Independant Research Project Asignments

1. Members of the Group

2. Project Description Project: A Framework for "What Motivates People to Participate?"

Initial Objectives:

We will investigate the interest, willingness, and motivation to contribute (to environments populated by user-generated content). Environments of interest include open source software, online social networks, and connected educational systems.

Why are we interested?

(Kate) This question will be one of the major research questions for my dissertation project. I plan to design and deploy an educational, end-user programming system populated by user-generated content. Part of my research will investigate who adopts the software system, why they adopt, how they use the tools, and what the quantities and qualities of their contributions are to the content of the system.

(Zac) My interest in this question is its relation to open-source software (OSS) design. Specifically, how incentive structures in open-source communities effect the usability of the products being developed. A few of the questions I hope to answer are; What motivates people to contribute to OSS? Does OSS attract certain skill sets (e.g. programmers, but not usability experts), Why/when is material removed from an OSS project?

(Amanda) One of my areas of interest includes group dynamics and specifically, the concept of collaboration. I am interested in designing frameworks for guiding collaborative interaction that considers individuals, relationships, interaction, environment, and purpose. A major consideration in all of these factors is motivation and willingness on the part of participants.

(Stephen) This question is also one that will be central to my research. I will be researching how to create an immersive educational experience outside of the classroom through mobile and social technologies. The interest, willingness, and motivation to participate in immersive educational environments will be an essential element. How can mobile and social technologies increase motivation for learning? What will motivate individuals and groups to create content and experiences that can be shared through mobile and social technologies. Why are certain tools adopted and other rejected? What types of immersive tools will increase the adoption rate?

Conceptual Framework

As our research team comes from a variety of different academic backgrounds, for our investigation of motivation we plan to tap in to research from several domains, including communication theory, HCI, CSCW, and CSCL (Computer supported cooperative learning). Motivation can be explained as a cognitive, social, psychological, communicative, and interpersonal phenomenon. Given our diverse backgrounds and the nature of motivation itself, it might be interesting to "try on" different perspectives and consider a number of theories to approach this issue. From the communcation domain, some of those theories include social capital, communication networks, public goods theory, and information ecologies. Other relevant theoretical frameworks include the SER model, diffusion of innovation, critical mass in group interaction, and uses and gratifications theory.

Motivation can be divided into two categories: intrinsic (internal) and extrinsic (external or reward driven). We plan to investigate the interaction of both types of motivation in the process of end-user content contribution.

Research Methods (Proposed)

We will investigate at least 2 user-generated content communities. We plan to research usage patterns in these systems. We will evaluate individual user contributions of a (yet to be determined) sample and later follow up with interviews on a subset of the initial sample. Interviews will be face-to-face and online. We will determine interviewees before choosing the initial sample. Interviews will concentrate on the motivation and perceived gains of contributions.

Although we will investigate multiple environments, we plan to do in depth research on one social networking site and one open source software community. This wil give us the ability to contrast different communities and help us meet the academic needs of our research team.

What are we expecting to find out?

It is quite likely that we will find that certain types of reward structures become important, but these rewards may turn out to be quite nuanced and specific to the particular community of users that are involved in the environment. Given that, it may be difficult to generalize the specific factors of motivation, though we expect that social norms, visibility, and feedback will all be critical components. Research on critical mass in group interaction suggests that there may be a "tipping point" in which visible participation by certain members motivates others to contribute.

We plan to tease out intrinsic motivation patterns as well as extrinsic ones, and investigate how the different environments tap into both to drive content generation.

In the realm of OSS, plausible results include: that there is a stronger incentive to add content than to remove it, that motivation and participation are higher among technically adept participants, and that the usability of OSS products is poor because the projects fail to attract usability experts.

What do we consider the major challenges?

A major challenge to this type of research is remembering that this construct is simultaneously individualistic and social. So there are a multitude of factors that have to be considered and can make this a daunting topic. Empirically, this could be challenging, as quite often people cannot articulate exactly what motivates them, and so it can be hard to learn about this in interviews. Also, motivation changes over time, so tracking the changing nature of motivation is a challenge when empirically, we often can only get snapshots of the phenomenon.

This is a complex question that could and should be approached from an interdisciplinary perspective. One difficulty of this approach is limiting the scope of the project to a manageable size while still including the many variables required to sufficiently address it. Additionally, the sometimes nebulous nature of collaborative communities may make sufficiently rigorous research difficult to implement.

Intrinsic motivation is often sub-conscious on some level and thus extremely difficult to observe or discuss. Tapping into the psychology of individuals will be a difficult task.

References:

Bimber, B., Flanagin, A. J., & Stohl, C. (2005). Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory, 15, 365-388.

Blumler, J. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 6.

Bolliger, D.U. & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online course. International Journal on E-Learning, January-March:61-67.

Bruckman, Amy. 2002. "The future of e-learning communities." Commun. ACM 45:60-63.

Bruckman, Amy, and Mitchel Resnick. 1995. "The MediaMOO Project: Constructionism and Professional Community." Convergence 1:94-109.

Flanagin, A. J., Stohl, C., & Bimber, B. (2006). Modeling the structure of collective action. Communication Monographs, 73, 29-54.

Keefe, T.J. (2003). Using technology to enhance a course: The importance of interaction. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 1,24-34.

Mirel, B. (2004). Interaction Design for Complex Problem Solving. Morgan Kaufman Publishers. San Francisco, CA.

Nardi, B. & O'Day, V. (1999). Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart. MIT Press.

Nichols, D. & Twidale, M. (2003). The Usability of Open Source Software. First Monday, volume 8, number 1 (January 2003), URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_1/nichols/index.html

Piaget, Jean. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence. New York: Routledge.

Rogers, E.M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press of Glencoe, Macmillan Company.

Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.

Questions:

Can we obtain HRC approval to interview individuals in such a short time? How does this work for online contributions? For interviews?

Assignment 10

1. Members of the Group

2. Question 1 Title:

Motivation and the Use of Tools in Online Environments: A Comparison of Facebook, MySpace, and LearnHub

Abstract:

Motivation to participate is an issue of interest to many researchers across a variety of disciplines. Motivation can be understood as simultaneously a cognitive, social, and communicative phenomenon. Given the varied nature of motivation, this study seeks to understand willingness to contribute specifically in online social environments. In particular, we examine how the technical and social intertwine to provide a more complete picture of motivational factors. Focusing on how specific online tools and applications relate to motivation, we examine and compare three online communities: Facebook, MySpace, and Learn Hub.

Responsibilities:

This project involves a variety of tasks across four main areas: gathering and evaluating sources of literature relevant to our project, site selection and examination, survey development and analysis, and finally, producing a written report of results. We have split up some of this work and in some cases, all four group members are working together. In terms of literature selection and review, all members of the group are making contributions. Amanda has identified and contributed literature that has examined similar sites with similar research questions. We also collaboratively selected our three main sites: Facebook, MySpace, and Learnhub. However, in terms of gaining some in-depth knowledge of these sites, we have split up the tasks of developing user personas and observation of site functionality. Zac is in charge of developing user personas for both MySpace and Facebook. Stephen is responsible for user persona in LearnHub. Kate is observing the functionality of MySpace and Facebook and both Kate and Stephen are observing the functionality of LearnHub. To construct our questionnaire survey items, each project member made an equal contribution. For the analysis process, we will work collaboratively to develop a coding scheme for our data that is consistent and reliable. From there, we will divvy up the analysis depending on the number of survey's completed. All four members of our group are experienced in qualitative data analysis. Finally, all four members of the group will write the report of our results. We will likely begin by dividing up sections and then work collaboratively to edit and produce the final result of the written report. 3. Question 2 Why is this project of interest?

We chose this project because it has significance to all of the project members in some way. For Kate, the question guiding this project will be one of the major research questions for her dissertation project. She plans to design and deploy an educational, end-user programming system populated by user-generated content. Part of her research will investigate who adopts the software system, why they adopt, how they use the tools, and what the quantities and qualities of their contributions are to the content of the system. Zac's interest in this question is its relation to usability and user-generated content. Specifically, how incentive structures in online communities affect the usability of the products being developed. For Amanda, one of her areas of interest includes group dynamics and specifically, the concept of collaboration. She is interested in designing frameworks for guiding collaborative interaction and a major consideration is motivation and willingness on the part of participants. Finally, for Stephen, motivation is also central to his research. He will be researching how to create an immersive educational experience outside of the classroom through mobile and social technologies. The interest, willingness, and motivation to participate in immersive educational environments will be an essential element. 4. Question 3 Description of work so far:

Thus far, we have completed tasks across three of the four main areas of this project (gathering and evaluating sources of literature relevant to our project, site selection and examination, survey development and analysis, and producing a written report of results). In terms of gathering and evaluating sources of literature relevant to our project, we have a good base already developed. This literature includes other similar studies of MySpace, Facebook, and other educational and online communities. In reading and evaluating this work, we have begun to identify important factors that shaped our survey questions. In particular, we have learned from this previous research of the importance of both identity and social capital in explaining motivation. These deal with both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors. We have also completed site selection and examination of our sites via user personas and close examination of the sites functionality. This involved cataloguing and learning how to use the various tools and functionality that each site offers. We have also completed our surveys and will distribute it in the next few days to members of all three sites.

Plan for remaining time:

For the time remaining we will be waiting for survey's to be completed and then we will move into data analysis. For this stage, we will work collaboratively to develop a coding scheme to make sense of our results. Then, we will individually code a certain number of surveys, depending on the number of survey responses. After that is complete, we will divide up responsibility for writing the final paper among the group members equally.

Relationship to major themes in class:

This research touches on many of the themes of this class. Understanding users motivation and willingness to contribute to online communities is critical to the successful development of e-learning, e-business, e-healthcare, and e-government. In particular, our research relates to chapter 5 of our text, which looks at understanding human activities and relationships. This chapter presents a four level scheme of the self, family and friends, colleagues and neighbors, and citizens and markets as engaged in collection, creating, relating, and donating. At each level, human motivation to engage in this activity has to be explained. Finally, one of our sites, LearnHub, is an educational site so our research will also link specifically to e-learning and perhaps concepts of lifelong learning.

References:

Blumler, J. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 6.

Bolliger, D.U. & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online course. International Journal on E-Learning, January- March:61-67.

Bruckman, Amy. 2002. "The future of e-learning communities." Commun. ACM 45:60-63.

Bruckman, Amy, and Mitchel Resnick. 1995. "The MediaMOO Project: Constructionism and Professional Community." Convergence 1:94-109.

Dika, S.L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of Social Capital in Educational Literature: A Critical Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72, 31-60.

Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. R., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Proceedings of AMCIS 2007, Keystone, CO

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook "friends:" Social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 12 (4); pp.1143-1168.

Keefe, T.J. (2003). Using technology to enhance a course: The importance of interaction. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 1,24-34.

Mirel, B. (2004). Interaction Design for Complex Problem Solving. Morgan Kaufman Publishers. San Francisco, CA.

Nardi, B. & O'Day, V. (1999). Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart. MIT Press.

Piaget, Jean. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence. New York: Routledge.

Rogers, E.M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press of Glencoe, Macmillan Company.

Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.

Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S. Y., & Westerman, D. (2008). The role of friends' appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research, 34, 27-49.

Final Paper

Motivation and Content Creation in Online Social Networks

Authors: Amanda Porter, Stephen Butler, Kate Starbird, Zac Taschdjian

Abstract: There have been papers published on social networking sites, but there are relatively few that address the issues of motivation and social benefit through participation. We explore the literature and theoretical underpinnings on the motivations to join and contribute content to social networking sites. In addition, an online survey of two popular social networking sites, Facebook and MySpace showed a correlation between the motivations of community members regarding social capital, communication, and identity formation. Our findings support and further previous research on social networking, and points to the need to expand research to include other user motivations and other social networks.

Keywords: social networking, social capital, online communication, motivation, computer-mediated communication

Statement of the Problem: We framed our initial problem as investigating the motivations for contributing to online social and educational environments. We initially considered communities like Facebook, MySpace, LearnHub, Friendster, and several Open Source Software projects. As the project progressed we narrowed our scope to focus exclusively on social networking sites, specifically Facebook, MySpace and. We also modified our goals to include determining motivations for content creation as well as participation. The questions we sought to address were, Why do individuals join these social networking sites? Why do they spend their time and energy creating and posting content for others to see? Our attempts to answers these questions increased our understanding and insight into the growing trend of digital and social systems.

Rationale: Social networking (SN) sites have become indispensable in the lives of young people and are becoming increasingly important to people of all ages. The sites are designed for various types of communication among community members, whether they are friends, family, or relative strangers. Due to their ubiquity, especially among young people, academia has been interested in exploring the motivations behind their adoption and the impact these new communication channels are having throughout society. Why, for example, is MySpace losing members while Facebook grows? Though many papers have been published on the larger topic of social networking use, we found relatively few that addressed the issues of motivation and social benefit (or detriment) through participation. The best sources for related research are Ellison and Lampe who are continuing to produce research on the nature of SN usage and how it is changing over time. Additional rationale is contained in each section discussing our findings.

Relationship to the Course: This research touches on many of the themes from this class. Understanding users' motivations to participate in and contribute to online communities is critical to the successful development of e-learning, e-business, e-healthcare, e-government, and other digital and social systems. In particular, our research relates to chapter 5 of Schneiderman's text, "Leonardo's Laptop". This chapter investigates human activities and relationships. Schneiderman presents a four level relationship scheme: self, family and friends, colleagues and neighbors, and citizens and markets. These levels of relationship engage in four activity types: collection, creation, relation, and donation. While Schneiderman seeks to relate these activities to the web as a whole, our research attempted to correlate these activities to the motivation and incentives that result in participation and content creation.

Contribution of Individual Team Members: All four members contributed in the early phases of literature review, with each identifying sources relative to his/her interests and domain. Together, we decided on three target sites for our investigation: MySpace, Facebook, and Learnhub. We split up the investigation of sites with some overlap between observing site content, enumerating sites features, and developing user personas. Every member contributed by completing at least two of these tasks. Zac (MySpace and Facebook) and Stephen (LearnHub) built user personas for the sites. Kate and Amanda observed site usage patterns. Amanda connected results to other current research. Kate (MySpace and Facebook) and Stephen (Learnhub) enumerated each site's tools, while looking for specific features which could be used to create content. We then compared findings and collaboratively developed a framework for understanding the literature and site composition. Together, we designed a survey using the personas and feature enumerations. Stephen created the online surveys and maintained them through Zoomerang. Each group member sent out emails and posted links online to the surveys. When survey results came in, each of us individually reviewed and analyzed half of the survey responses, attempting to identify key themes. We then met to compare results and created a shared framework for understanding our data. From there, we identified three major themes to discuss in our final presentation. Amanda focused on issues related to social capital. Zac focused on identity formation and maintenance. Kate focused on SN sites ability to help people build and maintain social ties. Stephen focused on describing our methodology, synthesizing the three themes, and summarizing our work and contributions.

Methods: Our project aimed to supplement and extend the current body of research on the motivations for joining, participating in, and contributing to online social networking sites. We attempted to identify individuals' perceived motivations as well as to theorize on their underlying motivations using the existing body of literature on social networking sites and through a survey instrument. Our project involved a variety of tasks across four main areas: gathering and evaluating theoretical sources and sources of literature, an examination of the selected social networking sites, survey design, and survey analysis.

Gathering and Evaluating Literature: We explored communication theory, computer supported cooperative work, computer supported collaborative learning, and uses and gratification theory. Through our literature search and empirical research, we focused on social capital, identity creation, and communication. These topics were discussed in greater detail on assignment 7 and assignment 10; which can be found on the DSS class wiki. They will also be discussed in further detail in the section on individual findings.

Examination of Social Networking Sites: Facebook and MySpace are social networking websites designed to facilitate interaction between its community members. We explored what tools were available through these websites. Although we explored all functionality, our subsequent research focuses on the content creation tools. While Facebook and MySpace tend to be targeted towards different demographics they offer a lot of the same functionality; creation of a profile page about the community member, the ability to post comments, upload and display photos, alter temporary status information, and post other content including music, news articles, etc. How frequently were these tools being used? Why was one tool utilized over another? Why were these sites used instead of face-to-face interactions or phone calls? * Survey Design*: Survey data was collected through an electronic survey tool called Zoomerang (www.zoomerang.com). The survey was designed to probe the motivations for joining and posting content on social networking sites. Individual surveys were created for the Facebook, MySpace, and LearnHub communities. Each survey consisted of basic demographic information on age, gender, education level, and computer skill level. The remaining focus of the survey gauged usage of the site through quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative questions were asked about time spent using the site and features within the site, number of friends or contacts within the site, and the frequency with which you modify various forms of content on the site. These quantitative questions allowed the subjects to click a button that represented the closest match to their experience. Qualitative questions were also asked in order to gain a deeper understanding of the motivations behind the subject's actions. The open ended questions provided subjects with an on-screen text box which allowed them to write as much or as little as they deemed necessary. Questions included items such as: The last time you changed your status, what were your reasons? What would motivate you to start a community? What are your reasons for posting comments on other's profile page? The open-ended responses were reviewed and coded by a minimum of two group members. This was done to ensure coding consistency. All group members discussed the resulting codes, literature based on those codes, and the implications of the findings.

The survey was based on a convenience sample of subjects as it was distributed through personal emails and electronic links in the researcher's Facebook, MySpace, and LearnHub communities. As a result, the demographic information shows significant skews of age (16/41 were 30 or younger), education level (16/41 had a Master's Degree), and gender (30/41 were female). Due to time constraints, limited distribution, and the survey's focus we had significantly different levels of survey completion. Facebook had 36 visits to the survey, with 29 completed surveys (80.6%). MySpace had 22 visits to the survey, but only 12 completed surveys (54.5%) and LearnHub had 27 visits but only 8 completed surveys (29.6%). Due to the limited response rate from LearnHub, and its alternative social focus, we removed those results from our analysis. MySpace and Facebook accounted for a total of 41 completed surveys out of 58 visits. A completion rate of 70.7% for users who visited the survey sites. The themes of use and motivation show overlap with more in-depth research published over the last few years, but due to the limited sample size, the self selected subjects, and the skew of subject demographics; these results should not be considered generalizable to other audiences. Instead, they should be viewed as a moment in time from these subjects lives in their online communities.

Data Analysis

Social Capital: The meaning of social capital has varied greatly as this concept has gained attention across disciplines. However, there is general consensus that it refers to the resources accumulated through the relationships among people (Coleman, 1988). These resources are made possible because networks and the associated norms of reciprocity have value (Putnam, 2000). However, social capital is not homogenous. This suggests that resources found in relationships with others may motivate users of online social networking sites in multiple ways.

In an examination of the social capital implications of Facebook use among college students, Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2007) found that particular uses of the site were associated with higher levels of social capital. Specifically, they found that Facebook usage supported the maintenance of three kinds of social capital: bridging, bonding, and maintained social capital. Bridging social capital is linked to what is known as "weak ties", which are loose connections among individuals (Granovetter, 1982; Putnam, 2000). Bonding social capital is found between individuals in close, emotional relationships such as family and close friends. Finally, maintained social capital is the ability to maintain valuable connections as one progresses through life changes (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). Shneiderman also addresses the concept of social capital, but through his circles of relationships (Shneiderman, 2002). Our survey results found support for all three types of social capital.

Our participants reported joining the social networking site specifically for purposes of bridging social capital. One participant explained why they joined:

"(they were) wanting to have some way to maintain friendships that are distant, or those friendships where an occasional message will suffice."

This is characteristic of weak ties and bridging, or citizens and market relationships where connections between individuals are made for useful information or new perspectives but are not typically associated with emotional support (Granovetter, 1982).

However, our survey results also suggest that social networking sites serve more than one purpose in garnering and accumulating social capital. Many of our participants reported using features of the site and motivation for adding content based on a desire to support people in their network. In particular, using the tool to write on other people's walls was closely associated with this form of bonding social capital. Multiple participants offered examples of well wishing and support in writing on walls:

"to connect with them, say hello, offer support" "support their situation (Get well soon, great pics, I agree, etc)" "To let them know I'm thinking of them."

Characteristic of bonding social capital, many of our participants also specifically reported using the site to support close friends and family relationships. Participants reported that they updated photos:

"to keep what i am doing updated for my friends" "to share with friends what's been going on in my circle."

Our findings suggest that unlike the assertions of previous research (Parks & Floyd, 1996), these types of social networking sites are not necessarily used to meet new people online. That is, the motivation to use online tools is not necessarily to free people from the bounds of geography to meet people online first and then pursue offline relationships. Rather, Facebook is a social networking tool that is most used to keep in touch with old friends and to maintain or intensify relationships characterized by some offline connection or proximity (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). In a longitudinal study of Facebook use, Lampe, Ellison, and Steinfield (2008) found that users largely considered peers that shared offline connections, like friends and acquaintances, more likely to be seen as their social networking audience than non-peers and strangers. "The utility of Facebook seems to be centered on its ability to provide social information about peers or others in ones extended social circle" (Lampe, Ellison & Steinfield, 2008).

This is closely related to the third type of social capital - maintained social capital, which Ellison et al. (2007) explored. They specifically examined maintained high school relationships and found support for this activity. In a longitudinal study, it was found that the number of users reporting contacts from high school friends has increased from 2006 to 2008 (Lampe, Ellison, Steinfield, 2008). Our participants also reported similar reasons for joining and adding content:

"to reunite with old friends, and keep in touch with those that have moved away." "To keep my friends that are living far away updated on what I am doing".

This speaks to the concept of maintained social capital, which refers to the maintenance of relationships after some life change, such as moving away.

Communication: Previous research on social networks has indicated that a large proportion of Facebook messages are sent to "friends" outside a user's geographically local network (Golder et al., 2006; Joinson, 2008). In Joinson's (2008) study on the gratifications users derive from Facebook, a large majority of the 137 survey responses mentioned motivations of "keeping in touch" and/or "chatting with people I otherwise would have lost contact with." Lampe et al. also found that a main motivation for Facebook use is to keep in touch with old friends (Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield, 2008). These studies suggest that Facebook contributes to the maintenance of social ties over both time and distance. Our survey shows a similar trend.

"it's a good/fun way to keep in touch with current friends and find old friends that I'd fallen out of touch with..." "...to reunite with old friends, and keep in touch with those that have moved away" "invited from a friend in England."

Along this vein, over half of our respondents wrote that their reasons for joining Facebook were either to "keep in touch" or to reconnect with old friends. An interesting theme emerges from these parallel findings: Facebook users claim to use the service, at least partially, to maintain social ties that would have otherwise dissolved over time and, in many cases, to recreate ties that had already been lost. Due to the nature of our sampling and the demographics of our sample, we can assume that all or nearly all of our survey respondents have both email and phone services available for maintaining social connections, and yet these media have not allowed them to maintain these particular ties. How and why does Facebook afford social contact that would otherwise disappear or not reappear?

"(because it's) easier than actually texting or talking to them."

Facebook tools may simply make it easier to maintain particular types of social ties. Several respondents to our survey mentioned that communication via Facebook was either simply "easy" or "easier" than other methods of contact. The communication channels enabled by Facebook lower physical, mental, and social barriers to interpersonal communication. Communication technologies, which date back to the optical telegraph of ancient times, have consistently addressed the barrier of physical distance. But bridging physical distance with technology begets other challenges for communication, including financial considerations, limitations of the technology itself, and altered social constraints. Traditionally, the per-minute cost of long distance phone calls added a financial burden to maintaining social ties that contributed to a drop off in continued contact for less intimate, non-kin or distant kin relationships at distances over 100 miles (Mok & Wellman, 2007). Even after the onset of anytime/anywhere cell phone minutes and essentially free email plans, social concerns related to these technological channels continued to prevent the maintenance or reestablishment of these less intimate social ties. The Facebook communication platform has simultaneously and effectively addressed many of these concerns, making it easier to foster and nurture tenuous social ties.

"...to have some way to maintain friendships that are distant, or those friendships where an occasional message will suffice." "...it makes me feel a little more in touch than I would otherwise because I wouldn't be calling 40+ people to hear these updates over the phone each day"

In their pivotal paper on the telecommunication industry, Hollan and Stornetta (1992) urged communication technologists to shift from a focus on trying to imitate face-to-face communication over distance (which continues to prove difficult) and instead promoted a goal aimed at going "beyond being there,"; of creating new technologies that were, in their own ways, better than face-to-face. To describe their concept, they used the metaphor of crutches versus shoes. Crutches are tools used temporarily to help someone get through a transition. Shoes, on the other hand, are designed to surpass inherent human limitations. Our research suggests that Facebook is giving people shoes by providing them a new medium of communication that enhances existing communication options:

"It's nice to drop people a line that's informal… something that phone calls and emails can't do as well." "...quick hello "i'm thinking of you" without a lot of commitment" "easier than actually texting or talking to them."

Facebook communication is perceived as being less intrusive and less formal than other channels of communication, and opens new channels of communication that allow for the maintenance of thin social ties that would have otherwise been erased by distance or casual nature. For some users, it creates a virtual neighborhood where they can say a quick hello to an old friend or distant family member as they pass each other on the digital street. For others, it recreates the high school hallway where they can exchange a few words with former best friends as they pass each other on the way to class and can slide a note into an old crush's locker during lunch.

Identity Formation: We approached online identity formation using the conceptual framework of cultural identity rather than developmental psychology. The web constitutes a culture in the sense that online individuals, by definition, belong to an online community, if for no other reason than to gain access to the web. The web is a social phenomenon and any concept of self that arises from it is necessarily defined in relation to others.

Considering online identity formation to be an extension of identity formation in the "real world" is flawed. While motivations may be similar, online identity differs substantially. The most obvious difference is the lack of social affordances present in face to face interaction. This process, known as deindividuation, results in greater reliance on self-generated identity cues (Merola et al., 2006). While this is especially prevalent in online avatars, this motivational factor is likely involved in profile creation on social networking sites. Comments from survey respondents revealed attempts to overcome deindividuation by providing viewers with these social affordances:

"I have a beard now, so I updated my picture."

Another aspect of identity formation that we encountered involved the social construction of identity based on the features available on social networking sites. Both MySpace and Facebook allow users to post public comments and pictures on their profile or their friends' space. For a number of respondents, these tools are used to cultivate a specific image of themselves in public. This self-marketing encourages others to associate them with that image, idea, or concept:

"I want to? show off my kids and my wonderful life" "Showing off how great I look :)"

The social creation of identity is often an iterative process. Publicly viewable dialogues evolve on profiles and are used for identity formation and connecting emotionally with another. A good analogy might be a publicly viewable version of a high school yearbook. The writing on the inside sleeve helps establish the identity of the owner. Such exchanges are often rich in social cues that shape and communicate identity and emotion. When asked why they posted content, respondents to our survey mentioned some closely related motivations:

"to? communicate my? mood" "I had a great idea I wanted to share" "So people know what I'm interested in" "To notify others of something interesting I was doing."

These responses exemplify the need to share a current emotion, idea, or personal interest. These "of the moment" utterances are a proclamation of individual identity. When it occurs as part of a dialogue, this content has the advantage of allowing asynchronous communication. It also demonstrates the persistent nature of user-generated material; it is often highly time-sensitive (Boyd, 2008). The quote above regarding mood offers a prime example; moods change and unless you constantly update your profile, it is unlikely to reflect your "true" identity.

The ephemeral nature of speech differs from user-generated content in several significant ways. Unlike speech in a public realm, user-generated content on a social networking site is both preserved and searchable. The audience is typically invisible and stretched across time and space. This could create potential identity concerns because one knows that a member of a different relationship circle - a boss, parent, partner, or complete stranger, might view their profile, when it was created for a separate audience. Not surprisingly, this could create the possibility of self-censorship and identity fracture; the disjoining and partitioning of different aspects of identity (Fuchs, 2006). This raises the legitimate concern that people are highly motivated to construct a purposely misleading identity using their profiles.

The reliance on trust in interpreting profiles based on social affordances is not a one-sided relationship. The reader is not always at the mercy of the profile creator. Interpreting an online identity is an exercise in critical reading. As Irving Goffman pointed out, and Berman et al. confirmed, the reader can expect "… consistency between appearance and manner." (Goffman, 1959). In keeping with this, Berman and Bruckman found that it was relatively easy for respondents to tell, based on these affordances, when someone was posing online as the opposite gender. (Berman, et al, 2001). In this experiment, context, language and other cues helped viewers determine the truthfulness of online identity claims. Creating a purposely misleading public identity is not foolproof; viewers do have some limited means for establishing "truth".

Future Directions: Even brief exposure to social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook shows that they are commonly used to establish profiles for a wide range of purposes. Recent phenomena such as "profile farming" (www.MySpacetrader.com); the sale of profiles based on the value and number of "friends", suggests that identity theory may not always be the best framework for understanding all types of profiles. Future research will need to extend beyond communication, social capital, and identity formation theory. Since social networking profiles are used for such a wide range of purposes, thinking of them as belonging to or representing a person might be misleading. An argument could be made for a "web-in-miniature" model to better understand social networking profiles; a profile is basically a template for a webpage and can be used as a blog, marketing tool, etc. This is especially true of MySpace where users can include CSS and HTML in their profiles, essentially making their own websites with a MySpace URL. Perhaps this is analogous to what Seymour Papert intended with Turtle LOGO; using the computer to create a fun and socially meaningful learning environment. (Papert, 1993)

Future research should also explore digital and social systems other than social networking sites. These could include social education sites, software communities, and public news reporting, such as: LearnHub, Open Source Software, and CNN's iReporter. Future research should also incorporate an advanced survey component, based off of a simple random sample and followed up with face-to-face interviews with a portion of the individuals.

Conclusions: The motivations for joining and creating content on social networking sites is complex and varied. Our research supports previous work identifying social capital, communication, and identity as integral motivations for Facebook and MySpace participants. Users join, post content, create profiles, and use the site on a regular basis to make easy connections, support close family and friends, maintain relationships, participate in informal communication, and form personal identities. This work is far from done; as online tools and communities evolve, motivations are likely to change. New features, issues of privacy, storage capacity or market forces, might attract or alienate users. Some possible questions for further investigation might examine how bandwidth influences participation; how privacy settings impact identity formation; why users remove friends; how human interaction is influenced by social networking.

Works Cited

Berman, J., and Bruckman, A. (2001). The Turing Game Exploring Identity in an Online Environment. Convergence, 7(3): 83-102.

Boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth (heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning - Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume 2007: 119-142.

Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.

Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., and Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook "Friends:" Social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143-1168.

Ephemeral Profiles (cuz losing passwords is common amongst teens). University of California, Berkeley. November 3, 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2007/01/01/ephemeral_profi.html.

Fuchs, T. (2007). Fragmented Selves: Temporality and Identity in Borderline Personality Disorder. Psychopathology. Pg 379-387.

Granovetter, M.S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P.V. Mardsen & N. Lin (eds.), Social Structure and Network Analysis (pp. 105-130). Thousand Oakjs, CA: Sage Publications.

Goffman, I. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.

Golder, S., Wilkinson, D., and Huberman, B. (2006). Rhythms of social interaction: messaging within a massive online network. In 3rd International Conference on Communities and Technologies (CT2007). East Lansing, MI: Springer.

Hollan, J, and Stornetta, S. (1992). Beyond being there. In Proceedings of ACM CHI '92 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press.

Joinson, A.N. (2008). Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people?: motives and use of facebook. In Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. Florence, Italy. 1027-1036

Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield. (2008). Changes in Use and Perception of Facebook. In Proceedings of the Conference for Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) '08. San Diego, CA.

Merola, N., Pena, J., and Hancock, J. (2006). Avatar Color and Social Identity Effects On Attitudes and Group Dynamics in Online Video Games. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden International Congress Centre, Dresden, Germany, June 16, 2006. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p93133_index.html

Mok, D., and Wellman, B. (2007). Did distance matter before the Internet?: Interpersonal contact and support in the 1970s. Social Networks 29:430-461.

Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. Cambridge: Perseus Books.

Parks, M.R., and Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 1(4).

Putnam R.D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.