Most research on social media tends to focus on individual or group-level characteristics, neglecting to consider the influence of relational and cultural variables. To fill this void, we collected social network data in Israel (N = 492) and Canada (N = 293) to investigate the effect of individual, relational, and cultural variables on the frequency of communication via instant messaging (IM) and the multiplexity of communication topics. We found that geographic distance continues to matter in interpersonal contact in spite of heavy reliance on digital tools for connectivity. Similar patterns of association were discerned in both countries for propinquity, the use of IM, and closeness. We discuss the findings in terms of theories of networked individualism.
AbbottA. (1988). Transcending general reality. Sociological Theory, 6, 169–186.
2.
AdamsR. G. (1998). The demise of territorial determinism: Online friendships. In AdamsR. G.AllanG. (Eds.), Placing friendships in context (pp. 153–183). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
AndersonK. J. (2001). Internet use among college students: An exploratory study. Journal of American College Health, 50, 21–26.
5.
BarabásiA. L. (2002). Linked: The new science of networks, Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
6.
BarghJ. A.McKennaK. Y. (2004).The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573–590.
7.
BaronN. S. (2004). See you online. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 397–423.
8.
BaumgarteR.NelsonD. W. (2009). Preference for same versus cross sex friendships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 901–917.
9.
BaymN. K.ZhangY. B.LinM. C. (2004). Social interactions across media: Interpersonal communication on the Internet, telephone and face-to-face. New Media and Society, 6, 299–318.
10.
BestS. J.KruegerB. S. (2006). Online interactions and social capital distinguishing between new and existing ties. Social Science Computer Review, 24, 395–410.
11.
BonevaB. S.QuinnA.KrautR. E.KieslerS.ShklovskiI. (2006).Teenage communication in the instant messaging era. In KrautR. E.BryninN.KieslerS. (Eds.), Computers, phones, and the Internet: Domesticating information technology (pp. 201–218). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
CameronA. C.TrivediP. (2010). Microeconometrics using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
13.
ChunD.NamC. S. (2007). An analysis of variables predicting Instant Messenger use. New Media and Society, 9, 212–234.
14.
CummingsJ. N.LeeJ. B.KrautR. (2006).Communication technology and friendship during the transition from high school to college. In KrautR. E.BryninN.KieslerS. (Eds.), Computers, phones, and the Internet: Domesticating information technology (pp. 809–851). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
DaftR. L.LengelR. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. In CummingsL.StawB. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 191–233). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
16.
EllisonN. B.SteinfieldC.LampeC. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, article 1. Retrieved fromhttp://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html
17.
EmirbayerM. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 281–311. (Reprinted in Scott, J. (Ed.) (2002). Social networks: Critical concepts in sociology. New York: Routledge.)
18.
EmirbayerM.GoodwinJ. (1994). Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 1411–1453.
19.
FarmerR. (2005). Instant messaging: IM online! RU?EDUCAUSE Review, 40, 48–62.
20.
FaulhaberG. (2002). Network effects and merger analysis: Instant messaging and the AOL-Time Warner case. Telecommunications Policy, 26, 311–333.
21.
FehrB. (2000). The life cycle of friendship. In HendrickC.HendrickS. (Eds.), Close relationships, a sourcebook (pp. 71–85). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
22.
FeldS. (1981).The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 86, 1015–1035.
23.
FlanaginA. J. (2005). IM online: Instant messaging use among college students. Communication Research Reports, 22, 175–187.
24.
GershunyJ. (2003). Web-use and net-nerds: A neo-functionalist analysis of the impact of information technology in the home. Social Forces, 82, 141–168.
25.
GranovetterM. (1973).The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
26.
GrinterR.PalenL. (2002).Instant messaging in teen life. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 21–30), New Orleans, LA.
27.
HamptonK. N.WellmanB. (2002).The not so global village of Netville. In WellmanB.HaythornthwaiteC. (Eds.), The Internet and everyday life (pp. 1–29). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
28.
HartupW. W. (1997). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry and Child Development, 30, 63–78.
29.
HaythornthwaiteC.WellmanB. (1998). Work, friendship and media use for information exchange in a networked organization. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 1101–1114.
30.
HofstedeG. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
31.
HuY.Fowler-WoodJ.SmithV.WestbrookN. (2004). Friendship through IM: Examining the relationship between IM and intimacy. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10, 6. Retrieved fromhttp://Jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/hu.html
32.
IbarraH. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 422–447.
33.
JacobsG. (2004). Complicating contexts: Issues of methodology in researching the language and illiteracies of instant messaging. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 394–406.
KadushinC. (2011). Understanding social networks: Theories, concepts, and findings. New York: Oxford University Press.
36.
KatzJ. E.RiceR. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement and interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
KindredJ.RoperS. L. (2004).Making connections via instant messenger (IM): Student use of IM to maintain personal relationships. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, V, 48–54.
38.
KnokeD.KuklinskiJ. H. (1982).Network analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
39.
KossinetsG.WattsD. J. (2009).Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 405–450.
40.
KranzlerA. (2010). The impact of geographic location of higher education institutions on internal migration. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics.
41.
KubeyR. W.LavinM. J.BarrowsJ. R. (2001). Internet use and collegiate academic performance decrements: Early findings. Journal of Communication, 51, 366–382.
42.
LamishD.RibackR. (2007). Israeli children surf. Netvision Institute for Internet Studies, Tel Aviv University. Retrieved fromwww.niis.tau.ac.il/text_item.aspx?tid=215[Hebrew]
43.
Latzko-TothG. (2010). Metaphors of synchrony: Emergence and differentiation of online chat devices. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, 30, 362–374.
44.
LenhartA.MaddenM.HitlinP. (2005). Teens and technology: Youth leading the transition to a fully wired mobile nation. Washington, DC: Pew and American Life Project.
45.
LeungL. (2001). College student motives for chatting on ICQ. New Media and Society, 3, 483–500.
46.
LewisC.FabosB. (2005).Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 470–501.
47.
MacCobyE. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
48.
MarsdenP. V.CampbellK. E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63, 482–501.
49.
MatthewsD.SchrumL. (2003). High-speed Internet use and academic gratifications in the college residence. Internet and Higher Education, 6, 125–144.
50.
MeschG.TalmudI. (2006).The quality of online and offline relationships, the role of multiplexity and duration. The Information Society, 22, 137–149.
51.
MeschG.TalmudI. (2007a). The impact of online relations on homophily: A social network analysis. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 455–466.
52.
MeschG.TalmudI. (2007b). Introduction. In MeschG.TalmudI. (Eds.), Special issue on e-Relationships - the blurring and reconfiguration of offline and online social boundaries. Information, Communication and Society, 10, 585–589.
53.
MeschG.TalmudI. (2010). Wired youth: The social world of adolescence in the information age. New York: Routledge.
54.
MeschG. S.ManoR.TsamirY. (in press). Minority status and the search for health information online: A test of the social diversification hypothesis. Social Science & Medicine.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.024
55.
Miller-McPhersonJ.Smith-LovinL. (1986). Sex segregation in voluntary associations. American Sociological Review, 51, 61–79.
56.
Miller-McPhersonJ.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2002). Birds of a feather: Homophile in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
57.
MokD.WellmanB.CarrascoJ. A. (2010). Does distance still matter in the age of the Internet?Urban Studies, 47, 2747–2783.
58.
MooreG. (1990). Structural determinants of men’s and women’s personal networks. American Sociological Review, 55, 726–735.
59.
NewmanM.BarabásiA.L.WattsD.J. (2006). The structure and dynamics of networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
60.
PascarellaE. T.TerenziniP. T. (1998). Studying college students in the 21st century: Meeting new challenges. The Review of Higher Education, 21, 151–165.
61.
Quan-HaaseA. (2007). University students’ local and distant social ties: Using and integrating modes of communication on campus. Information, Communication & Society, 10, 671–693.
62.
Quan-HaaseA. (2008). Instant messaging on campus: Use and integration in students' everyday communication. The Information Society, 24, 105–115.
63.
Quan-HaaseA.WellmanB.HamptonK.WitteJ. (2002).Capitalizing on the net: Social contact, civic engagement, and sense of community. In WellmanB.HaythornthwaiteC. (Eds.), Internet and everyday life (pp. 291–324). Oxford: Blackwell.
64.
RainieL.WellmanB. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
65.
RamirezA. R.DimmickJ.LinS. (2004). Revisiting media competition: The gratification niches of instant messaging, email, and telephone. Annual Meetings of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
66.
RiceR. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research, 19, 451–484.
67.
RoperS. L.KindredJ. (2004).Making connections via instant messenger (IM): Students use of IM to maintain personal relationships. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 440–455.
68.
RoseS. M. (1985). Same and cross sex friendships and the psychology of homosociality. Sex Roles, 12, 63–74.
69.
SchoutenA. P.ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2007). Precursors and underlying processes of adolescents' online self-disclosure: Developing and testing an "Internet-attribute-perception" model. Media Psychology, 10, 292–315.
SippolaL. K. (1999). Getting to know the "other": The characteristics and developmental significance of other-sex relationships in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 407-418.
72.
SproullL.KieslerS. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communications. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512.
73.
Statistics Canada (2010). Canadian Internet Use Survey. Otawa: Canada.
74.
StollerE.MillerB.ShenyangG. (2001). Shared ethnicity and relationship multiplexity within informal networks of retired European American Sunbelt migrants. Research in Aging, 23, 304–325.
75.
SubramayanK.ReichS.WaechterN.EspinozaG. (2008). Online and offline social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 420–433.
76.
Quan-HaaseA.YoungA.L. (2010). Uses and gratifications of social media: A comparison of Facebook and Instant Messaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30, 350–361.
77.
ThelwallM. (2008). Social networks, gender and friending: An analysis of MySpace member profiles. Journal of American Society of Information Science and Technology, 58, 3121–1330.
78.
UtzS. (2007). Media use in long-term relationships. Information, Communication and Society, 10, 694–713.
79.
ValkenburgP. M.JochenP. (2007). Preadolescents' and adolescents' online communication and their closeness to friends. Child Development, 43, 267–277.
80.
ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2007). Online Communication and Adolescent Well-Being: Testing the Stimulation Versus the Displacement Hypothesis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12: 1169–1182.
81.
ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2009).The effects of instant messaging on the quality of adolescents' existing friendships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Communication, 59, 79–97.
82.
WaltherJ. B. (1996). Computer mediated communication, impersonal, interpersonal and hyper personal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.
83.
WangC. C.HsuY.FangW. (2004). Acceptance of technology with network externalities: an empirical study of Internet instant messaging services. Journal of Information, Technology Theory Application, 6, 15–28.
84.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1995). Social network analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
85.
WellmanB.BerkowitzS. D. (Eds.). (1988). Social structures: A network approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
86.
WellmanB.FrankK. (2001).Network capital in a multilevel world. In LinN.BurtR. S.CookK. (Eds.), Social capital (pp. 233–273). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
87.
WellmanB.WortleyS. (1990). Different strokes from different folks: Community ties and social support. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 558–588.
88.
WimmerA.LewisK. (2010). Beyond and below racial homophily: ERG models of a friendship network documented on Facebook. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 583–642.
