This article explores technologically integrated relationship practices among college students. Analyzing interviews of 52 participants at two very different US colleges, I explore how they construct, establish, and maintain technologically mediated social networks. This research focuses specifically on the practice of “doing homework,” in which participants conduct social media investigations of potential friends and use that data to determine if a relationship continues. Findings suggest the establishment of offline relationships includes the use of social media profiles to collect social and political attitude data on potential friends. Participants report the use of such data as essential to their decision-making processes about friendship, resulting in a potential increase in social and political homogeneity within offline social networks. These findings contribute to our ongoing understanding of the role of informational echo chambers within a technologically integrated social environment.
FlaxmanSGoelSRaoJM (2016) Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly80(S1): 298–320.
2.
AdamsRGAllanG (eds) (1999) Placing Friendship in Context. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AntheunisMLSchoutenAPKrahmerE (2016) The role of social networking sites in early adolescents’ social lives. The Journal of Early Adolescence36(3): 348–371.
4.
BakardjievaM (2014) Social media and the McDonaldization of friendship. Communications39(4): 369–387.
5.
BlumerH (1962) Society as symbolic interaction. In: RoseA (ed.) Human Behavior and Social Processes an Interactionist Approach. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 179–92.
6.
BoaseJWellmanB (2006) Personal relationships: on and off the Internet. In: VangelistiALPerlmanD (eds) The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships. 1st ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 914.
7.
BoutylineAWillerR (2016) The social structure of political echo chambers: variation in ideological homophily in online networks. Political Psychology38(3): 551–569.
8.
BozdagEvan den HovenJ (2015) Breaking the filter bubble: democracy and design. Ethics and Information Technology17(4): 249–265.
9.
BucchianeriMMEisenbergMENeumark-SztainerD (2013) Weightism, racism, classism, and sexism: shared forms of harassment in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health53(1): 47–53.
10.
CohenJM (1977) Sources of peer group homogeneity. Sociology of Education50(4): 227–241.
11.
CouldryNHeppA (2016) The Mediated Construction of Reality. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
12.
FinnJ (2004) A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence19(4): 468–483.
13.
FriedlanderLJGJReidNShupakRet al. (2007) Social support, self-esteem, and stress as predictors of adjustment to university among first-year undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development48(3): 259–274.
14.
Gifford-SmithMEBrownellCA (2003) Childhood peer relationships: social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology41(4): 235–284.
15.
GranovetterMS (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology78(6): 1360–1380.
16.
HaimMGraefeABrosiusH-B (2017) Burst of the filter bubble?Digital Journalism6(3): 330–343.
17.
HalberstamYKnightB (2014) Homophily, group size, and the diffusion of political information in social networks: evidence from Twitter. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper no. 20681. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20681.pdf
18.
HenrichCCKupermincGPSackAet al. (2000) Characteristics and homogeneity of early adolescent friendship groups: a comparison of male and female clique and nonclique members. Applied Developmental Science4(1): 15–26.
19.
JohnsonAJHaighMMCraigEAet al. (2009) Relational closeness: comparing undergraduate college students’ geographically close and long-distance friendships. Personal Relationships16(4): 631–646.
20.
KimBKimY (2017) College students’ social media use and communication network heterogeneity: implications for social capital and subjective well-being. Computers in Human Behavior73: 620–628.
21.
LambertA (2013) Intimacy and Friendship on Facebook. 2013 ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
LönnqvistJ-EItkonenJVA (2016) Homogeneity of personal values and personality traits in Facebook social networks. Journal of Research in Personality60(Suppl. C): 24–35.
23.
LuyckxKRobitschekC (2014) Personal growth initiative and identity formation in adolescence through young adulthood: mediating processes on the pathway to well-being. Journal of Adolescence37: 973–981.
24.
McLuhanM (1967) The Medium Is the Message: An Inventory of Effects. New York: Bantam Books.
25.
MasipPSuau-MartínezJRuiz-CaballeroC (2017) Questioning the selective exposure to news: understanding the impact of social networks on political news consumption. American Behavioral Scientist62: 300–319.
26.
MillerDSlaterD (2000) The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
27.
PariserE (2011) The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. London: Penguin Books.
28.
RaackeJBonds-RaackeJ (2015) Are students really connected? Predicting college adjustment from social network usage. Educational Psychology35(7): 819–834.
29.
SchuhMCSundarVHagnerDC (2015) Friendship is the ocean: importance of friendship, acceptance, and leadership in the transition to adulthood. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals38(3): 152–161.
SpohrD (2017) Fake news and ideological polarization: filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review34(3): 150–160.
SuCCChanNK (2017) Predicting social capital on Facebook: the implications of use intensity, perceived content desirability, and Facebook-enabled communication practices. Computers in Human Behavior72: 259–268.
34.
SunsteinCR (2009) Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
SunsteinCR (2017) #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
ThomasA (2007) Youth Online: Identity and Literacy in the Digital Age. Bern: Peter Lang Publishing.
