Virtual Communities

Parks, M. (2010). Virtual Communities. Received from http://books.google.com/books?id=qhwpKkoFrgsC&lpg=PA105&ots=9DP1KOtpY6&dq=social%20network%20sites%20as%20virtual%20communities&lr&pg=PA105#v=onepage&q=social%20network%20sites%20as%20virtual%20communities&f=false

Goal to define “virtual communities” more. To what extent do people with profiles utilize the affordances of membership, expression, and connection?

“Virtual Communities”: social groups that display the psychological and cultural qualities of strong community without physical proximity (Willson, 2006).

Sharing geographic space and self sufficiency – necessary for “strong communities” are not needed for virtual communities.

Common themes between virtual and real communities:
1. Collective action (Jones, 1995)
2. The group thinks of itself as a community (Bell & Newby, 1947)
3. Members identify with teh community (Willson, 2006)
4. Share information (Carey, 1989; Jones, 1995)
5. Larger patterns of interacting grow out of regular information exchange (Bell & Neby, 1974)
6. Member exhibit attachments to one another and the community more generally (Kantor, 1972; Willson, 2006)

Social Affordances: possibilities for action that are called forth by a social technology or environment. 3 types are required for the formation of virtual communities on SNS:
* Membership: Ease and durability of membership
* Expression: Customizing your page, adding picture, to express yourself
* Connection: Tools to make a connection like messages, groups, friending

Variables
Membership activity
Login time
Public or Private profile

Expression
Customized page
Profile picture

Connectivity
Number of friends
Number of comments
Number of days since last comment

Results
Membership activity
Equal login time, except people in a relationship moreso than singles
More females set profile to private than men

Expression
More than 2/3 did NOT customize their page
Younger and people in a relationship were more likely to customize pages
People in relationships were more likely to have a profile picture

Connectivity
No significant difference in any demographic

Analysis
Majority of users do not utilize the social affordances necessary to the formation of virtual communities. Qualities of a community are experienced by a small portion of users. More engaged users that did have virtual communities were based of pre-existing ones. Virtual communities are simply the online extension of geographically situated offline communities

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s