People-Nearby Applications (PNAs) can impact users’ local social capital and sense of community (SoC), by allowing users to meet new people locally and enhance their SoC through increased local social capital and active involvement in the community of belonging. An online questionnaire was administered to 595 Italian and Dutch PNAs users to detect their PNAs community-related use, frequency of face-to-face encounters with other users, local social capital, active involvement, and SoC. A multiple mediation model was run using structural equation modeling. PNAs use associates to face-to-face encounters among local community members and community social capital, but not to community involvement. Through social capital, PNAs use indirectly enhances SoC. These results show that PNAs community-related use may enhance local community experiences through prompting face-to-face encounters among community fellows and making users feel more embedded into local social networks. This confirms PNAs community-related use potential to improve users’ neighborhood social and community experiences.
BatisteDP (2013) ‘0 Feet Away’: the queer cartography of French gay men’s geo-social media use. Anthropological Journal of European Cultures22(2): 111–132.
2.
BaumeisterRFLearyMR (2017) The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. In: ZukauskieneR (ed.) Interpersonal Development. London: Routledge, pp. 57–89.
3.
BlackhartGCFitzpatrickJWilliamsonJ (2014) Dispositional factors predicting use of online dating sites and behaviors related to online dating. Computers in Human Behavior33: 113–118.
4.
BlackwellCBirnholtzJAbbottC (2015) Seeing and being seen: co-situation and impression formation using Grindr, a location-aware gay dating app. New Media & Society17(7): 1117–1136.
5.
BourdieuP (1986) The forms of capital. In: RichardsonJG (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood, pp. 241–258.
6.
ChavisDMWandersmanA (2002) Sense of community in the urban environment: a catalyst for participation and community development. In: RevensonTAD’AugelliARFrenchSE, et al. (eds) A Quarter Century of Community Psychology. Cham: Springer, pp. 265–292. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8646-7_14
7.
CousineauDChartierS (2010) Outliers detection and treatment: a review. International Journal of Psychological Research3(1): 58–67.
8.
de Souza e SilvaA (2013) Location-aware mobile technologies: historical, social and spatial approaches. Mobile Media & Communication1(1): 116–121.
9.
EllisonNBLampeCSteinfieldC (2010) With a little help from my friends: how social network sites affect social capital processes. In: PapacharissiZ (ed.) A Networked Self. London: Routledge, pp. 132–153.
10.
EllisonNBSteinfieldCLampeC (2007) The benefits of Facebook “friends”: social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12(4): 1143–1168.
11.
FrancisJGiles-CortiBWoodL, et al. (2012) Creating sense of community: the role of public space. Journal of Environmental Psychology32(4): 401–409.
12.
GattiFProcenteseF (2019) Dai bar alle app di dating online: un nuovo “luogo” di incontro e relazione? In: AlbanesiCBonifortiDNovaraC (eds) Comunità Imperfette: dalle dinamiche disgregative al decision making comunitario. Bologna: Alma Mater Studiorum, pp. 79–84. Available at: http://doi.org/10.6092/unibo/amsacta/6104
13.
GattiFProcenteseF (2020) Being involved in the neighborhood through people-nearby applications: a study deepening their social and community-related uses, face-to-face meetings among users, and local community experience. CEUR Workshop Proceedings2730: 5. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2730/paper5.pdf
14.
GattiFProcenteseF (2021a) Experiencing urban spaces and social meanings through social media: unravelling the relationships between Instagram city-related use, sense of place, and sense of Community. Journal of Environmental Psychology78: 101691.
15.
GattiFProcenteseF (2021b) Local community experience as an anchor sustaining reorientation processes during COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability13(8): 4385.
16.
GattiFProcenteseF (2022) Ubiquitous local community experiences: unravelling the social added value of neighborhood-related social media. Psicologia di Comunità2(2022): 56–79.
17.
GattiFProcenteseF (2024) Ubiquitous processes strengthening neighborhood communities: how neighborhood-related social media can foster the active involvement of citizens and build resilient communities. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology34(5): e2862.
18.
GattiFProcenteseFSchoutenAP (2023) People-nearby applications use and local community experiences: disentangling their interplay through a multilevel, multiple informant approach. Media Psychology26(3): 278–305.
19.
GibbsJLEllisonNBLaiCH (2011) First comes love, then comes Google: an investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating. Communication Research38(1): 70–100.
20.
GranovetterMS (1982) The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. In: MardsenPVLinN (eds) Social Structure and Network Analysis. London: SAGE, pp. 105–130.
21.
GriffinMCanevelloAMcAnultyRD (2018) Motives and concerns associated with geosocial networking app usage: an exploratory study among heterosexual college students in the United States. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking21(4): 268–275.
22.
HamptonKN (2016) Persistent and pervasive community: new communication technologies and the future of community. American Behavioral Scientist60(1): 101–124.
23.
HayesAF (2018) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Perspective. New York: The Guilford Press.
24.
HsiaoJCYDillahuntTR (2017) People-nearby applications: how newcomers move their relationships offline and develop social and cultural capital. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, Portland OR, 25 February 2017, pp. 26–40. New York: ACM. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998280
25.
HuLTBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal6(1): 1–55.
26.
JarusriboonchaiPOlssonTVäänänen-Vainio-MattilaK (2013) Roles, scenarios and challenges of social devices. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing adjunct publication, Zurich, 8–12 September 2013, pp. 1575–1578. New York: ACM. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/2494091.2497364
27.
JarusriboonchaiPOlssonTOjalaJ, et al. (2014) Opportunities and challenges of mobile applications as “tickets-to-talk” a scenario-based user study. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia (MUM), Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 25–28 November 2014, pp. 89–97. New York: ACM. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/2677972.2677993
28.
KusenbachM (2006) Patterns of neighboring: practicing community in the parochial realm. Symbolic Interaction29(3): 279–306.
29.
KushlevKLeitaoMR (2020) The effects of smartphones on well-being: theoretical integration and research agenda. Current Opinion in Psychology36: 77–82.
30.
LicoppeC (2013) Merging mobile communication studies and urban research: mobile locative media, “onscreen encounters” and the reshaping of the interaction order in public places. Mobile Media & Communication1(1): 122–128.
31.
LimTTJungSYKimE (2018) The effects of social environments on time spent gaming: focusing on the effects of communities and neighborhoods. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking21(4): 254–258.
32.
MacCallumRCAustinJT (2000) Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology51(1): 201–226.
33.
McMillanDWChavisDM (1986) Sense of community: a definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology14(1): 6–23.
34.
MäkitaloNPääkköJRaatikainenM, et al. (2012) Social devices: collaborative co-located interactions in a mobile cloud. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia (MUM), Ulm, 4–6 December 2012, pp. 1–10. New York: ACM. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/2406367.2406380
35.
MandelliA (2002) Bounded sociability, relationship costs and intangible resources in complex digital networks. IT & Society1(1): 251–274.
36.
MayerJMHiltzSRJonesQ (2015) Making social matching context-aware: design concepts and open challenges. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 18–23 April 2015, pp. 545–554. New York: ACM. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702343
37.
MilesS (2017) Sex in the digital city: location-based dating apps and queer urban life. Gender, Place & Culture24(11): 1595–1610.
38.
MillerB (2015) “They’re the modern-day gay bar”: exploring the uses and gratifications of social networks for men who have sex with men. Computers in Human Behavior51: 476–482.
39.
PaasovaaraSLuceroAOlssonT (2016) Outlining the design space of playful interactions between nearby strangers. In: Proceedings of the 20th international academic Mindtrek conference, Tampere, 17–18 October 2016, pp. 216–225. New York: ACM. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/2994310.2994344
40.
PapacharissiZ (2009) The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society11(1-2): 199–220.
41.
PapacharissiZMendelsonA (2011) Toward a new (er) sociability: uses, gratifications and social capital on Facebook. In: PapathanassopoulosS (ed.) Media Perspectives for the 21st Century. London: Routledge, pp. 212–230.
42.
PaulosEGoodmanE (2004) The familiar stranger: anxiety, comfort, and play in public places. In: Proceedings of the CHI ‘04 conference on human factors in computing systems, Vienna, 24–29 April 2004, pp. 223–230. New York: ACM. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985721
43.
PetersonNASpeerPWMcMillanDW (2008) Validation of a brief sense of community scale: confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology36(1): 61–73.
44.
ProcenteseFGattiF (2019a) People-Nearby Applications and local communities: questioning about individuals’ loneliness and social motivations towards People-Nearby Applications. Journal of Community Psychology47(5): 1282–1294.
45.
ProcenteseFGattiF (2019b) Senso di Convivenza Responsabile: Quale Ruolo nella Relazione tra Partecipazione e Benessere Sociale?Psicologia Sociale14(3): 405–426.
46.
ProcenteseFDe CarloFGattiF (2019) Civic engagement within the local community and sense of responsible togetherness. TPM – Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology26(4): 513–525.
47.
PutnamR (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
48.
SarasonSB (1974) The Psychological Sense of Community: Prospects for a Community Psychology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
49.
SumterSRVandenboschLLigtenbergL (2017) Love me Tinder: untangling emerging adults’ motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telematics and Informatics34(1): 67–78.
50.
SungHTSigersonLChengC (2017) Social capital accumulation in location-based mobile game playing: a multiple-process approach. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking20(8): 486–493.
51.
SutkoDMde Souza e SilvaA (2011) Location-aware mobile media and urban sociability. New Media & Society13(5): 807–823.
52.
TimmermansEDe CaluwéE (2017) To Tinder or not to Tinder, that’s the question: an individual differences perspective to Tinder use and motives. Personality and Individual Differences110: 74–79.
53.
TochELeviI (2012) What can “people-nearby” applications teach us about meeting new people? In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on ubiquitous computing (UbiComp ’12), Pittsburgh, PA, 5–8 September 2012, pp. 802–803. New York: ACM.
54.
TonkissF (2014) Cities by Design: The Social Life of Urban Form. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
55.
UngerDGWandersmanA (1982) Neighboring in an urban environment. American Journal of Community Psychology10(5): 493–509.
56.
Van De WieleCTongST (2014) Breaking boundaries: the uses & gratifications of Grindr. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing (Ubicomp ’14), Seattle, WA, 13–17September2014, pp. 619–630. New York: ACM. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/2632048.2636070
57.
VickJWPerkinsDD (2013) Building community: comparing resident satisfaction, sense of community, and neighboring in a New Urban and a suburban neighborhood. In: BeselKAndreescuV (eds) Back to the Future: New Urbanism and the Rise of Neotraditionalism in Urban Planning. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, pp. 89–104.
58.
WaytzAGrayK (2018) Does online technology make us more or less sociable? A preliminary review and call for research. Perspectives on Psychological Science13(4): 473–491.
59.
WilliamsD (2006) On and off the Net: scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication11(2): 593–628.
60.
WoodLGiles-CortiBBulsaraM (2012) Streets apart: does social capital vary with neighbourhood design?Urban Studies Research2012: 1–11.
