Perceived Difficulty of Friendship Maintenance Online: Geographic Factors

doi:10.4236/aasoci.2012.24040

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Advances in Applied Sociology

2012. Vol.2, No.4, 309-312

Published Online December 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/aasoci) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/aasoci.2012.24040

Perceived Difficulty of Friendship Maintenance Online:

Geographic Factors

Kristie Holmes

School of Social Work, Union University, Jackson, USA

Email: [email protected]

Received August 17th, 2012; revised September 20th, 2012; accepted October 3rd, 2012

Geographic location has an effect on the perceived ease of friendship maintenance online and may reflect

physical space. Participants from the Northeastern United States rated maintaining friendships online as

more difficult than those from other regions. Those with the highest anxiety level ratings were from the

largest and most densely populated areas (metropolitan) and those who were the least anxious about their

image (both online and offline) were from rural areas with the least population density. Those residing in

metropolitan areas were the most trusting of online information posted by others and the town/small city

group were the least trusting of others’ online posted information (similar to the urban group), making

those from rural areas nearly as trusting of others’ information as the metropolitan group, though probably

the result of entirely different influences.

Keywords: Social Networking; Friendship; Geography; Relationship; Perceptions; Online

Introduction

“Whatever may be its present shortcomings and defects,

there can be no doubt that wireless telegraphy—even over

great distances—has come to stay, and will not only stay, but

continue to advance. If it should become possible to transmit

waves right round the world, it may be found that the electrical

energy travelling round all parts of the globe may be made to

concentrate at the antipodes of the sending station. In this way

it may some day be possible to send to such distance lands by

means of a very small amount of electrical energy, and

therefore at a correspondingly small expense.”1 (p. 221)

When online relationship maintenance and social networks

were not ubiquitous, it was questioned whether the advent of

online relationships equated the “end of geography” (Graham,

1998). This researcher wanted to explore the question of

whether or not geography played a role in participant perceptions

on the ease of friendship maintenance as supported by online

networks. In previous work that focused on traditional relationship

maintenance as affected by geography, Liben-Nowell, Novak,

Kumar, Raghavan, and Tomkins (2005) found that the

probability of friendship decreases not only with distance but

even more defined by the number of people who lived closer to

the participant. Onnela, Arbesman, Gonzales, Barabasi, and

Christakis (2011) described geography as a constraint to group

formation, in that people form ties through connections of their

own friends. Further, they found that geography maintains its

power as a way to compartmentalize groups, and referred to

Lambiotte’s, Blondel, Kerchove, Huens, Prieur, Smoreda and

Van Dooren’s (2008) study that found that in telephone contact,

the duration of a phone call increases with distance. And while

phone calls to closer (geographically) friends are more

numerous, the farther geographical distance encourages less

frequent but longer conversations, demonstrating that even with

technology, physical distance indeed has an effect on rela-

tionship maintenance. Gilbert, Karahalios, and Sandvig (2010)

maintained that “a priori social patterns manifest themselves in

social media even when technology could be used to change the

patterns” (p. 1383).

Hypothesis 1: Participants from the Northeastern United

States will rate maintaining friendships online as more difficult

than those from other regions.

The advent of relationship maintenance through online

means was met with great expectations that it would completely

revolutionize relationships and perhaps even “do away” with

physical geography all together. While electronic maintenance

has certainly revolutionized a mode of interpersonal connection,

surprisingly to many, much remains the same. When spe-

cifically investigating geographical influence on behaviors in

this paradigm, geography seems to matter in two ways.

First, users “tag” themselves electronically via their smart-

phone GPS with Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, or through

tagging themselves in photos or by others in location-based

social networks or by friends on sites like Facebook in order to

share information among their network or “followers,”

essentially adding a GPS tracking device to oneself. Further,

most location-based search terms place a user within miles of

the searched geographical space.

Scellato, Mascolo, Musolesi, and Latora (2010) found that

users trended toward having short-range social connectedness

and that their geographical location was confined to clusters.

Backstrom, Sun, and Marlow (2010) realized that even when

search queries for places such as the Grand Canyon were

analyzed, most searches came from within 50 miles of the

actual park.

Second, geographic distance, despite the global nature of the

internet, still clusters people within distinct geographical

boundaries. Technology “··· has decreased the importance of

geographic proximity in social interactions, transforming our

world into a global village with a borderless society. We argue

for the opposite: while technology has undoubtedly increased

K. HOLMES

the overall level of communication, this increase has been most

pronounced for local social ties” (Goldenberg & Levy, 2009: p.

1). Mok and Wellman and Carrasco (2010) questioned how

much distance mattered before the internet, and found that

physical distance seems to matter whether or not there was

internet, although it has changed how relationships persist over

time. For example, friendships that may have stayed snugly in

memory as dim high school recollections may now enjoy a

repartee online reflective of relationships and habits from the

past, when discussing recent news stories or seeking advice on

childrearing items. Whether these rekindled relationships are

positive, neutral, or negative will of course depend on how

much old, renewed, but previously abandoned relationships

bump up against the present.

Shaw (2010) discussed the relevance of Hägerstrand’s (1970)

concept of “bundle” within the context of conceptual restraints,

meaning that individuals perform tasks or a specific activity in

unison in order to complete an outcome. Shaw updates this

concept by linking the notion of online social networks with the

linking of physical locations to a virtual one. “We could argue

that locations of nodes and links in a virtual network are not

relevant according to a topological perspective. This is true

only if we are interested in the connectivity and flows between

different nodes on social networks” (p. 2). He went on to

illustrate by stating that someone who wants to complete a task

with a friend who lives 1000 miles away is unlikely to suggest

meeting at a local coffee shop.

Recent literature on the geographical location of users of

social media is fairly meager, with the same literature reviews

pointing to the same handful of studies. However, as supported

by Backstrom et al.’s (2010), observations from even the

earliest studies have not changed: “the further you get from a

person, the lower likelihood you will find her friends there” (p.

3). These researchers also found that those who lived in cities

were more likely to have friends scattered throughout the

country. Gilbert, Karahalios, and Sandvig (2008) found results

in a related topic when they found that the strength of

relationship ties of urbanites were more loosely defined than

those from rural communities, and concluded that rural and

urban residents use social media in different ways. Rural

participants claimed fewer friends, and those friends were

located close to their place of residence. Further, rural

participants maintained higher privacy settings than their urban

counterparts, revealing a lower level of trust in others. This

researcher was interested in the relationship between user

location (geographical) and possible differences in perception

regarding relationship maintenance online, and found that

existing literature was lacking in answers.

Hypothesis 2: Participants from rural areas will be less

trusting of others’ personal information posted online than

those from metropolitan areas.

Social Networking Analysis Theory

Social network analysis is grounded in the systematic analy-

sis of empirical data, although it was once seen as a method of

inquiry rather than a stand-alone theory. People now actively

think of their social networks (how and whom they are con-

nected to in real life) the way sociologists have for many dec-

ades because of the influence of online social networks such as

Facebook and Twitter. These networks have long been re-

searched by sociologists as an acknowledged way to maintain

relationships (Keller, 1968) share information, and fit in with

those surrounding oneself in a community (Freeman, 2004).

The biggest difference in then and now is the ease with which

one is included in or isolated from particular networks, and the

easier tracking by researchers with an eye for electronic data

mining that is now available in numbers that would have been

incomprehensible 30 years ago (Butts, 2009). Wellman (2008)

stated, “Thirty years ago, I could not even sell the term ‘social

network’ to sociologists” (p. 2).

Granovetter in 1973 defined a tie and its strength as related

to an investment of time, emotional intensity, mutual confi-

dence, and reciprocity. Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950)

simplified the idea of propinquity by showing that the term

meant that, in the simplest terms, people befriend their

neighbors. Festinger’s social comparison theory ties in further

with how people view themselves (and the contents of one’s

social networking profile) with regards to their felt perceptions

about how others are superior or inferior to themselves.

Still, however, even with all of the data available, it seems

that people’s networks, although globally available in a way

never before imagined, generally support very localized rela-

tionships (within driving distance). Rather than “the end of

geography” (Graham, 1998) as we know it, at this point it ap-

pears that while the availability helps one forge new connec-

tions, at its core, electronic social networking in many ways

continues to reflect the way things have historically been with

relationships online reflecting the connections one has in real

time. People continue to make comparisons of themselves in

relationship to others in the community. This study explores

what this researcher views as simply a newer mode of com-

munication and how participants perceive its role in supporting

or taking away from relationships. How close ties are to begin

with may play a role, as Gilbert (2012) suggested, in that the

perceived ease or difficulty may depend on the intimacy of the

relationship in the first place. It was suspected by this re-

searcher that, in the end, while technology changes at a rapid

pace as do the options available to communicate, the more in-

timate the relationship, the more likely the desire to prefer

face-to-face interaction. Although technology such as Skype

(free online video conferencing software) is easily accessible to

most users of social networking technology in their own homes,

most people at this point don’t prefer to use Skype to commu-

nicate “faux face to face” over other electronic means. Tak-

hteyev, Gruzd, and Wellman (2012) stated simply, “Social

contacts benefit from physical proximity” (p. 1). Physical ge-

ography then, of course, would have an effect on the perceived

ease of maintaining relationships via electronic means.

Method

An online survey was distributed through Facebook via a

web-based platform, targeting ages 18 and over (Appendix A).

Participants were from 38 states in the United States and 24

participants resided outside of the United States. This sample

was heavily Caucasian and well educated. The survey consisted

primarily of closed-ended quantitative questions.

Of the 296 participants, 81 identified as male, 209 identified

as female, 1 identified as “other”, and 5 declined to answer the

question. During analysis, the researcher decided to eliminate

the responses from the participant who identified with the

“other” category in order to restrict the research analysis to two

sexes as opposed to three when exploring gender.

310

K. HOLMES

Participants were asked to respond to 28 multiple-choice

questions by selecting a single answer they felt best reflected

their opinion and 1 open-ended question where they could de-

scribe their opinion in their own words with regard to how they

view the positive, neutral, or negative effects of technology on

their relationships. The survey was designed with a non-op-

tional informed consent agreement, which stated that partici-

pants must be age 18 or over to take the survey and made it

clear that the survey was completely voluntary and anonymous.

The survey included contact information for the Institutional

Review Board (IRB) as well as for the researchers so that par-

ticipants were able to pose questions, comments, or complaints

if needed. IP addresses were not collected, and with the excep-

tion of the informed consent agreement, every item was volun-

tary and could be skipped without interrupting the rest of the

survey. The snowball sampling technique was used to encour-

age Facebook users to repost the survey link on their pages to

further distribute the survey.

Twitter was used to further disseminate the survey, in addi-

tion to professional contact emails that went out to the re-

searcher’s network as a separate collector of data. Statistical

tests used were independent t tests, ANOVA, Levines, LSD,

Bonferonni, and Pplot. Descriptive statistics and chi square

were used to analyze results, using (SPSS) IBM 19.0 software.

Significance was set at p = > .05. However, there were many

instances of levels of p = .06 or p = .07 levels of significance,

which this researcher considered as borderline significance in

these findings and therefore reportable.

Results

Geographical Location and Perceived Ease of

Friendship Maintenance Online

Statistical analysis on regional location in the United States

and its influence on the perception of friendship maintenance

was completed with ANOVA and LSD post hoc testing

(F[4,230] = 2.44, p = .04) and found that there were significant

dif- ferences between regional groups in the United States with

designations of West, Southwest, Southeast, Midwest, and

Northeast designations.

There was a statistically significant difference between par-

ticipants from the West with participants from the Midwest

(mean difference −.27, p = .03) as well as the West from the

Northeast (mean difference −.40, p = .04) with participants

from Western states finding it easier to maintain friendships

online.

There was a statistically significant difference between par-

ticipants from the Southwest with participants from the Mid-

west (mean difference −.80, p = .04) as well as the Southwest

from the Northeast (mean difference −.93, p = .02) and a statis-

tically significant difference between Midwestern state partici-

pants (mean difference = .27, p = .03) and Northeast partici-

pants (mean difference = .38, p = .04). Finally, Northeastern

participants had a statistically significant difference between

those from the West (mean difference = .20, p = .04) and the

Southwest (mean difference .41, p = .02).

The range of ease of maintaining a friendship online was 1

(easier) to 3 (harder). The Western states M was 1.72, South-

west M was 1.20, Southeast M was 1.85, Midwest M was 2.13

and the Northeast M was 2.13, making the Midwest and north-

east the groups to find maintaining their friendships online the

most difficult. However, the neutral option with the range of 2

maintains that maintaining friendships online and in person is

the same level of difficulty as maintaining a face-to-face

friendship.

Metropolitan, Urban, Town and Rural Residency

When exploring basic descriptive statistics, ratings for levels

of anxiety related to image maintenance (both online and off-

line) are higher in areas considered metropolitan (M = 4.5) with

similar ratings from those who reside in urban areas or small

cities and town in the middle with (M = 4.41 to 4.47). Those

who reported living in a rural area had a mean rating of 3.95 for

anxiety related to image (Figure 1).

When an ANOVA was run on Metropolitan, Urban, Town,

and Rural Residency groups according to their level of trust in

what other people post online, there was a statistical signifi-

cance. ANOVA was run along with LSD and Bonferonni post

hoc tests (F[3,266] = 4.59; p = .004) with borderline statistical

significant difference between the Rural Group (We are lucky

to have a stoplight!) and Town/Small City Group (We have a

restaurant chain or two) (mean difference = .28, p = .004) as

well as the Urban (mean difference = −.30, p = .003). The range

of trust rating was 1 (low) to 4 (high). The Metropolitan group

mean was 3.25, the Urban group mean was 3.15, the

Town/Small City group mean was 2.84 and the Rural group

mean was 3.12, thus making the least trusting group, the

Town/Small City group, the most trusting of others’ online

posted information, and those in metropolitan areas most trust-

ing of online information posted by others (see Figure 2).

Figure 1.

Anxiety over image.

Figure 2.

Trust of information posted online.

K. HOLMES

312

Figure 3.

Participant Choices for Population Density.

Discussion

As theorized by Hypothesis 1, participants from the North-

eastern United States rated maintaining friendships online as

more difficult than those from other regions. Geographical

location seems to affect the perceived ease of friendship main-

tenance online and may reflect the areas’ small physical space

(small states in a clustered area). In this region of the United

States, driving across multiple state lines in a single day would

not be difficult. Perhaps physical geographic boundaries on a

smaller space affects one’s perception of distance, or even need

to maintain relationships online. According to the literature thus

far, most participant networks are within driving miles of their

location.

Further, the type of environment one resides in has an effect

on how participants perceive their image as viewed by others.

Those with the highest anxiety level ratings are from the largest

and most densely populated areas (metropolitan), and those

who were the least anxious about their image (both online and

offline) were from rural areas with the least population density

(Figure 3).

As for Hypothesis 2, when analyzing trust levels of what

other people post online, the borders were not quite as clear.

Those residing in metropolitan areas were the most trusting of

online information posted by others and the Town/Small City

group were the least trusting of others’ online posted informa-

tion (similar to the Urban group), making those from rural areas

nearly as trusting of others’ information as the metropolitan

group. These trust levels may be the result of entirely different

influences, with those in metropolitan areas more likely to rely

on technology day in and day out and may generally be more

trusting of electronic social networks as a source of information.

On the other end of the spectrum, those in rural areas may be

more generally trusting of others due to the experience of re-

siding in communities that broker more trust due to their

physical proximity.

Acknowledgements

Much thanks to Macy Alligood and Elizabeth Wilson for

their time and assistance with this study.

REFERENCES

Backstorm, L., Sun, E., & Marlow, C. (2010). Find me if you can:

Improving geographical prediction with social and spatial proximity.

International World Wide Web Conference Committee 2010 (pp.

61-70). New York: ACM.

Butts, C. T. (2009). Revisiting the foundations of social network analy-

sis. Science, 325, 414-416.

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950) Social pressures in

informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University.

Freeman, L. (2004) The development of social network analysis: A

study in the sociology of science. Vancouver: Empirical Press.

Gilbert, E., Karahalios, K., & Sandvig, C. (2010). The network in the

garden: Designing social media for rural life. American Behavioral

Scientist, 53, 1367-1388. doi:10.1177/0002764210361690

Gilbert, E., Karahalios, K., & Sandvig, C. (2008). The network in the

garden. An empirical analysis of social media in rural life. Speech

Communication, 53, 1603-1612.

Gilbert, E. (2012). Predicting tie strength in a new medium. Proceed-

ings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Coopera-

tive Work (pp. 1047-1056). New York: ACM.

doi:10.1145/2145204.2145360

Goldenberg, J., & Levy, M. (2009). Distance is not dead: Social inter-

action and geographical distance in the internet era. Computers and

Society, 2, 1-22.

Graham, S. (1988). The end of geography or the explosion of place?

Conceptualizing space, place and information technology. Progress

in Human Geography, 22, 165-185.

doi:10.1191/030913298671334137

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American

Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380. doi:10.1086/225469

Keller, S. (1968). The urban neighborhood. New York: Random

House.

Lambiotte, R., Blondel, V., Kerchove, C. D., et al. (2008). Geographi-

cal dispersal of mobile communication networks. Physica A, 387,

5317 -5325. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2008.05.014

Liben-Nowell, D., Novak, J., Kumar, R., Raghavan, P., & Tomkins, A.

(2005). Geographic routing in social networks. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102,

11623-11628. doi:10.1073/pnas.0503018102

Mok, D., Wellman, B., & Carrasco, J. A. (2010). Does distance still

matter in the age of the internet? Urban Studies , 47, 2747-2783.

Nan, L., & Guanling, C. (2009). Analysis of a location-based social

network. IEEE International conference on Computational Science

and Engineering, 4, 263-270.

Onnela, J., Arbesman, S., González, M. et al. (2011). Geographic con-

straints on social network groups. PLoS ONE, 6, 1-7.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016939

Scellato, S., Mascolo, C., Musolsi, M., & Latora, V. (2010). Distance

matters: Geo-social metrics for online social networks. Proceedings

of the 3rd Conference on Online Social Networks. Berkeley, CA:

USENIX Association

Shaw, S. (2010). Relevance of time geography to spatio-temporal con-

straints on social networks. Specialist Meeting—Spatio Temporal

Constraints on Social Networks, 1-3.

Takhteyev, Y., Gruzd, A., & Wellman, B. (2012). Geography of twitter

networks. Social networks. Space and Networks , 34, 73-81.

Wellman, B. (2008). The development of social network analysis: A

study in the sociology of science. Contemporary Sociology: A Jour-

nal of Reviews, 37, 221-222.