This study investigated the relationships among smartphone app use, social capital, and social isolation. It focused on two different smartphone apps—communication and social networking site (SNS) apps—and their effects on bonding and bridging social capital. Generational differences in smartphone use were also considered. Results from hierarchical regression analyses indicated that individuals' use of communication apps was helpful for increasing social capital and that this effect of using communication apps was stronger among those of the millennial generation than among older users. Moreover, bonding and bridging social capital was found to reduce individuals' social isolation significantly. These results imply the notable role of smartphone apps in reducing social isolation and improving the personal lives of individuals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HumphreysL, PapeT, KanowskiV. Evolving mobile media: uses and conceptualizations of the mobile Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2013; 18:491–507.
2.
MadianouM. Smartphones as polymedia. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2014; 19:667–680.
3.
OmsteadK. (2014) Mobile apps collect information about users, with wide range of permissions. Pew Research Center. www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/05/smartphone-ownership-2013/ (accessed Dec.4, 2014).
4.
RainieL. (2013) Cell phone ownership hits 91% of adults. Pew Research Center. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/06/cell-phone-ownership-hits-91-of-adults/ (accessed Dec.4, 2014).
5.
ParkKG, HanS, KaidLL. Does social networking service usage mediate the association between smartphone usage and social capital?. New Media & Society, 2012Dec12. Epub ahead of print.
6.
ParkN, LeeH. Social implications of smartphone use: Korean college students' smartphone use and psychological well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2013; 15:491–497.
7.
YimJ, YooJ, JangS, et al. (2013) Mobile Internet use report. Seoul: Korea Internet & Security Agency.
8.
ColemanJS. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 1988; 94:95–120.
9.
PutnamRD. (2000) Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.
10.
FukuyamaF. (1995) Trust: the social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press Paperbacks.
11.
BurtRS. The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1997; 42:339–365.
12.
PortesA. The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum, 2000; 15:1–12.
13.
LinN. (2001) Social capital: a theory of social structure and action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
14.
GranovetterMS. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 1973; 78:1360–1380.
15.
WilliamsD. On and off the net: Scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2006; 11:593–628.
16.
BasiriK, RahmanAA, IahadNA. Association between interpersonal communication and other drivers of social network sites use. New Media & Mass Communication, 2012; 7:1–5.
17.
ChoiY, ParkS. The effects of social media usage on social capital. Korean Journal of Broadcasting & Telecommunication Studies, 2011; 25:241–276.
18.
EllisonNB, SteinfieldC, LampeC. The benefits of Facebook “friends”: social capital and college students use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007; 12:1143–1168.
19.
EllisonNB, SteinfieldC, LampeC. Connection strategies: social capital implications of Facebook enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 2011; 13:873–892.
20.
FarrowH, YuanYC. Building stronger ties with alumni through Facebook to increase volunteerism and charitable giving. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2011; 16:445–464.
21.
SteinfieldC, EllisonNB, LampeC. Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2008; 29:434–445.
22.
Pew Research Center. (2014) Mobile technology fact sheet. www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/ (accessed Dec.4, 2014).
23.
LedbetterAM, MazerJP, DeGrootJM, et al.Attitude toward online social connection and self-disclosure as predictors of Facebook communication and relational closeness. Communication Research, 2011; 38:27–53.
24.
SeemanM. On the meaning of alienation. American Sociological Review, 1959; 24:783–791.
25.
NgESW, SchweitzerL, LyonsST. New generation, great expectations: a field study of the Millennial generation. Journal of Business Psychology, 2010; 25:281–292.
26.
HershatterA, EpsteinM. Millennials and the world of work: an organization and management perspective. Journal of Business Psychology, 2010; 25:211–223.
27.
SarringhausMM. The great divide: social media's role in bridging healthcare's generational shift. Journal of Healthcare Management, 2011; 56:235–244.
28.
SpringerCG. Management of the new demographics in the workplace. PA Times, 2011; 34:11.
29.
HargittaiE. Second-level digital divide: differences in people's online skills. First Monday, 2002; 7.
