRC/mIRC is the form of CMC that will be examined in this study. If one form of CMC must be chosen to represent real-time communication over the Internet, IRC/mIRC is perhaps the best choice because IRC/mIRC is so widespread and has such a large number of users.

Many IRC/mIRC chat rooms, (called channels) are organized around a specific topic and are often politically charged. A chat room/channel of a non-political nature of general interest, #friends9, will be chosen for this study. The sole purpose of this particular IRC/mIRC Channel is "Making Friends Around The World." This channel has as its sole goal the formation of social relationships, and is therefore the most appropriate choice to examine the formation of the kinds of social relationships which might characterize community. The sole purpose of this channel is to facilitate the formation of social relationships, and this may allow for community sentiment to develop among those persons who use it.

Formation of Communal Social Relations Over the Internet: Research Issues

Previous research on the Internet as a community has failed to examine whether social relations established over the Internet represent communal social relations. None of the research has examined the formation of primary social ties or strong social ties, as conceptualized by Granovetter (1973), over the Internet.

Surratt (1996) only examined community in the context of the first of these three dimensions of community, the idea of social relationships or social interaction. Surratt (1996:1) equates the notion of social relationships or social interaction with what she has termed "real community." Surratt (1996), found that subjects demonstrated standards of acceptable/unacceptable behavior; they derived meaning in specific situations; they held members accountable for their actions; and, they were serious about their interactions (563-564). This was utilized as evidence by Surratt that the Internet was a community. The establishment of specific norms and values alone should not be considered sufficient evidence for the existence of community, however. While the formation of norms and values suggests the development of a "collective will" for governing social relationships (as conceived by Tönnies) over the Internet, it does not provide evidence of communal relationships. Business relationships, for example, are not normally considered "communal" relationships in a sociological sense, yet these relationships are governed by their own set of norms and values.

No previous research has been conducted that attempts to situate the social relationships developed by an individual over the Internet with the social relationships developed by the Individual on a face-to-face basis. Heavy Internet users have been portrayed as potential social isolates that spend most of their time interacting with others through the virtual world of the Internet. Here they may make up new personalities or roles that they may not have in the context of physical, face-to-face interactions with others (Allen, 1996; Dalaimo, 1995; Turkle, 1984, 1995; Young, 1998).

This raises a number of interesting questions. For example, "Do frequent Internet users participate in both virtual and traditional communities?"10 Or, "Are frequent Internet users social isolates who are only able to participate in a community through the opportunities available over the Internet?" Finally, "In what ways does participation in a virtual community complement, or augment participation in a traditional community?" This research will provide empirical evidence to address these questions.

Geographic Scale of Communities Developed Over the Internet: Research Issues

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

Development of Community Sentiment Over the Internet: Research Issues

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

Chapter V

Research Methods

The data required to meet the objectives of this exploratory study were collected through the use of a sample survey of participants in the Internet IRC Chatroom, #friends. Therefore, the population for the study consisted of all users of #friends during the April, 1998 to June 1998 time period. A structured questionnaire was administered to a sample of participants selected from the study population through the sampling procedure described below. The survey questionnaire contained questions designed to measure the key study variables described in Chapter 4.

The survey was administered over the Internet. Respondents in the sample were mailed a cover letter and a survey questionnaire in a single message via e-mail. Alternatively, a copy of the survey was made available on the project website at http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~irsurvey for respondents to download the survey. Then, they could print, fill out the survey by hand and send it by regular U.S. Mail. One week after the initial mailing, respondents who had not returned their survey were sent an electronic notice reminding them to fill out and return the survey. Three weeks after the initial mailing, respondents who had still not returned a survey were sent a second cover letter and copy of the survey.

Sampling Procedure

A sample of 500 participants of the #friends IRC channel was drawn by logging on to #friends for one hour intervals at randomly selected times. Two one hour time intervals per day were used until a sample of 500 participants was drawn. When logging on to #friends, participants' e-mail addresses are displayed on the screen. All persons whose e-mail addresses were displayed during the randomly selected times were included in the sample. This strategy approximated a cluster sampling design with the time unit representing the clustering variable. It is a random intercept sampling technique in the sense that persons logged into #friends at the randomly selected times were "intercepted," or chosen as members of the sample pool. If an e-mail address had already been collected once, it was not collected a second time as a duplicate.

Response Rate

In distributing the survey questionnaire to the sample of 500 participants in #friends, it was found that e-mail addresses displayed for participants were not always valid. A significant proportion of these e-mailed questionnaires were returned as undeliverable SMTP failures. In total, 259 of the surveys actually got through to respondents over the course of the initial mailing and follow-up mailings. Out of the grand total of 259 surveys that actually got through, a total of 53 were returned, resulting in a response rate of 20.46%. There is no logical reason to suspect that those who did not respond would have answered the questionnaire any differently than those who did respond. Thus, nonresponse bias would appear to be minimal.

Organization of the Survey Questionnaire

The survey questionnaire (see Appendix A) is divided into four sections. The first section asks respondents about the social relationships they have in #friends, to address the first dimension of community; that is, communal relationships. This is also addressed by another section which asks respondents about their traditional face-to-face social relationships. The second section of the survey establishes the geographic proximity of respondents to one another, which addresses the second dimension of community. A third section asks questions measure the presence of community sentiment or attachment--the third dimension. The final section asks for some basic demographic information. Each section of the survey is discussed in detail below.

Measurement of Communal Relations

Communal Relations were measured according to the four dimensions of the strength of a social tie specified by Granovetter (1973). These include the duration of a tie, the emotional attachment involved, the level of intimacy, and the reciprocal exchange of services. Respondents were asked if there are any people that they talk with through #friends that they consider to be close friends. If a respondent answered "yes" to this question, he/she was asked to list the number of people that he/she talks with through #friends that he/she considers to be close friends. Respondents were then asked a series of further contingency questions designed to measure the duration of these ties and whether or not they involve emotional attachment, intimacy, and exchange of services.

The duration of social ties established over #friends was measured by asking

respondents how long they have known their "close friends"11 on #friends. Additionally, respondents were asked to indicate the number of "close friends" they have known on #friends for each of several time intervals ranging from "less than 6 months" to "5 or more years."

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

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

Measurement of the Geographic Scale of Community

The geographical proximity of a respondent's network of close ties was measured by first asking respondents to indicate the city, state/province, (and country if outside USA), of their 5 closest friends on #friends, and respondents were then asked to list the location of their 5 closest friends that they did not meet and get to know through #friends.	The survey also measured the extent to which a respondent's network of close ties outside of Cyberspace resides in the same location as the respondent. The extent to which a respondent's network of close ties once lived in the same location, but migrated elsewhere was also measured. Additionally, the means by which these ties are maintained through social contact, including the use of #friends, was also measured. The responses to these questions, combined with the data on the number of strong ties developed solely through #friends, were used to provide insight into the extent to which close geographical proximity is important in the formation of social ties. In other words, using Wellman's terminology (1979), this provides insight into the extent to which participation in "liberated" communities represents the maintenance of communal ties initially established within the context of a traditional, proximate, community setting.

In an effort to determine the geographic scale of social relations of respondents in both #friends and in a face-to-face setting, respondents were asked to list the city, state/province, and country (if other than USA) for up to five of their closest friends in #friends and for their face-to-face relationships. These locations were then compared to the value the respondent indicated for their location in question 11. Using this comparison for each of these relationships, the following dummy variables were created: within city, within state, within country, within continent and cross-continent. Values were assigned in the following manner: 1 = within city, 2 = within state, 3 = within country, 4 = within continent, 5 = cross continent, and 9 = unknown. The lowest possible level was coded for each variable. For example, if a respondent was within the same city, presumably he or she would also be within the same state, country, and continent, yet this would be coded with a value of 1=within city. The categories of within continent and cross continent were later collapsed into a category labeled "cross national." This procedure was used for the variables in questions 3-D, 7-E, and 9-B. A frequency of combinations of different locational patterns was taken.

Measurement of Community Sentiment

Community sentiment was measured by items adapted from scales of community attachment and community sentiment developed by Kasarda and Janowitz (1974), Goudy (1982, 1990), and Buttel et al. (1979). The wording of the items was adapted to fit the context of Cyberspace and the specific chatroom. The first question which was been adapted from Kasarda and Janowitz (1974:331) was utilized for the purposes of this survey to read as follows: "Would you say you belong to and feel 'at home' when you participate in #friends?" Kasarda and Janowitz (1974:331) coded this question as a yes/no response, Goudy (1982:183) chose to use a three point likert type scale: (1) definitely not or probably not, (2) probably, (3) definitely (1982:381-2)." For the purposes of this survey however, the scale was modified to a four point likert type scale ranging from "definitely not" to "definitely."

Goudy (1982:183) uses the notion of "Length of residence" as a factor to measure community attachment. Obviously, one does not take up "residence" in #friends in a literal sense. But perhaps one can have "residence" in #friends in a figurative sense. The length of residence in a real-world -- physical, geographically bounded community -- helps to shape the length of acquaintance with other community members. So too should the length of "residence" in #friends help to shape the length of acquaintance with friends formed in #friends. Granovetter's time dimension also comes into play here. Question 3-C was used to measure the temporal length of the ties.

Another question used in the survey to measure community attachment which was also adapted from Kasarda and Janowitz (1974:331) was, "How interested are you to know what goes on in #friends?" Response choices for this question were coded using a

three point likert type scale with the responses (1) no interest, (2) some interest, and (3) much interest.

Yet another question from Kasarda and Janowitz (1974:331) was adapted to read as, "Suppose that for some reason that you were not allowed to participate in or log on to #friends for an extended period of time. How would you feel about being unable to have access to #friends?" Response choices for this question are coded as (1) very sorry, (2) somewhat sorry, (3) somewhat pleased, and (4) very pleased.

A factor analysis using the principal components methods of extraction was conducted on the three indicators of community attachment for the sample of #friends users. The following results were obtained:

Eigenvalues of the Correlation Matrix: Total=3 Average=1
Factor	1	2	3
Eigenvalue	2.0008	0.6150	0.3842
Difference	1.3858	0.2308
Proportion	0.6669	0.2050	0.1281
Cumulative	0.6669	0.8719	1.0000

Questionnaire Item	Factor Pattern
4.) Would you say you belong to and feel 'at home' when you participate in

#friends?	0.8691
5.) How much interest do you have in knowing what goes on in #friends?	0.81584
6.) How would you feel about being unable to have access to #friends?	0.76149

Only 1 factor was found with an Eigenvalue > 1.0. This factor explained 66.7% of the variance among the three indicators of community sentiment. Bivariate correlations among the three indicators ranged from .37 to .59. Scores on each of the three community sentiment items were summed to form a composite index of community sentiment. Possible values for the composite index of community sentiment would range from 3 to 11. A score of 3 would indicate an extremely low level of community sentiment or a lack of community sentiment, and a score of 11 would indicate a high level of community sentiment. Chronbach's alpha was also computed as an indicator of reliability of the index. Coefficient a was found to be .745 indicating that the reliability of the index is somewhat less than ideal.

Method of Data Analysis

The responses were collected and analyzed through the use of descriptive statistics. Correlations between the number of on-line friends and face-to-face friends were also run. Descriptive data from the measures of communal relations, geography of communal relations, and community sentiment are used to assess the ways in which

social participation on the #friends IRC channel represents a community in a sociological sense.

Chapter VI

Findings

Characteristics of the Sample

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

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

To evaluate the composition of the sample, it is useful to compare these sample characteristics with those of other Internet studies. By far, the most comprehensive source of Internet demographics is the GVU user survey of Internet demographics that attempts to provide insight into the characteristics of the population of Internet users.12 Advertisements inviting Internet users to participate in the GVU survey are found across a variety of different Internet sites. Internet users that are interested log on to the survey site and fill out the survey questionnaire on-line. While it is unknown how well participants in the GVU survey represent the population of Internet users, those that do participate are drawn from a wide cross-section of Internet sites. Table 6.1 gives a comparison of the #friends sample characteristics with those of the Ninth GVU Survey (1998). These data indicate that the #friends sample and participants in the GVU survey have a similar gender composition; that is, there are approximately 1.5-1.6 male users for every female user. However, the comparison also suggests that #friends participants tend to be younger in age, have less education, are more likely to be single, and are more likely to be students compared to participants in the GVU survey. This suggests that the #friends chatroom tends to be a more specialized Internet site that appeals primarily to single students seeking out interaction with others, compared to users of other sites for Internet communication.

Frequency of Participation in #friends and in other chat rooms

Out of 53 respondents total, 17 respondents (32.1%) indicated that they used friends "several times a day" while 6 respondents (11.3%) indicated that they used #friends "once a day" (see Table 6.3). Thus, 43.4% of the sample participated in #friends at least once a day. A 95% confidence interval for this indicator was found to be ±13.3%. This indicates that the population percentage of #friends users that participate in the chat room at least once a day is 95% likely to be at least 30.1% but not more than 57.7%. Thus, it is possible that the majority (> 50%) of the population of #friends users participate in the chat room every day.

An additional 17 respondents (32.1%) stated that they used #friends "a few times a week." Adding to the previous estimate, over 75% of the respondents in the sample stated that they participated in #friends at least several times a week. The magnitude of this estimate indicates that it is highly likely that the majority of the population of #friends users participates in the chat room at least several times a week.

Table 6.1

Comparison of this sample with Ninth GVU Survey

Characteristic	#friends Sample	9th GVU Survey

f	%	f	%

Gender

Male	32	60.4	7716	61.3

Female	21	39.6	4875	38.7

Total	53	100.0	12591	100.0

Age

Under 11	0	0.0	9	0

11-15	5	10.0	261	2.1

16-20	16	32.0	1366	11.0

21-25	17	34.0	1911	15.4

26-30	6	12.0	1971	15.8

31+	6	12.0	6925	55.7

Total	50	100.0	12443	100.0

Missing	3	148

Education

Some High School	10	19.6	393	3.2

High School Grad.	7	13.7	1285	10.3

Some College	20	39.2	4392	35.5

College Degree	9	17.6	3817	30.8

Some Grad School	2	3.9	--	--

Advanced Degree	3	5.9	2490	20.1

Total	51	100.0	12377	100.0

Missing	2	214

Occupation

Computer Related	7	14.3	2811	22.3

Management	1	2.0	1415	11.2

Professional	10	20.4	731	21.7

Educator or Student	26	53.0	3304	26.2

Other	5	10.2	2330	18.5

Total	49	100.0	12591	100.0

Missing	4	--

Marital Status

Single	37	74.0	4873	38.7

Married	7	14.0	5172	41.0

Divorced	1	2.0	861	6.84

Widowed	1	2.0	134	1.1

Other	4	8.0	1361	10.8

Total	50	100.0	12591	100.0

Missing	3	--

Table 6.2

Countries Represented by the Sample

Continent	Country	f	%

Africa	South Africa	1	1.9

Total	1	1.9

Asia	India	1	1.9

Philippines	2	3.8

Republic of Georgia	1	1.9

Total	4	7.5

Australia	Australia	3	5.7

Total	3	5.7

Europe	Holland	1	1.9

Norway	1	1.9

Romania	1	1.9

Sweden	1	1.9

United Kingdom	1	1.9

Total	5	9.4

North America	USA	26	49.1

Canada	6	11.3

Mexico	1	1.9

Total	33	62.3

Oceania	New Zealand	1	1.9

Total	1	1.9

South America	Columbia	1	1.9

Uruguay	1	1.9

Venezuela	1	1.9

Total	3	5.7

Grand Total	53	100.0

Table 6.3 Frequency of participation in #friends chatroom

Frequency of Use	f	%

several times a day	17	32.1

once a day	6	11.3

a few times a week	17	32.1

once a week	5	9.4

a few times a month	5	9.4

once a month or less	3	5.7

Total	53	100

On-line Friendships in #friends

Altogether, 34 of the 53 respondents (64.2%) indicated that they regularly talk with specific people in #friends on a frequent basis. For this indicator, the 95% confidence interval was found to be ±12.9%. This indicates that the population percentage of #friends users that regularly talk with people in #friends on a frequent basis appears to be at least 51.3% but no more than 77.1%. This suggests that for the majority of users, the #friends chatroom serves as a forum for regular communication with specific people.

In total, 36 of the 53 respondents (67.9%) stated that they did consider some of the people they talked with through #friends to be close friends. For this indicator, the 95% confidence interval was found to be ±12.6%. Thus, the population percentage of #friends users that perceive themselves as having developed close friendship ties through #friends is 95% likely to fall between 55.3 % and 80.5%. This suggests that the majority of the population of #friends users would perceive themselves as having developed close friendships with others through participating in the chat room.

On average, respondents in the sample stated that they had developed close friendships with approximately 5 other persons through #friends (mean=5.12). A 95% confidence interval was ±.94. Thus, the population mean for the number of close friends developed through participation in #friends is 95% likely to fall between 4 and 6 persons. Nature of On-Line relationships in #friends

In general, the establishment of friendships with others was found to be the most important reason for participating in #friends. As one respondent put it, the most important reason for participating in friends is:

To make friends ... real friends who go beyond the scope of being just an acquaintance for casual chat. I strongly look upon the Internet as a medium to make the world a smaller place, through better understanding of cultures and regional habit. To a large extent, our environment imposes a large number of habits on us, habits that are considered "crude" and "not classy". It is my endeavor to discover these traits and adapt myself to them, so that I become a part of a really global family. The basic purpose of the Internet / IRC should be to serve as a zone where such "habits" and "environments" break down (gimme a prize for idealism :-))

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

The data for the characteristics of close friendship ties developed in #friends revealed that the majority of respondents in the sample had established at least one friendship tie that they perceived as involving some form of emotional attachment, intimacy, and a reciprocal exchange of services. In total, 64.2% of the respondents in the sample stated that they had developed a close friendship tie in #friends where the persons provided each other with help concerning personal problems (see Table 6.4). Out of the 36 respondents stating that they had developed close friendship ties in #friends, the mean percentage of close friendship ties with this characteristic was estimated to be 71.6%. To put this another way, on average, an estimated 7 out of every 10 close friendship ties developed in #friends had this attribute.

In addition, 58.5% of the respondents in the sample stated that they had developed a close friendship tie in #friends where the persons strongly cared about each other's well being, or talked about close personal matters that were important to them (see Table 6.4). Out of the 36 respondents stating that they had developed close friendship ties in #friends the mean percentage of close friendship ties with each of these characteristics was estimated to be 64.9% and 57.9%, respectively. These findings suggest that the majority of friendship ties developed in #friends were found to be characterized by these forms of intimacy and/or attachment, also implying that these relationships involve a reciprocal exchange of services between the persons involved.

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

Table 6.4

Characteristics of Close Friendship Ties Developed in #friends

*

(n=53)

(n=36)

Mean Percentage of close friendship ties with characteristic
we strongly care about each other's personal well being	31	58.5	86.1	64.9
we talk about close personal matters that are important	31	58.5	86.1	57.9
we provide each other with help concerning personal problems	34	64.2	94.4	71.6
we are "romantically" involved	11	20.8	30.6	14.0
we are related by family	1	1.9	2.8	0.8
*Categories are not mutually exclusive

The data for the duration of ties revealed that the majority of close friendship ties

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

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

Table 6.5

Duration of close friendship ties developed in #friends

(n=53)

Total number of close ties

% of persons that stated they had a close tie (n=36)
less than 6 months	7	13.2	59	24.7	19.4
less than 1 yr. but more than 6 months	20	37.7	64	26.8	55.5
1-2 years	19	35.8	76	31.8	52.8
3-4 years	6	11.3	32	13.4	16.7
5 or more years	5	9.4	8	3.3	13.9

Traditional Face-to-Face Relationships Outside of Cyberspace

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

On average, respondents in this sample stated that they had developed close friendships with approximately 7 other persons (mean=7.27) outside of Cyberspace. The 95% confidence interval for this estimate was found to be ±1.6. This means that there is a 95% likelihood that for the population of #friends users, the average number of close friendship ties of respondents is between about 6 and 8 close friendship ties.

The data for the characteristics of close friendship ties developed outside of Cyberspace revealed that the majority of respondents in the sample had established at least one friendship tie that they perceived as involving some form of emotional attachment, intimacy, and a reciprocal exchange of services. In total, 84.9% of the respondents in the sample stated that they had developed a close friendship tie outside of Cyberspace where the persons strongly cared about each other's well being (see Table 6.6). Out of the 49 respondents stating that they had developed close friendship ties outside of Cyberspace, the mean percentage of close friendship ties with this characteristic was estimated to be 80.1%. To put this another way, on average, an estimated 8 out of every 10 close friendship ties developed outside of Cyberspace had this attribute. Among those respondents that stated they had a close tie outside of Cyberspace, 91.8% had this characteristic.

In addition, 81.1% of the respondents in the sample stated that they had developed a close friendship tie outside of Cyberspace where the persons talked about close personal matters that were important to them (see Table 6.6). Out of the 49 respondents stating that they had developed close friendship ties outside of Cyberspace the mean percentage of close friendship ties with this characteristic was estimated to be 60.3%. About three quarters of respondents (75.5%, 40 respondents) indicated that they provided help concerning personal problems to at least one close friendship tie outside of Cyberspace. Among those respondents that stated they had a close tie outside of Cyberspace, 81.6% had this characteristic. These findings suggest that the majority of friendship ties developed outside of Cyberspace were found to be characterized by these forms of intimacy and/or attachment, also implying that these relationships involve a reciprocal exchange of services between the persons involved.

As was the case for close friendship ties developed in #friends, close friendship ties outside of Cyberspace based on romantic involvement or family relations were found to occur much less frequently. In total, 34.0% of the respondents stated that they had developed at least one close friendship tie outside of Cyberspace where the persons were romantically involved (see Table 6.6). Out of 49 persons who had developed close ties outside of Cyberspace, the mean percentage of close friendship ties with this characteristic was estimated to be 13.2%. A total of 8 out of the 53 respondents (15.1%) stated that he had developed at least one close friendship tie outside of Cyberspace involving family relations.

Table 6.6

Characteristics of Close Friendship Ties Developed Outside of Cyberspace

*

f

% of total sample

(n=53)

% of persons that stated they had a close tie

(n=49)	Mean percentage of close friendship ties with characteristic
we strongly care about each other's personal well being	45	84.9	91.8	80.1
we talk about close personal matters that are important	43	81.1	87.8	60.3
we provide each other with help concerning personal problems	40	75.5	81.6	69.1
we are"romantically" involved	18	34.0	36.7	13.2
we are related by family	8	15.1	16.3	6.1
*Categories are not mutually exclusive

The data for the duration of ties revealed that the majority of close friendship ties

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

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

Table 6.7

Duration of close friendship ties developed outside of Cyberspace

f

%of total sample (n=53)

Total Number of close friendship ties

% of all close ties	% of persons that stated they had a close tie (n=46)
less than 6 months	11	20.8	27	8.6	23.9
less than 1 year but more than 6 months	4	7.5	13	4.2	8.7
1-2 years	23	43.4	78	25.0	50.0
3-4 years	14	26.4	53	17.0	30.4
5 or more years	26	49.1	141	45.2	56.5

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

Among the valid responses, respondents had an average of about 8 close face-to- face friendship ties outside of Cyberspace (Mean = 8.5). Out of these 8 or so close friendship ties, an average of about 3 close friendship ties were non-local (Mean = 3.42). Out of these non-local friendship ties of respondents, roughly 67.8% (or 2 out of 3) non- local friendship ties once lived in the same location but now live elsewhere. Out of these 8 or so close friendship ties, an average of about 5 (mean = 5.09) close friendship ties were local in nature. This indicates that proximity does appear to be an important factor in the formation and maintenance of close face-to-face friendship ties that exist outside of Cyberspace.

A total of 14 out of the 53 respondents (26.4%) indicated that one or both traveled to meet face-to-face with their friends who once lived in the same location as they did. Given this, it can be reasonably concluded that a fair number of relationships with others living in a different location resulted in face-to-face contact at some point.

In total, 14 of the 53 respondents (26.4%) indicated that they talked over the telephone with their friends who had once lived in the same location as they did. Additionally, 19 out of the 53 respondents (35.8%) indicated that they used e-mail to communicate with their friends who had once lived in the same location. About 54.2% of those who responded to question 7-G2 indicated that they wrote letters to their friends who had once lived in the same location as they did. In total, 6 out of those that answered question 7-G2 indicated an "other" response, meaning that they communicated with their friends by some other means than what was listed. Two examples given for the other category were FAXes, and ICQ. Only 7 out of the 53 respondents (13.2%) indicated that there are persons they talk with through #friends that they first met face-to-face. This low number would seem to indicate that participants of #friends are not using this medium to maintain once existing face-to-face ties, but that they are using #friends to form new friendship ties. For those who did use #friends to maintain contact with once existing face-to-face ties, however, the mean number of friends that did use #friends to maintain ties with was about 2 friends (Mean = 2.33).

The Relationship Between Close Ties in #friends & Close Ties Outside Cyberspace

The data for close friendship ties indicate that the majority of respondents tended to have close friendship ties, both in #friends, and outside of Cyberspace. In total, 66.7% (34/53) of the respondents reported having at least one close tie in #friends and at least one close tie outside of Cyberspace (see Table 6.8). Additionally, 25.5% of the respondents (13/53) reported having at least one close friendship tie outside of Cyberspace while having no close friendship ties in #friends. The opposite scenario was found to be much more infrequent in the sample. Only 1 respondent out of 53 (1.9%) reported having close friends in #friends, while having no close friendship ties outside of Cyberspace. Further, only 3 respondents reported having no close friendship ties in either social situation. These data suggest that contrary to stereotypes, participants in the #friends chatroom tend not to be reclusive Internet users that avoid developing any close social relationships with others outside of Cyberspace.

Table 6.8

Joint Distribution of respondents with close friends in #friends vs. those with close friends outside of Cyberspace.
Have No Close Friendship ties outside Cyberspace	Have Close Friendship ties outside Cyberspace	Total
Have No Close Friendship Ties in #friends	3

5.88%	13

25.49%	16

31.37%
Have Close Friendship Ties in #friends	1

1.96%	34

66.67%	35

68.63%
Total	4

7.84%	47

92.16%	53

100.0%

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

The Effects of Internet Participation on Other Activities

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

Table 6.9

Effects of Internet Participation on Other Activities
Characteristic	f	% of total sample
spend less time with family	3	5.7
spend less time with friends	4	7.5
spend less time watching TV	35	66.0
spend time at work using the Internet for personal reasons	6	11.3
spend less time on schoolwork	7	13.2
missed important appointments or other social events	1	1.9

Geographic Scale of Close Friendship Ties in #friends

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

Table 6.10 Geographic Scale of Close Ties in #friends

Location of Close Friendship Ties	f	%
within city	5	4.3
within state/province	9	7.7
within country	36	30.8
cross national	61	52.1
unknown	6	5.1
Total number of close friendship ties	117	100.0

Geographic Scale of Close Friendship Ties Outside of Cyberspace

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

Geographic Scale of Close Ties Outside of Cyberspace
Location of Close Friendship Ties	f	%
within city/town	53	39.3
within state/province	39	28.9
within country	17	12.6
cross national	25	18.5
unknown	1	0.7

The Evolution of Cyberspace Relationships into Face-to-Face Relationships

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

Of the 9 respondents indicating that they had developed face-to-face ties with persons they met in #friends, 6 were found to have developed face-to-face relationships with multiple persons. In total, the 9 respondents developed face-to-face ties with 22 other persons. Out of these 22 ties, 8 involved persons within the same state or province and 13 involved persons residing within the same country. Only one tie was found to be cross national in scale. These data indicate that while the development of close friendship ties in #friends predominantly occurs at an international scale, rarely do such ties evolve into face-to-face relationships unless the persons involved live in the same country. A total of 7 out of the 53 respondents (13.2%) indicated that at least one of their face-to-face relationships they established with persons they first met through #friends turned into romantic relationships involving dating or marriage.

Community Sentiment Among Participants in #friends

The majority of respondents were found to exhibit moderate to high levels of community sentiment as measured by the three community sentiment indicators. In total, 57.7% of the respondents stated that they "definitely" perceive themselves as "belonging to and feeling at home" when they participate in #friends while an additional 26.9% stated that they "probably" do (see Table 6.12). Only 15.3% of the respondents stated that they probably do not or definitely do not belong to and feel at home when they participate in #friends.

Additionally, 54.7% of the respondents stated that they have "some interest" in knowing what goes on in #friends while 39.6% stated that they have "much interest" in knowing what goes on (see Table 6.12). Finally, 49.1% of the sample stated that they would be "very sorry" if they were no longer able to access #friends while 50.9% stated that they would be "somewhat sorry" if they no longer had access (see Table 6.12). None of the respondents stated they would be "very pleased" or "somewhat pleased" if they no longer had access.

Table 6.12

Frequency Distributions of Community Sentiment Indicators
f	%
Would you say you belong to and feel 'at home' when you participate in

#friends?
definitely not	2	3.8
probably not

6	11.5
probably	14	26.9
definitely	30	57.7
Total	53	100.0
How much interest do you have in knowing what goes on in #friends?
no interest	3	5.7
some interest	29	54.7
much interest	21	39.6
Total	53	100.0
How would you feel about being unable to have access to #friends?
very sorry	26	49.1
somewhat sorry	27	50.9
somewhat pleased	0	0.0
very pleased	0	0.0
Total	53	100.0

In combining the responses to the 3 indicators to form the index of community sentiment, the mean index score for the sample was found to be 9.23, on a scale of 3 to 11. Taken together, these findings suggest that #friends users in the sample developed a fairly high degree of community sentiment in relation to their participation in the #friends chatroom. Thus, participants tend to define themselves as being part of a group in which they have "stake" and a personal interest.

The level of community sentiment was found to be related to whether or not a respondent had developed close friendship ties in #friends. The mean score on the community index was found to be 9.91 for respondents that had developed close friendship ties in #friends (see Table 6.13). In comparison, the mean index score for respondents without close friendship ties in #friends was found to be 7.94. A t-test for differences of means revealed that the means for the two groups were significantly different (t = -5.16, p = .001). While the direction of causal influence cannot be determined because of the cross-sectional research design, this finding suggests that the formation of strong ties in #friends helps promote higher levels of community sentiment, or vice versa.

Table 6.13

Comparison of the Means on the Community Sentiment Index between Persons With Close Friendship Ties Developed in #friends and Those Without Such Ties

Location of Close Friendship Ties	n	Mean	t
Respondents without close friendship ties in #friends	18	7.94
-5.16***
Respondents with close friendship ties in #friends	34	9.91
*** p < .001

Chapter VII

Discussion and Conclusions

Close Friendship Ties in #friends

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

Granovetter's dimension of intimacy was measured using items asking about those who "talk about close personal matters that are important" in #friends and items asking about those who "provide each other with help concerning personal problems" in #friends. For both of these indicators, a large majority of respondents who indicated they had close friendship ties in #friends indicated that they did "talk about close personal matters that are important" (86.1%) and that they did "provide each other with help concerning personal problems" (94.4%). These indicators suggest a high degree of intimacy among friends users who indicated they had at least one close friendship tie in #friends.

These results signify that there does indeed appear to be a high level of intimacy in close friendship ties among #friends users, and that there are high levels of a certain type of emotional attachment--strongly caring about each other's personal well being. Also, there does appear to be some emotional attachment among close friendship ties in #friends as evidenced by romantic relationships, though this is not quite as high of a level of emotional attachment. There does not appear to be much of any familial emotional attachment among close friendship ties in #friends. This may be a question of semantics, if persons did not consider family to be close friends, but instead placed family members in a separate category than friends, they may not have indicated family ties as being close friendship ties when in fact they may have had close ties with family members. All of these items involved reciprocal exchange of services, so this too seems to be present among the close friendship ties of friends users.

While not all #friends participants developed communal relationships in #friends, the majority of #friends participants in the sample did develop such relationships. A small number of respondents indicated that they had close friendship ties in #friends, but did not check off any of the items measuring emotional attachment, intimacy, or reciprocal exchange of services. This could indicate the presence of false communal relations in #friends. While respondents felt they may have had a close friendship tie in these case, Granovetter's criteria of emotional attachment, intimacy, or reciprocal exchange of services were not met in these cases, calling into question the sincerity of the friendship ties. It is interesting to note that someone could actually perceive a close friendship tie that does not exhibit the characteristics of communal relationships.

As for Granovetter's notion of duration of friendship ties, a majority of close friendship ties in #friends indicated by respondents (68.6%) lasted from 3 to 4 years. Given the instantaneous nature of Internet communication and the newness of the Internet as a medium for communication and formation of friendship ties, this seems like a fairly long duration for Internet-mediated close friendship ties. The number of relationships lasting 3 to 4 years in #friends suggests that long time relationships through #friends are possible.

Given these findings, it seems as though Granovetter's criteria needed for close friendship ties to exist are present in the close friendship ties in #friends. There are high levels of emotional attachment, intimacy, and reciprocity among the close friendship ties of #friends users in #friends. It is this type of strong friendship tie that make up communal ties. Hence, it is logical to conclude that the majority of close friendship ties in #friends can be said to be communal ties.

Respondents' Close Friendship Ties Outside of Cyberspace

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

Granovetter's dimension of intimacy was measured using items asking about those who "talk about close personal matters that are important" with others outside of Cyberspace, and items asking about those who "provide each other with help concerning personal problems" with others outside of Cyberspace. For both of these indicators, a large majority of respondents who indicated they had close face-to-face friendship ties outside of Cyberspace indicated that they did "talk about close personal mattes that are important" (95.6%) and that they did "provide each other with help concerning personal problems" (85.1%). These indicators suggest a high degree of intimacy among friends users who indicated they had at least one close friendship tie outside of #friends.

These results signify that there does indeed appear to be a high level of intimacy in the traditional, face-to-face close friendship ties held by respondents outside of Cyberspace, and that there are high levels of a certain type of emotional attachment--strongly caring about each other's personal well being. Also, there does appear to be some emotional attachment among close face-to-face friendship ties of respondents as evidenced by romantic relationships, though this is not quite as high of a level of emotional attachment. There does not appear to be much of any familial emotional attachment among close face-to-face friendship ties of respondents. Again, this may be a question of semantics, if persons did not consider family to be close friends, but instead placed family members in a separate category than friends, they may not have indicated family ties as being close friendship ties. All of these items involved reciprocal exchange of services, so this too seems to be present among the close friendship ties of friends users. More face-to-face ties outside of Cyberspace exhibit emotional attachment, intimacy, and reciprocal exchange of services than the relationships in #friends.

As for Granovetter's notion of duration of friendship ties, the most commonly occurring pattern of close face-to-face outside of Cyberspace friendship ties of respondents indicated by respondents (44.9% of all close ties) lasted from 3 to 4 years.

These ties also tend to be much longer in duration than those in #friends, but this could be due to the "newness" of the technology.

Given these findings, it seems as though Granovetter's criteria needed for close friendship ties to exist are present in a majority of the close face-to-face friendship ties of respondents. There are high levels of emotional attachment, intimacy, and reciprocity among the close friendship ties of respondents.

Comparison of Close Friendship Ties in #friends and Close Friendship Ties Outside of Cyberspace

The data indicates that the face-to-face friendship ties outside of Cyberspace exhibited higher levels of emotional attachment, intimacy, and reciprocity compared to close ties that were perceived to exist in #friends. This shows the differences in the nature of friendship ties developed through this technological medium and traditional face-to-face friendship ties.

This chatroom tends to consist of multiple networks of close ties which constitute communal relations. The data also tell us that most #friends users tend to have both a network of close ties in #friends and a network of close ties outside of Cyberspace. The data also echoes the sentiment that few Internet users are reclusive and isolated behind a computer who are only able to participate in a community through the opportunities available over the #friends channel and not in a traditional community. This is consistent with the findings of others (Rhinegold, 1993; Parks and Floyd, 1996; Surratt 1996) that suggest the idea of socially isolated Internet users is merely a stereotype. While not all #friends participants become integrated into a network of communal relations in #friends, nearly all appeared to be well integrated into traditional face-to-face social networks outside of Cyberspace.

From these data, it is evident that close friendship ties in #friends and face-to-face friendship ties of respondents outside of Cyberspace constitute two separate social realms. There appears to be no significant correlation between the number of close friendship ties in #friends and the number of close friendship ties outside of Cyberspace. This is because #friends is not widely used to maintain existing face-to-face ties. This is also evidenced by the fact that very few respondents had no social ties in either #friends or in a traditional face-to-face setting. Nearly all respondents had at least one social tie either in a face-to-face setting or in #friends. Those that had a high number of close friendship ties in #friends did not necessarily have a high number of close friendship ties outside of Cyberspace and vice versa, further indicating that #friends and friendship ties outside of Cyberspace. constitute two separate social realms. The data show that the size of each network (#friends vs. face-to-face) is independent.

On a limited basis, it appears that some #friends users use #friends to discuss personal problems because of the anonymous nature of #friends. It is uncertain whether or not the problems discussed in #friends are problems which participants have outside of #friends or within #friends, so it is difficult to say if respondents are using #friends as a way to augment their participation in a traditional community by seeking advice in #friends about personal problems they are experiencing in their traditional relationships outside of Cyberspace.

Geographic Scale of Close Friendship Ties in #friends

The geographic scale of close friendship ties mediated through #friends appears to be very broad and diffuse. These close friendship ties mediated through #friends range from ties within the same city to ties ranging across continents. Ties also exist at every level between these two extremes, some ties in #friends exist within the same state or province, within the same country, and across nations within the same continent. It appears that most of the relationships in #friends occurred either within the same country or across countries. Relationships in #friends did not generally occur within the same state/province or within the same city. The data indicate that close geographic proximity does not appear to be much of a factor in the formation of close friendship ties in #friends.

Geographic Scale of Close Friendship Ties Outside of Cyberspace

As one might expect, higher numbers of close face-to-face, traditional, outside of Cyberspace, friendship ties of respondents occur within the same city and within the same state/province than for ties within #friends. Most close friendship ties outside of Cyberspace were local in nature (existing either within the same city/town or state/province), and the majority of non-local close friendship ties outside of Cyberspace (2 out of every 3 non-local ties) once lived in the same location but now live elsewhere.

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

Establishment/maintenance of Friendship Ties

A fair number of respondents (13.2%, 7 respondents) indicated that they use #friends to talk with close friends that they first met face-to-face. These respondents are using #friends to maintain existing face-to-face relationships for the maintenance of social ties. A slightly larger share of respondents indicated that there are persons that they first me through #friends that they have established a face-to-face relationship with. About 1 out of every 6 participants in #friends had developed at least one tie in #friends that evolved into a face-to-face tie. These numbers may be artificially inflated due to an institutionalized mechanism--yearly face-to-face meetings of #friends participants. Each year, an informal meeting of #friends users is arranged as an opportunity for #friends users who choose to do so to meet with one another face-to-face in an informal setting. Initially, the aim of the question addressing the face-to-face meeting of respondents was intended to measure if #friends users arranged to meet other #friends users face-to-face on their own initiative. Respondents were asked if there were persons which they considered to be close friends they talked with through #friends whom they had first met face-to-face (see Question 8 in survey questionnaire). On the other hand, respondents were asked if there were persons that they first met through #friends that they had established a face-to-face relationship with (see Question 9 in survey questionnaire). This question did not make the distinction of whether or not persons that respondents first met through #friends were close friends or not. This was done in an attempt to see if anyone that initially met through friends had met face-to-face with anyone else they had met through #friends. A few close friendship ties established through #friends actually turned into relationships involving dating or marriage. Often, those researching the net

will talk about Cyber-dating, where participants of a chat-room such as friends will "date" one another and become seriously involved without ever having met face-to-face. Question 9 tried to eliminate this circumstance by asking if any of the "face-to-face" relationships established through #friends turned into romantic relationships involving dating or marriage. Close geographic proximity serves as an important factor in the evolution of #friends mediated relationships into face-to-face relationships.

Friends who met face-to-face and maintained contact using #friends were somewhat less common. The data indicate that #friends is not being used on a large scale to maintain previously existing face-to-face relationships. Instead, it is being used to facilitate the formation of close friendship ties. This is what Wellman (1979) failed to investigate--when the friendship ties in the Toronto borough of East York were initially established. This study deduced that among #friends users, most of the close friendship ties in #friends were initially established in #friends, and that #friends was not generally being used to maintain previously existing friendship ties.

Wellman's (1979) notion of liberated communities is influenced by geographic proximity. Wellman's notion of proximity was slightly different than what is used here, however. Wellman used the neighborhood level of analysis, and this study went down only to the city or town level of analysis due to the wider geographic scale of relationships investigated by the study. There does appear to be a liberated community for the majority of #friends participants and for the majority of the face-to-face ties outside of Cyberspace. The formation and maintenance of face-to-face ties of respondents seem to be heavily influenced by close geographic proximity, while geographic proximity is not important for the formation and maintenance of close friendship ties in #friends.

Community Sentiment among #Friends Users

An analysis of the responses indicates that there does appear to be high levels of community sentiment among friends users. The level of community sentiment was found to be influenced by whether or not participants developed close friendship ties in #friends. There was a significant relationship between the mean score on the community sentiment index and whether or not participants developed at least one close friendship tie in #friends. While it is not possible to determine the direction of causal influence, one can conclude from this that strong friendship ties in #friends promote higher levels of community sentiment or vice versa.

These data show that participants are more likely to confide in other #friends users than in their face-to-face friends. This could largely be due to the anonymous nature of #friends and the Internet in general. Strictly enforced norms of kindness and generosity on #friends make people feel comfortable regardless of what they discuss. Users who violate the norms of kindness and generosity are simply "kicked off" or "banned." These norms might also account for the high levels of community sentiment among #friends users.

Summary

To summarize, these data do indicate that #friends users participate in both virtual and traditional communities. The majority of relationships in #friends are communal relationships. Not all participants of #friends become integrated into communal networks or develop communal networks through #friends, but the majority of #friends users do. These two areas of close friendship ties appear to comprise two separate and unrelated social realms. The criteria for community which were outlined in previous chapters appear to be present in the majority of the friendship ties in #friends. There is a geographic territory (albeit a very diffuse one), there does appear to be communal relations, and there does appear to be community sentiment.

The first area of agreement cited by Hillery (1955), social relationships, which was examined in terms of Granovetter's (1973) four dimensions of the strength of a social tie, appears to be present for the majority of #friends users. The second of Hillery's areas of agreement, geographic territory, was found to play an important role as well. The third of Hillery's areas of agreement, psychological identification with the community group, examined in terms of community sentiment, appears to be present among #friends users, especially those who had developed close friendship ties in #friends.

Directions for Future Research

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

Baym, Nancy K. 1995. "The Emergence of Community in Computer-Mediated

Communication" pp. 138-163 in Jones, Steven, Ed. 1995. CyberSociety:

Computer-Mediated Communication and Community. Thousand Oaks, California:

Sage Publications Ltd.

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

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

Braddle, 1993. Virtual Communities:Computer-Mediated Communication and

Communities of Association. Dissertation. Bloomington:Indiana University.

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

Publications Ltd.

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

6:475-485.

Dalaimo, Denise. 1995. The Simulation of Selfhood in Cyberspace. Master's thesis.

Las Vegas:University of Nevada.

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

Fischer, Claude. 1977. Networks and Places : Social Relations in the Urban Setting.

New York: Free Press.

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

New York: Cambridge.

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

Westview Press.

Furlong, Mary S. 1989. "Crafting an Electronic Community: The SeniorNet Story."

International Journal of Technology and Aging. 2:2 fall-winter, 125-134.

Geertz, Clifford. 1963. Old Societies and New States: The Quest for Modernity in Asia

and Africa. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

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

Community. Dissertation. Altoona, Pennsylvania:Pennsylvania State University.

Goudy, Willis J. 1990. "Community Attachment in a Rural Region." Rural Sociology.

55:178-198.

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

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

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

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

Hillery, George A. 1955. "Definitions of Community: Areas of Agreement." Rural

Sociology. 20:111-123.

Hiltz, Starr Roxanne. 1984. Online Communities: A Case Study of the Office of the

Future. Norwood, NJ: Albex.

Hiltz, Starr Roxanne and Turoff, Murray. 1978. The Network Nation:Human

Communication via Computer. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley

Publishing Company, Inc.

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

Josey-Bass.

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

Jones, Steven, ed. 1995. CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and

Community. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Ltd.

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

Ludlow, Peter. 1996. High Noon on the Electronic Frontier: Conceptual Issues in

Cyberspace. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Parks, Malcolm R. and Kory Floyd. 1996. "Making Friends in Cyberspace." Journal of

Communication. 46:80-97

Porter, David, ed. 1997. Internet Culture. New York: Routledge.

Reid, E. M. 1991. Electropolis: Communication and Community on Internet Relay Chat. University of Melbourne. Honours Thesis. Available on-line at

http://www.ee.mu.oz.au/papers/emr

Rheingold, Howard. 1993. The Virtual Community. Reading, Massachusetts:

Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Stoll, Clifford. 1995. Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts On the Information Highway. New York: Anchor Books.

Surratt, Carla. 1996. The Sociology of Everyday Life in Computer-Mediated

Communities. Ph.D. Dissertation. Tuscon: Arizona State University.

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

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

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

Simon and Schuster.

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

Simon and Schuster.

Young, Kimberly S. 1998. Caught in the Net: How to Recognize the Signs of Internet

Addiction--and a Winning Strategy for Recovery. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

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

Wellman, Barry, Peter Carrington, and Alan Hall. 1988. "Networks as Personal

Communites." pp. 130-183 in Social Structures: A Network Approach. Wellman

and Berkowitz, Eds. New York: Cambrige University Press.

Wellman, Barry, et al. 1996. "Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative

Work, Telework, and Virtual Community." Annual Review of Sociology.

22:213-238.

APPENDIX A

Cover Letter and Survey Questionnaire

Cover Letter

Hello,

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

You are one of a small number of people being asked to give your opinion on this

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

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

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

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

Survey Questionnaire

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

Most of the questions below will simply ask that you either mark the appropriate

response choice with an "X" between the [ ]'s (brackets) or type the appropriate number between

the [ ]'s (brackets). Thank you very much for your help in this study.

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

1.) How often do you log on to or join #friends?

[ ]several times a day

[ ]once a day

[ ]a few times a week

[ ]once a week

[ ]a few times a month

[ ]once a month or less

2.) Are there people that you talk with regularly through #friends?

[ ] Yes, there are specific people that I talk with on a frequent basis

[ ] Yes, there are specific people that I talk with on an occasional basis

[ ] No, I don't tend to talk with any specific persons on a regular basis

3.) Out of the people that you talk with through #friends, do you consider

any of them to be a "close" friend?

[ ]Yes --> GO TO 3-A

[ ]No --> SKIP TO QUESTION 4

3-A.) How many of the people that you talk with through #friends do you consider to be close friends?

[ ] Number of CLOSE FRIENDS --> GO TO 3-B

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

Please Mark with an "X" Please type a Number

[ ] We strongly care about each other's personal well being. [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

[ ] We talk about close personal matters that are important to us. [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS [ ] We provide each other help concerning personal problems. [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS [ ] We are "romantically" involved.	[ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

[ ] We are related by family.	[ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

[ ] Other __________________________________________ [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

3-C.) How long have you known your close friends on #friends? (Check all

that apply) Also, how many of the close friends listed in 3-A fall in

each of the categories (next to each time period you check, please list

the number of close friends that you have known for that length of time)?

Please Mark with an "X" Please type a Number

[ ] less than 6 months ---------------------------> [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

[ ] less than 1 year, but more than 6 months ---> [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

[ ] 1 - 2 years ------------------------------------> [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

[ ] 3 - 4 years ------------------------------------> [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

[ ] 5 or more years -------------------------------> [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

3-D.) Where are your close friends on #friends located? (Please list the City/Town

State/Province, Country if outside USA for up to 5 persons; If you don't know where any of your close friends are located, please type UNKNOWN in first blank).

City/Town: State/Province: Country if outside USA:

City/Town: State/Province: Country if outside USA:

City/Town: State/Province: Country if outside USA:

City/Town: State/Province: Country if outside USA:

City/Town: State/Province: Country if outside USA:

3-E.) Do any of your close friends on #friends live in the same location as you do?

[ ] Yes -------------> How many live in the same location as you do? [ ]

[ ] No

[ ] I Don't know

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

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

[ ]definitely not

[ ]probably not

[ ]probably

[ ]definitely

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

[ ]no interest

[ ] some interest

[ ]much interest

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

[ ] very sorry

[ ] somewhat sorry

[ ]somewhat pleased

[ ] very pleased

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

7.) In thinking about your social life, are there other people that you consider to be close friends or have close relationships with that you did not meet and get to know through chatting on the computer?

[ ]Yes --> GO TO 7-B

[ ]No --> SKIP TO QUESTION 8

7-B.) How many people do you know that you consider to be close friends or have close relationships with that you did not meet and get to know through chatting on the computer?

[ ] NUMBER OF CLOSE FRIENDS/RELATIONSHIPS --> GO TO QUESTION 7-C

7-C.) In which of the following ways do you have close relationships with these people (check all that apply)? Also, how many of the close friends listed in 7-B do each of these reasons apply (Next to each reason you check, please list the number of close friends to which each reason applies)?

Please Mark with an "X" Please type a Number

[ ] We strongly care about each other's personal well being. [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

[ ] We talk about close personal matters that are important to us. [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS [ ] We provide each other help concerning personal problems. [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

[ ] We are "romantically" involved. [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

[ ] We are related by family. [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

[ ] Other _________________________________________ [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

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

Please Mark with an "X" Please type a Number

[ ] less than 6 months ---------------------------> [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

[ ] less than 1 year, but more than 6 months ---> [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

[ ] 1 - 2 years ------------------------------------> [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

[ ] 3 - 4 years ------------------------------------> [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

[ ] 5 or more years -------------------------------> [ ] CLOSE FRIENDS

7-E.) Where are the people outside of #friends that you consider to be close

friends or have close relationships with located? (Please list the City/Town

State/Province, Country if outside USA for up to 5 persons)

City/Town: State/Province: Country if outside USA:

City/Town: State/Province: Country if outside USA:

City/Town: State/Province: Country if outside USA:

City/Town: State/Province: Country if outside USA:

City/Town: State/Province: Country if outside USA:

7-F.) Do any of the people outside of #friends that you consider to be close

friends or have close relationships with live in the same location as you?

[ ] Yes -------------> How many live in the same location as you do? [ ]

[ ] No

7-G.) In thinking about the people outside of #friends that you consider to be close friends or have close relationships with, did any of them live in the same location as you at one time, but now live elsewhere?

[ ]Yes --> GO TO 7-G1

[ ]No --> SKIP TO QUESTION 8

7-G1.) How many of the persons you listed in 7-B lived in the same location as you at one time, but now live elsewhere?

[ ] CLOSE FRIENDS/RELATIONS NOW LIVE ELSEWHERE

7-G2.) How do you keep in contact and maintain your relationship with these people that now live somewhere else (check all that apply)?

[ ] One or both of us travels to meet face-to-face

[ ] We talk over the telephone

[ ] We communicate through e-mail

[ ] We write letters to each other

[ ] Other ________________________________

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

8.) Are there persons that you talk with through #friends, that you first met face-to-face, in person?

[ ]Yes --> GO TO 8-A

[ ]No --> SKIP TO QUESTION 9

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

[ ] PERSONS

9.) Are there persons that you first met through #friends, that you have established a face-to-face relationship with?

[ ]Yes --> GO TO QUESTION 9-A

[ ]No --> SKIP TO QUESTION 10

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

[ ] PERSONS

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

City/Town: State/Province: Country if outside USA:

City/Town: State/Province: Country if outside USA:

City/Town: State/Province: Country if outside USA:

City/Town: State/Province: Country if outside USA:

City/Town: State/Province: Country if outside USA:

9-C). Have any of the face-to-face relationships that you've established with persons you first met through #friends turned into romantic relationships involving dating or marriage?

[ ]Yes

[ ]No

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

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

11. Where are you located?

CITY: _______________________

STATE/PROVINCE:______________________

COUNTRY: _____________________ (if outside USA).

12. What is your gender?

[ ] MALE

[ ] FEMALE

13. What is your age (in years)?

[ ] YEARS

14. What is the highest level of education that you have completed?

[ ] SOME HIGH SCHOOL

[ ] HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE

[ ] SOME COLLEGE SPECIALTY AREA: _________

[ ] UNDERGRADUATE COLLEGE DEGREE SPECIALTY AREA: _________

[ ] SOME SCHOOLING TOWARD ADVANCED DEGREE SPECIALTY AREA:____

[ ] ADVANCED DEGREE SPECIALTY AREA: _________

15. What is your occupation? __________________________

16. What is your marital status?

[ ] Single

[ ] Married

[ ] Divorced

[ ] Widowed

[ ] Other ________________________________

17. Are there other Internet sites or IRC Channels that you use to chat with other people in addition to #friends?

[ ] YES --------> GO TO QUESTION 17-A

[ ] NO

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

[ ] Number of CHAT ROOMS

18. Do you believe that the time you spend on the Internet has an important effect on your

participation in other activities?

[ ] YES GO TO 18-A

[ ] NO SKIP TO FINAL QUESTION

18-A. How has it affected your participation in other activities? (check all that apply)

[ ] I spend less time with family

[ ] I spend less time with friends

[ ] I spend less time watching TV

[ ] I spend time at work using the Internet for Personal Reasons

[ ] I spend less time on schoolwork

[ ] I have missed important appointments or social events

[ ] other ___________________________________

Thank you for responding to the survey! Would you like a summary of the results sent to you?

[ ] YES

[ ] NO

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

David A. Coon

Researcher

Kansas State University