WEEK 3
Social network site affordances and their relationship to social capital processes
Ellison, N. B., & Vitak, J. (2015). Social network site affordances and their relationship to social capital processes. In S. S. Sundar (Ed.),
The handbook of the psychology of communication technology (pp. 205–227). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. [ After clicking on the
book title, use under “Full text availability” the option “Wiley Online Library Online Books”]
This chapter considers the mechanisms by which social network site (SNS) use is
associated with social capital processes, such as supporting beneficial interactions,
information exchanges, and relationship maintenance.
Overview of social media
Today, Internet-enabled communication technologies
* Reshape the ways millions of individuals search for life partners
* Reshape how individuals access information and share opinions
* Are particularly well-suited for relationship maintenance: Individuals use sites like
Facebook and Twitter to keep in touch with a wide range of contacts
The term social media is used colloquially to describe a set of features and tools that enable
peer-to-peer communication in ways not supported by mass media which use a ‘one-to-
many’ broadcast model. The term encompasses the following:
A. Social network and micro-blogging sites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter)
B. Peer production communities (e.g., Wikipedia),
C. Content sharing and discussion forums (e.g., Reddit)
D. Online dating sites
Researchers focus on different affordances of social media, typically driven by their
specific area of study, and employ the term in slightly different ways. For example, Treem
and Leonardi (2012) outline a set of four affordances that differentiate social media in
organizational settings from other forms of online and offline communication:
1. Visibility – referring to the ease with which social media enable users to make
previously invisible information visible, as well as the ease with which other users can
then locate that information
2. Persistence – also known as reviewability, which refers to the accessibility of content
after it has been posted
1
, 3. Editability – relates to the asynchronous nature of communication in social media
and describes users’ ability to carefully craft a message before posting, as well as the
ability to edit it after it has been posted
4. Association – refers to both the articulated connections between users (e.g., Facebook
Friends, Twitter followers), as well as the connections between users and the content
they post
Looking at social media use more broadly, danah boyd (2010) describes a similar set of
affordances, including:
1. Persistence
2. Replicability (the ability to duplicate content)
3. Scalability (akin to visibility affordance)
4. Searchability
From both the literature and our everyday experiences, it seems clear that social media are
enabling new patterns of communication, interaction, and affiliation.
Social network sites
Ellison and boyd (2013) articulate 3 key elements of SNSs in their revised definition:
A social network site is a networked communication platform in which participants
1) Have uniquely identifiable profiles that consist of user-supplied content, content
provided by other users, and/or system-level data
2) Can publicly articulate connections that can be viewed and traversed by others
3) Can consume, produce, and/or interact with streams of user-generated content
provided by their connections on the site
Why do people use SNSs?
A. The vast majority of people asked this question say they do so to stay in touch with
family and friends
B. “Shared identities” – which captures activities related to identifying and
establishing common ground
C. Passive browsing activities on the site to potentially maintain relationships or keep
up to date on other users’ activities without interaction
2
, D. Reconnecting with old friends
E. Interact with people with shared interests
Overview of social capital
Research in multiple domains, including health communication, nursing, psychology, and
sociology, highlights the important and tangible benefits we receive from our social
relationships. One framework that has been used to explore the benefits of interpersonal
relationships and social networks is social capital. Different researchers define social capital
differently based on the realm they focus on.
Among other definitions, social capital has been defined as “the aggregate of the actual or
potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less
institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (Bourdieu, 1985).
The breadth and depth of social resources available to individuals depends on:
1. Network composition
2. How individuals communicate with their network
Another definition highlights then another central construct of social capital: reciprocity –
“the expected returns in the marketplace”. Putnam (2000) distinguishes between two forms of
reciprocity in communities:
1. Reciprocity at the individual level – one favor for another
2. Generalized reciprocity – actions individuals perform with no expectation of an
immediate return on investment (e.g., donating blood, changing flat tire for a
stranger). Communities characterized by this form of reciprocity are more efficient
because “trustworthiness lubricates social life”
Individuals access different kinds of resources from their social relationships. Putnam (2000)
divided network-provided resources into two major categories based largely on the
characteristics of the individuals providing the resources:
A. Bridging social capital
* Includes resources ranging from access to new or hard-to-access information
(such as when one is looking for a new job) to being exposed to more diverse
perspectives and feeling part of a broader community
3
