Oldenburg’s Great Good Places Online: Assessing the Potential for Social Network Sites to Serve as Third Places

by

Jerod W. Foster, B.S., M.S.

A Dissertation

in

MEDIA & COMMUNICATION

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Approved

Todd Chambers, Ph.D. Chair of Committee

Robert M. Peaslee, Ph.D.

Weiwu Zhang, Ph.D.

Erica Irlbeck, Ed.D.

Dominick J. Casadonte, Jr., Ph.D. Interim Dean of the Graduate School

December 2013

© 2013, Jerod Foster

Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Against what seems common protocol, I want to thank my family first.

Specifically, I want to express my infinite appreciation and love for my wife, Amanda

Waters Foster, who has bore the brunt of what is the Ph.D. process. Her undying support and patience throughout this journey was invaluable and can never be repaid. I would also like to thank my daughter Eva, and even though she is not able to read this currently,

I want her to know that she was much of the joy I saw in the latter stages of this writing.

Thanks also go to my parents, Jay and Marsha Foster, who have had confidence in me from the beginning and have always encouraged me in the direction I was steering. And to the rest of my family, thank you all for your words of encouragement and wisdom.

To the members of my committee: Dr. Chambers, I can’t thank you enough for the opportunities you have provided me, both as an educator and as a scholar, and the unwavering support along the way. Thank you for recognizing my interest in community and my passion for building it in all facets of my life. Thank you Dr. Peaslee for your colleagueship and your friendship, as well as your guiding hand in trying to balance my dual methodological interests. To Dr. Zhang, my sincere gratitude for nurturing my interest in sociology and democracy, as well as my deep respect for the hard work of the academic. A great deal of appreciation is reserved for Dr. Irlbeck. Our educational relationship through the years has been a noted one, and I am honored to have had you involved in this process. You have all provided me the stepping-stones to where I am now, and I am ever grateful for your support, your expertise, your interest in me, and your patience. I’m thankful I work with each of you on a daily basis.

ii Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

I must also thank other key people in my academic life that have seen me along the way. Great thanks go to Dr. Baker, Dr. Akers, Dr. Hudson, Dr. Callison, Dr. Johnson,

Dr. Reeves, Dr. Wilkinson, Dr. Bucy, Dr. Perlmutter, and the entire faculty I have had the great pleasure and honor of working with the past several years. I also want to thank all of my fellow graduate students. Specifically, Dr. Sims, Dr. Stone, Kent Lowry, Dr.

Merle, Dr. Ngondo, Dr. Nutting, Dr. Matthews, and Dr. Wise, my sincere thanks for your continued friendship over the years. Thank you also to the staff I have worked with closely over the years: Annie Ruland, Bridget Christopherson, and Jessica Robinson. You ladies have done more than many can handle for not only me, but an entire student body and faculty. Thanks.

I want to thank my publisher, Peachpit Books, for their support as well. My editors Ted Waitt and Susan Rimerman have in a very short time become vital members of my life, and they too have encouraged me along the way. Even when I tended to overload my plate with writing, photographic, and academic responsibilities, they were always there to provide an encouraging word and the necessary patience to work with a guy like me.

Lastly, I want to thank all of my friends, near and far, for your love and support.

You are simply too numerous to name. From babysitting a newborn to grabbing the quick lunch, to a brief chat on the phone, I cannot thank you enough for your help in making this a reality. You have been a vital part of my family, and I dearly hope that continues. I am extremely fortunate to have so many fine people in my life.

Thank you all.

ii i Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... ii ABSTRACT ...... vii LIST OF TABLES ...... ix I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Purpose of this Research ...... 3 Third Place Pressure ...... 4 A Democratic Imperative ...... 7 II. LITERATURE ...... 10 The Third Place ...... 11 The Third Place and Electronic Media ...... 20 The Virtual Third Place ...... 23 Social Capital ...... 27 Bonding and Bridging Social Capital ...... 29 Dark Side of Social Capital ...... 30 Media and Social Capital ...... 31 Social Capital and the Internet ...... 33 Social Network Sites and Social Capital ...... 38 The Augmented Reality of Social Network Sites ...... 43 Can a Social Network Site Make it as a Third Place? ...... 46 III. METHODOLOGY ...... 51 Ethnographically Investigating the Social Network Site as a Third Place ...... 52 Participant Observation ...... 52 Positioning the Researcher ...... 55 Criteria for Evaluation ...... 56 Triangulation ...... 58 Measuring the Effects of the Virtual Third Place ...... 58 Dependent Variables ...... 60 Social Capital ...... 60 Civic and Political Engagement ...... 61 Trust ...... 62

iv Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Independent Variables ...... 63 Third Place ...... 63 Facebook Intensity and Use Measures ...... 65 Demographics ...... 66 Population and Sample ...... 67 Ethnographic Sample ...... 69 Survey Sample ...... 69 IV. ETHNOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ...... 71 The Third Place-ness of Facebook ...... 71 Entering Facebook: A Doorway to Social Connectivity ...... 74 The Newsfeed: A’buzz with Social Discourse ...... 78 Profile and Timeline: The Stool at the End of the Bar ...... 81 Navigational Structure ...... 86 Facebook and the Conceptual Third Place ...... 87 Facebook as Neutral Ground ...... 88 Facebook as a Leveler ...... 89 Facebook and Conversation as Key Activity ...... 94 Facebook’s Accessibility and Accommodation ...... 102 Facebook and its Regulars ...... 104 Facebook’s Low Profile ...... 109 Facebook’s Playful Mood ...... 109 Facebook, A Home Away from Home ...... 114 Bridging the Methods Gap for Third Place ...... 117 V. SURVEY ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ...... 120 Demographics and Facebook Membership ...... 120 Facebook Intensity and Usage ...... 121 Third Place and Social Capital ...... 122 Statistically Finding the Third Place in Facebook ...... 122 Social Capital ...... 125 Third Place and Facebook and Offline Bridging Social Capital ...... 125 Third Place and Facebook and Offline Bonding Social Capital ...... 126

v Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Third Place and Trust ...... 127 Third Place and General Trust ...... 128 Third Place and Institutional Trust ...... 128 Third Place and Interpersonal Trust ...... 129 Third Place and Civic and Political Engagement ...... 130 VI. DISCUSSION ...... 132 In Search of the Third Place Online ...... 133 Facebook as Third Place: Similar, Yet Different ...... 134 Measuring the Third Place-ness of Facebook ...... 139 Fitting Third Place into the Social Capital Equation ...... 141 Issues of Trust and Third Place ...... 144 Civic and Political Engagement ...... 146 Countering the Threat to Third Place ...... 146 A Lifestyle Integrated ...... 151 Limitations ...... 153 Future Research ...... 155 REFERENCES ...... 158 APPENDICES A. IRB Letters ...... 177 B. Tables ...... 179 C. Survey Instrument ...... 187

vi Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

ABSTRACT

The third place, an environment conducive to informal socialization separate from the home or work place, has long been identified as a harbor for deliberation, information sharing, and social capital. At the same time, a decline in the presence and social contribution of the third place has been documented, along with social capital, due to social atomization, a move away from city centers, and the emergence and consumption of a variety of electronic communication technologies, most notably television and the

Internet. This research addresses such concerns by identifying the presence of third place in social network sites, specifically Facebook. Using a mixed methods approach (an online ethnography and a survey) with two samples of digital natives, several conceptual characteristics of traditional third places were structurally and discursively identified in the social network site, and evidence from the ethnographic observations (N = 23) was used to inform the development of original statistical measurements of third place-ness

(N = 173). Using principal components analysis to reveal the underlying factors that characterize the third place-ness of a social network site, several were found to significantly predict online and offline bridging social capital, offline bonding social capital, as well as generalized, institutional, and interpersonal trust.

Ultimately, this research suggests three key points: a) even though traditional third place attendance and discursive participation is threatened, evidence indicates that similar socialization has transitioned to the social network site environment; b) ideal characteristics of traditional third places are perceived in social network sites by their users and significantly predict sociological facets of connectedness among a democratic society; and c) social discourse that is valued in traditional third places has the potential

vii Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 to and does emerge in social network sites, indicating an integration of the offline and the online that is finding theoretical significance in both sociological and media communications literature.

viii Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

LIST OF TABLES

1 Factor Analysis of Third Place ...... 179 2 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting ...... 180 Facebook Bridging Social Capital 3 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting ...... 181 Offline Bridging Social Capital 4 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting ...... 182 Facebook Bonding Social Capital 5 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting ...... 183 Offline Bridging Social Capital 6 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting ...... 184 Generalized Trust 7 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting ...... 185 Institutional Trust 8 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting ...... 186 Interpersonal Trust

ix Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The coffee shop is very American in style. It sits adjacent to a chain restaurant on one side and a small retail shop on the other, all of which make up only a part of a long row of retail and service outlets in a well-established shopping center in a relatively upper-middle class neighborhood. Inside, the coffee shop is spacious. Two or three employees are on the clock at one time, each reasonably knowledgeable about the often pretentious-yet-communal coffee industry. Eclectic, framed art hangs on the walls, and dim lights hang from an open-constructed ceiling throughout the shop. Two- and four- person tables dot the earth-toned tiles on the floor, and two leather couches compose a lounge-like library nook. The coffee shop’s clientele is fairly indicative of the neighborhood and surrounding city in which it is situated. The majority of its customers are Caucasian and young—ranging in age from 18 to 40 years old. Many are students at the nearby universities, as well as businessmen and businesswomen, councilors, professors, pastors from local churches, and the occasional group of housewives.

Conversation is abuzz in the coffee shop, and discussions range from business to school, from religion to politics, and from school to music and popular culture. The coffee shop serves as a hub for community—that is, however much it can serve as a hub in contemporary American society.

On the surface, the coffee shop described here is the typical contemporary

American “third place” (Oldenburg, 1989)—an environment heralded for its role in society for maintaining and exuding community. Informal socialization is the key ingredient for such third places, and this coffee shop has plenty of opportunities to

1 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 engage in such activity. Yet, despite the face-to-face conversation and popular culture appeal of the coffee shop, the shop also is a hub for access to the Internet and a melting pot of mobile technology use. Other than during the early morning, when older, retired customers meet for regular face-to-face conversation, at least half of the customers come with their laptop computers, smart phones, wireless reading devices, or a combination of any number of mobile devices. Even though the wireless network is locked, a simple question—and unofficially, a purchased cup of java—will allow one to obtain the password. Although there is nothing posted drawing attention to the fact that wireless

Internet access is available, it is apparent that for some customers it is the only reason they are in attendance. Even those that seem to be regular patrons of the coffee shop are not without their electronic devices.

This is an unsurprising depiction of a modern-day American coffee shop. In fact, one may argue that it is the norm and is the socially accepted, appropriate, and in some cases, demanded depiction of such “third places.” The juxtaposition of informal socialization and the quieting effect of electronic media consumed via the Internet is a common detail of today’s coffee shop environment. However, it is a far cry from how

Oldenburg (1989) described the setting, as well as one at which he would simply nod nostalgically in regard to a social atmosphere succumbing to the pressures of an increasingly atomizing society—a society that continually moves apart, values socialization less, and becomes more individualistic.

The question, though, is whether or not that is actually happening.

2 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Purpose of this Research

The conjunction of third place environments and newly emerging mobile communication technologies has surfaced in research assessing the alteration of normative behavior (Sanusi & Palen, 2008) in and the geographic and social alteration

(Hampton & Gupta, 2008) of public spaces conducive for informal gathering and interaction. Much of this inquiry indicates a rather negative impact on traditional third places, and it approaches the issue from a “digital dualism” (Jurgenson, 2012) perspective. Other lines of research in this area outline the potentiality of online-only environments serving as virtual “great good places” (Soukup, 2006; Kendall, 2002).

However, much of this research overlooks both the substantial foothold mainstream social media outlets have in regard to informal socialization and the definite embedding that is occurring between mobile technology, the consumer, and how both traditional, face-to-face communication and virtual interaction complement each other.

The current research assesses the comparability of mainstream social media outlets, specifically Facebook, to both Oldenburg’s (1989) and Soukup’s (2006) conceptions of traditional and virtual third places. Through ethnographic investigation of digital natives’ (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008) use of social network sites, this research also investigates this particular generations’ use of such means of communication to augment their social activities in non-online settings, as well as the obverse. Since social media’s role in day-to-day activities is more and more essential to how we communicate as members of a domestic and global society, this research inquires about virtual third place activity, and it provides advancing development in the area of augmented reality

(Jurgenson, 2012). The current project also contributes to establishing a more pragmatic

3 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 connection between the use of online communication outlets—particularly social media—and civic engagement and participation in community affairs. Finally, the current research also contributes to the emerging knowledge of “digital natives” (Palfrey &

Gasser, 2008) and their use of social media and mobile communication technologies.

Third Place Pressure

A little more than 20 years ago, Ray Oldenburg (1989) defended the ideal that surrounded environments fostering informal social connectedness in his seminal work,

The Great Good Place. Dubbing such environments “third places,” Oldenburg distilled the characteristics of Western society’s bars, taverns, coffee shops, salons, cafes, soda shops, halls, bookstores, and main streets at the same time that he identified facets of an increasingly individualized and commercialized society that beckon the downfall of such salient and essential institutions serving to keep community and civic awareness alive.

Although Oldenburg pays tribute to the cultural manifestation and maintenance of these third places, he also warns of their plight and offers little light on the horizon. His concern over suburbanization, work pressures as a result of aggressive capitalism, and the role mass media and advancing electronic technologies play in citizens’ everyday lives echoes previous thought about the United States’ disenfranchisement with community

(Nisbet, 1953), and served in some degree as part of future analyses that further theoretically outlined the diminishment of societal togetherness (Putnam, 2000). All such research and sociological commentary highlights the ideal that Oldenburg’s hangouts are vital to the emergence and caretaking of a democratic, socially involved public, and that society is threatened in part with the gradual disappearance of the type of social engagement such environments promote.

4 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

This particular concern was not novel at the time Oldenburg (1989) penned The

Great Good Place. Theoretically, what Oldenburg describes as third place is a part of the fabric of society that has seen withering since Plato and has interested more than its fair share of historically recognized philosophers and sociologists over the years—and predominantly in the past few centuries—from Alexis de Tocqueville (1835/1840) to

Emile Durkheim (2007) to Jeffrey Alexander (2006). Habermasian critical theorizing has also highlighted the value of what third places offer for a society that is gradually losing to systemic structural influences. Third places become harbors of ideally free socialization that create mutual understanding in the lifeworld (Habermas, 2007; 1989;

1981). The scholarly concern for society’s third places is ultimately conjoined with the broader outlook on the suspected atomization of those members that make up such a society.

Although only a variable in the complex social milieu characterizing a decrease in the value of the corner bar or local coffee shop—and subsequently the decrease in social engagement encouraged there—a relatively large portion of the concern briefly noted above is contributed to the rise and advancement of mass communication, and more recently, mobile communication technology. Oldenburg (1989) cites the growing number of television-occupied households as one indicator of lower attendance to traditional third places, and in less than a decade, well-known theorist Robert Putnam (1995a; 1995b;

2000) supplied empirical evidence that television use was tied to decreasing amounts of social capital. Both Putnam and Oldenburg did not lay complete blame on media and media technology for these identified transitions in societal connectedness, and certainly there were others to dispute such claims (Norris, 2001). However, they drew strong

5 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 attention to a rather popular and rapidly proliferating means of information and entertainment consumption—attention that within the past decade has more specifically focused to a large degree on the exponentially advancing mobile computing and communication technology industry, the Internet, and its consumers.

Although research in this area continues to identify the diminishment of face-to- face social engagement, others are more optimistic about the role the Internet and mobile communication technology plays in conjunction with more physical, in-person forms of interaction. Although much of what can be considered third place research has referred to physically and geographically bound establishments (Della Cava, 2006; Harris, 2007;

Kleinman, 2006), a growing body of relevant and more recent literature uses the Internet as a launching pad for assessment, particularly in detailing the comparability of online platforms and “virtual third places” (Soukup, 2006) to their “real world” relatives. In support of such research is the emergence of theoretical analyses of recent world events that determine the perceived gap between the “real” and “virtual” to be less visible than once thought. Particularly, Jurgenson (2012) asserts a perspective of augmented reality, where “atoms meet bits” (p. 83) and the dualistic view that separates the physical and digital world is characterized as a misrepresentation of existence. According to

Jurgenson, this new perspective is more appropriate given how members of a society shape and are shaped by participation in social media and other mobile communication outlets. Additionally, pervasive computing (Rheingold, 2002) and mobile interface theory

(Farman, 2012) phenomenologically outline society’s relationship with mobile electronic technology, particularly through an embodied practice of electronic or digital space for social reasons. Both augmented reality (Jurgenson, 2012) and mobile interface theory

6 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

(Farman, 2012) agree that a more useful lens through which to assess the use of mobile electronic communication is a blending of the two realities expressed under what

Jurgenson (2012) refers to as “digital dualism.”

Given the consumption of mobile electronic technology and its subsequent use, current attention given to mobile communication and Internet socialization should come as no surprise. According to a Pew Internet & American Life Project study (Smith,

2011a), 83% of U.S. adults own a cell phone of some type, of which 42% are classified as smart phones. The study also concluded that 25% of smart phone users employ their device as their primary means to access the Internet. An earlier study from the same project (Smith, 2011a) shows that as of May 2010, 79% of U.S. adults 18 years and older are online, while 93% of teens ages 12 to 17 are online as of September 2009.

Worldwide, Internet penetration has reached on average of nearly 33%, indicating an approximate 2.3 billion of the world’s nearly 7 billion inhabitants are online (Internet

World Stats, 2012). As has been noted for some time, these numbers indicate the saliency of scholarly interest in the Internet, those technologies consumers use to access the World

Wide Web and interact with one another virtually, and what this particular access and interaction means to society in general. Ongoing research focuses on younger Internet and mobile device users, a group known as millennials (Anderson, 2012) or “digital natives” (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008), the user group in which this particular research is interested.

A Democratic Imperative

Since the middle of the last century, there has been much concern over the evident increase in individualism in Western society—particularly in the United States—and how

7 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 that influences the mobilization of both people and information among its citizens. Third place research (Oldenburg, 1989) is akin to both communication and sociological inquiry in this area, and although it has not held a prominent place in such investigations, the type of social atmospheres that compose society’s third places are considered to be diminishing. However, up until the turn of the century, much of this research fails to account for the proliferation of the Internet as a tool to maintain connections between individuals and groups, and to some degree, it has perceived the coming of electronic communication technologies like the Internet as a threat to social solidarity (Neuman,

Bimber, & Hindman, 2011).

Theoretically and empirically, third place environments are understood as vital outlets for connection and the building and maintaining of social capital (Oldenburg,

1989; Putnam, 2000). However, little research to date investigates the third place nature of online spaces for social connection. Although Putnam and Feldstein (2003)—and others—depict the online community as a prospect for restoring lost social capital and community participation, little research focuses on the significance of online informal socialization—a key characteristic of offline, traditional third places—and the role it plays in informing day-to-day and more significant life activities.

The following sections develop a theoretical and analytical outline of the literature associated with third place and the conjunction of online and offline social environments, as well as those technological tools that make such a conjunction possible.

In addition, the literature seeks to establish a connection between informal socialization—depicted as either on or offline in previous research—and the foundations for building and maintaining healthy levels of social capital and a society regarded as

8 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 particularly independent yet ideally apt for civic mindedness (de Tocqueville,

1835/1840). In addition, a mixed methods methodological approach will be proposed following the literature. This methodology will include traditional ethnographic and netnographic (Kozinets, 2010) qualitative approaches to determining the comparability of the mainstream social media environment Facebook and traditional third places. Survey methodology will also be used to analyze the perception of social media as a third place and its impact on social capital and civic and political behaviors.

9 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Chapter 2

LITERATURE

Society’s connectedness has continually interested macro and meso-level theorists, and that interest has allowed for the distinction between certain institutions that encourage individuals of a community to come together (Ritzer, 2011; Johnson, 2008).

Such social environments include a broad and varied range of public places, retail and leisure outlets, civic and political organizations, and so on. The shared characteristic between all such institutions is that they foster a physical environment for both similar and dissimilar people to interact, work together, or at the very least, get to know who makes up their community.

As will be noted later, significant portions of the sociological literature focused on community and citizenship herald such physical environments as vital to the formation of an engaged and interactive society. They also point out that such establishments are waning in value to the individual, particularly in Western society and the United States.

The current study seeks to assess the emergence and increasingly available online social network site platform (boyd & Ellison, 2007) as a comparable alternative to the perceived diminishment of offline establishments that provide opportunity for people to build relationships with others. Specifically, the current research explores the similarities between Facebook and what has traditionally been known as “third places” (Oldenburg,

1989). The following literature review also explores how use of such online social applications theoretically plays a role in how we live out our daily lives sans the Internet, blurring the lines between what is digital and what is not.

10 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

The Third Place

In his seminal volume on the subject, Great Good Places, Ray Oldenburg (1989) identifies the third place as the ideal, and at times necessary, establishment for informal socialization. Oldenburg’s thesis summarizes the third place as contextually and socially different from an individual’s first and second places: home and work. Third places are establishments in which one can unwind and not feel as obligated to the pressures within the wall of the first and second places. According to Oldenburg, third places typically include such social contexts as traditional bars and taverns, coffee shops, salons, and cafes. Culturally, third places are noted in scholarship as proprietary to Western societies, and Oldenburg highlights several ideal examples of third places in case studies compiled from areas of the United States and Western Europe.

Oldenburg’s (1989) analysis of third places resulted in a synopsis of eight key conceptual characteristics that compose these social contexts. Third places are highlighted as socially neutral, status levelers, characterized by conversation, accessible and accommodating, well attended by a group of regulars, physically identified as low profile, playful, and perceived as a home away from home for it patrons. The following outlines each of the characteristics in more detail.

First, the third place is considered neutral ground for those who enter. Particularly in more densely populated areas (Jacobs, 1961), the third place provides an environment where anyone may enter and leave without consequence from others. Without any undue social pressure on attendees, Oldenburg (1989) also claims this neutrality as “important to the unity of neighborhoods, cities, and societies” (p. 23). Consequently, neighborhood social ties are threatened by negative environmental characteristics, such as violence,

11 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 over-crowding, and high levels of noise (Kuo, Sullivan, Coley, & Brunson, 1998), all issues Oldenburg (1989) similarly highlights. However, Kuo, Sullivan, Coley and

Brunson (1998) find evidence that developing informal social relationships mitigates the presence of negative environmental facets. Oldenburg (1989) states that third places bolster against those facets by simply offering a place where individuals can go that is devoid of detractors of informal socialization among similar and unfamiliar people.

Secondly, according to Oldenburg (1989), a social hierarchy that exists outside the third place is nonexistent among its patrons, making it a social leveler. Ideally, third places are purely democratic and inclusive, where “the charm and flavor of one’s personality, irrespective of his or her station in life, is what counts” (p. 24). Such a characteristic invites coworkers to enjoy another side of their colleagues, the less accomplished to feel integrated with others in society, and for personal problems to be checked at the door for the time being.

Third, conversation is the central characteristic around which the third place pivots. According to Oldenburg (1989), this is the primary reason for the existence of third places the world over, and conversation is simply better within their walls.

Conversation relates well with the leveler characteristic of the third place, and it is “more spirited than elsewhere, less inhibited and more eagerly pursued” (Oldenburg, 1989, p.

29). Oldenburg is also quick to point out that conversation is threatened by the occasional bore and in America, the potentially loud music streaming from house speakers or live performance. At the same time, though, conversation is encouraged through games such as dominoes, cards, or billiards. Even electronic arcades housed in physical spaces have been identified as third place environments for younger generations (Williams, 2006a),

12 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 even though Oldenburg’s (1989) critical approach assumes such places as dissimilar to those he touts. Fourth, third places are accessible and accommodating to a variety of individuals, both geographically and across individual differences. Third places serve the community best when they are physically close to people and are prepared to meet the needs of individuals who wish to exit other environments with dissimilar social expectations. In a sense, by meeting these social supportive, consumptive, and emotional needs, the third place ultimately becomes meaningful to the attendee. However,

Oldenburg identifies the suburbanization of U.S. society and various laws in Europe as detrimental to third place fulfillment of this characteristic. In the same vein, the geographical distancing from traditional third places and lack of urban activity that has come as a result of moving away from city centers encourages what Relph (2013) refers to as placelessness: a significant move away from the personal attachment individuals have toward specific places, including social environments. In regaining this attachment,

Relph states that man’s sense of place is renewed, a value that has significance among

Oldenburg’s (1989) conceptualization of traditional third places.

As a fifth characteristic, third places feature a regular group of patrons. These loyal attendees are the heart of the social environment, they set the tone, and they also welcome and allow others to become what is considered to be a “regular.” If there exists a pecking order in the third place, it revolves around these individuals that make a

“home” out of the establishment. However, Oldenburg (1989) states that through regular attendance and exhibiting to existing regulars that one is a decent person, even the “lone stranger” (p. 35) can be admitted into this group. Sixth, third place establishments also maintain relatively low profiles in appearance. Pretension through appearance is minimal

13 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 at best in the ideal third place. Plain exterior and interior construction also wards away those that would potentially destroy a third place atmosphere. It also distinguishes it from other shinier establishments located in heavily trafficked areas for the sole purpose of maximizing profits instead of social interaction (Oldenburg, 1997). Such cathedrals of consumption (Ritzer, 2005) may be branded and marketed in a way that they seem like the neighborhood pub or the corner coffee shop, but according to Oldenburg (1989), they lack the warmth and authenticity that smaller, more under-the-radar establishments offer their patronage. McGovern’s (2002) analysis of how Irish culture is reified and commodified in popular Irish-themed bars in the United Kingdom showcases how cultural signs and symbols can be used to replicate a physical place and generate attendance and subsequent income, but not necessarily the authentic nature of and the same type of discourse in actual Irish community establishments. Oldenburg’s (1989) third place, on the other hand, without its needs for fanfare and thematic marketing,

“parallels the low profile they have in the minds of those who frequent them” (p. 37)— those for whom the third place is simply a social event for every day life. It need not be anything more.

The third place provides a playful atmosphere. Just as vital as conversation, a playful mood bars depression and exclusivity from the third place. Oldenburg (1989) claims wit and laughter are far more common in third places than serious conversations, and the playful personality is an attractive—even seductive—quality of the social environment. It is what urges attendees to return time and time again. Cheang’s (2002) ethnographic observations of senior citizens’ frequent and regular attendance to a specific fast-food restaurant suggests that loyalty to such a group and place is facilitated by the

14 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 meaningful fun each member has in interacting with others. In research about third place attendance, the typical attendee is past middle age since the saliency of such places is assumed to be higher among older generations (Cheang, 2002; Oldenburg, 1989, 1997).

However, one value Oldenburg (1989; 1997) points out about third places is the ability to create socially educational and fun relationships between generations—a value in decline since suburbanization increased, zoning policies emerged banning the construction of such places near suburban areas, and the emergent popularity of myriad electronic media technologies.

Finally, the third place serves as a home away from home. Unrelated to the family, third places offer the warmth and congenial feelings of home in an environment that according to Oldenburg (1989) is often competing with an individual’s actual home.

Ideal third places establish in their patrons a sense of ownership, and they become a recharging station for those that enter its doors.

According to Oldenburg (1989), not all of these characteristics are necessarily required of each third place. However, they provide personal benefit to attendees and patrons, as well as facilitation of conversation and activity that involves political engagement, the creation of mutual relationships, and maintaining a degree of social order and civility. To the individual, third places offer individuals a social novelty to anticipate attending and in which to participate, and the resulting interaction with others provides a perspective on society that is not informed completely by the media or those with which one only has specialized contact, such as coworkers. Cynicism is squelched through the formation of trusting relationships, and in this sense, third places become an individual’s “spiritual tonic” (Oldenburg, 1989, p. 55) that allows him or her to positively

15 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 face the rest of the world. Rosenbaum (2006) concurs in that third places offer to the individual a way to not only meet consumptive needs, but also emotional, supportive needs, particularly for those individuals that lack such support in other places where more intimate relationships are normatively expected, such as the home. In providing an actual point of contact where it is appropriate to meet and informally socialize with friends, relationships and friendships created and sustained at a third place play a key role in an individual’s life, serving as the affiliations that complement or even supplement more close relationships that exist outside the third place (Oldenburg, 1989; Rosenbaum, Ward,

Walker, & Ostrom, 2007). Through these affiliations, one is also exposed to less homogenous personalities, tastes, and experiences than what intimate relationships offer.

On the societal level, Oldenburg (1989) identifies several roles the third place plays in regard to maintaining democracy and a civil atmosphere. First, third places are inviting arenas for political deliberation, running “counter to the type of political control exercised in totalitarian societies” (p. 67), making them “essential to the political processes of a democracy” (p. 67). Whereas American society can afford to take such a characteristic for granted due to a great deal of social freedom, this has not always been the case. In the past, third place environments such as taverns and bars were ripe for discussion of historic oppression and facilitating action (Markoff, 1999; Habermas,

1992). Eley (1992) even highlights Habermas’s theoretical valuing of cultural arts and those places conducive to performance as significant venues of a civil society where one is freed of political and, to some degree, commercial pressure to freely express opinion and sustain rational discourse. To this day, the local bar might be more engaging in the political discussion of what is happening on Capitol Hill than mass mediated

16 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 presentations. The grass-roots structure Western society, particularly the United States, is known for was once a vital part of what third places offered before the emergence of electronic communications technology. Oldenburg makes an argument for the revitalization of such places for just this purpose. Second, coinciding with Habermas’s

(1992) perspectives of similar places in the nineteenth century, Oldenburg (1989) claims third places are premier public environments where our right to free assembly and open discourse is actualized. Specifically, the third place goes beyond formal organization in that it establishes a habit of association upon which what can be identified as connectedness and social capital (Putnam, 2000) can be built and maintained. Third, these environments are traditionally known as “forces for good” (Oldenburg, 1989, p. 75) prior to the emergence of a mass society and mass media. Oldenburg nostalgically highlights the third place as a gathering place for community, a facet of society that is more and more influenced by the depictions of life through a television set rather than actually lived. The third place, in essence, serves up genuine social discourse where respect and deference are just as much a part of the atmosphere as human decency.

Fourth, third places provide an outlet for society to have fun with managed control that doesn’t let said fun overflow or get out of hand. They play a vital role in the lives of individuals that are perpetually individualizing and put under more and more pressure as members of both family and industry. The local bar or tavern provides a place for “letting the steam out” while also ensuring that it is kept within its walls. Frumkin (2003) agrees that allowing such activity to occur stands to affect public health, both physiologically and psychologically, and beckons for more empirical exploration of how public places such as bars and cafes play a role in community wellness. Likewise, Fitzpatrick and

17 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

LaGory (2000) state that having a sense of how to socially perform in specific environments is a result of a number of normative factors that not only affects behavior but well being. In this way, having an outlet for fun that would come at the expense of any other environment is a way to maintain civility and social health amongst a community. Lastly, Oldenburg (1989) touts third places as “outposts on the public domain” (p. 83), noting their important role as monitors of public activity and for establishing a sense of the public norm within close proximity. In part, third places encourage social responsibility for those that attend, and they aid in the “control of street life” (p. 83).

Oldenburg’s (1989) historical analysis of third places provides a brief overview of the theoretical contributions to both micro- and macro-level sociological activity, particularly in regards to how the third place meets the needs of the individual and fosters certain key aspects of a civil society. Individually, third places act as a context where relationships among attendees form and can be sustained at whatever level of connection established. Oldenburg emphasizes that third places meet individual socioemotional needs:

“There is a great difference between intimacy and affiliation, and there is

no substituting one for the other. We need both. Lacking intimacy,

affiliation becomes little more than a means of dulling the sense of

emptiness in our lives. Lacking affiliation, intimacy becomes

overburdened even as it risks the dullness of restricted human contact”

(Oldenburg, 1989, p. 63).

18 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

To a degree, Oldenburg also relates these individual-level ties as facets of society that individuals come to identify with as regular attendees of third places.

Similarly, the identification and engagement with such a place is also symbolic, particularly when individuals symbolically acknowledge ownership of their regular dives, cafes, or other favorite hangouts.

On a larger scale, third places provide the contextual support for the mechanisms that hold larger political systems together, specifically in regard to democratic governmental structures (Oldenburg, 1989; Putnam, 2000; Putnam, Fieldstein, & Cohen,

2003; Putnam & Campbell, 2010; Habermas, 1989; deTocqueville, 1835/1840).

Oldenburg (1989) emphasizes the significance the third place has traditionally held in the

United States democratic system as a community-level contributor to the perpetuation of those ideals salient to such political philosophies and processes. The third place offers a relatively supportive environment for civil debate that differs from other deliberative atmospheres. In doing so, it reinforces those democratic values the United States society sees as imperative to the country, as well as others that place significance on similar societal-level interactions. Oldenburg stresses that their presence bolsters the social activities that take place in and around a community, such as political and civic engagement, growing mutual relationships, and increasing the level of civility among a community’s members. In this sense, third places are a significant part of what has been otherwise noted as a civil society. Through meso-level activity involving community building and development of relationships, the larger political and social structure is maintained, or perhaps in some theoretical cases where it is powerfully oppressive, it is weakened. Habermas (2007) notes that among other antecedent structures such as

19 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 voluntary organizations and the press, democracy is the result of the rise of public places in which individuals in the “lifeworld” can ideally conduct communicative action without resistance or manipulative pressure from the “system”, an overbearing, colonizing component of modern society that he criticizes for disallowing such free engagement in social and civil-minded relationships and the development of mutual understanding among individuals. To Habermas, Oldenburg’s (1989) third places are environments where the lifeworld develops cultural clarity and maintains solidarity. The manipulative pressures of the system can be compared to those institutional developments that

Oldenburg points out detrimental to such public spaces—suburbanization, aggressive capitalistic behavior, changing gender and generation roles in society, rising costs associated with leisure activities, the media, and electronic technology. The critical attitude of Oldenburg’s perspective on those drastic changes in society that he claims rob it of social cohesion and togetherness can be summarized by the last line of The Great

Good Place: “It doesn’t have to be like this!” (Oldenburg, 1989, p. 296, italics in original).

The Third Place and Electronic Media

Research and popular press have shown a variety of physical institutions that can be considered third places in contemporary U.S. society, such as church (Swagerty,

2008), cafes (della Cava, 2006; Kleinman, 2006), coffee shops (Hampton & Gupta, 2008;

Rice, 2009), and a variety of other locations considered suitable for informal socialization, such as taverns, bars, urban centers, workout facilities, and even fast food restaurants (Jeffres, Bracken, Jian, & Casey, 2009). However, like Oldenburg (1989),

20 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 much of this research reinforces the concern over what contemporary society has done to devalue the third place.

Particularly germane to this research is the line of inquiry that investigates the relatively recent presence of mobile computing and electronic communication technologies inside the traditional third place. In a cross cultural comparison of mobile

Internet technology use and café culture between France and the United States, Kleinman

(2006) observed several traditional French environments based on face-to-face conversation and socialization in and around Parisian sidewalk cafes, and a coffee shop culture in the United States that strongly embraced the use of mobile technology and

Internet access. Out of the nine cafes observed in Paris, Kleinman observed only two people using laptops, while more than half of the people observed in three U.S. coffee shops used laptops and the majority of individuals observed used cell phones. Ultimately,

Kleinman, like others, voices her concern that “dialogical devices such as cell phones and laptops are significantly altering the communication landscapes and soundscapes of many cafes in the U.S.” (p. 208). Those taking advantage of the accessibility that new mobile technology offers individuals are losing the more primal ability to communicate in person, an activity of which traditional third places, such as French cafes and U.S. coffee shops, are historically noted to encourage and harbor.

Sanusi and Palen (2008) further delve into the transformative effects that growing mobile technology use and access create in public areas that are built on the premise of social gathering and exchange. They state that Internet availability offered in third places often sets up confusing feelings of ownership of Internet access and patronage as part of the process that grants that access in these environments. The authors argue that offering

21 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Wi-Fi access is a significant draw for business and for bettering the self-image of the community. However, with the supposed improvements for patrons come barriers to social engagement with individuals that do not realize or act accordingly with the place- based normative constraints rooted in a third place environment. The observed result is that individuals occupying such physical places transform their surroundings by accessing and engaging others, via mobile Internet capabilities, in a different social space altogether. In some cases, the authors state, this forces proprietors to disable Internet access—whether it was free or not—on some days to regain the social atmosphere inhabiting their establishments.

Hampton and Gupta (2008) argue that wireless Internet access in public places such as coffee shops and adjacent sidewalks establish a sense of secure individualism for some users, referring to the idea as “public privatism” (p. 835). In observing different types of Internet users at Boston and Seattle-area coffee shops, the authors characterized users into to two groups: true mobiles, those focused on work activities that necessitated

Internet access but not a traditional office; and placemakers, regular individuals whose sole purpose in visiting a third place establishment is to “hang out” and simply use their laptops and Internet access for entrée into the social space of the physical structure they occupy. The authors also point out that the majority of third place attendees, whether true mobiles or not, had very little overt interaction with other patrons or employees beyond what Goffman (1963) describes as simple civil inattention. Many used their laptops and other mobile technologies as shields against such socialization. Hampton and Gupta

(2008) conclude that even though the third place establishment exists as a beacon of community, it is not necessarily the tool that creates such a facet of society. Rather, it is

22 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

“the structure of supportive relations that exists between individuals” (Hampton & Gupta,

2008, p. 845) that fosters a sense of community, particularly within third place establishments that are undergoing place-based normative transformations. They go on to state that an environment in which public privatism pervades influences the identity and continuous activity in and around its established boundaries.

The Virtual Third Place

Due to the rapid emergence of the Internet as a communications platform and increased research revolving around its social, political, cultural, and economical viability—particularly in Western society and other more “developed” areas of the world—attention has been turned toward identifying its comparability to Oldenburg’s

(1989) third places. Ever since the Internet was made available on a more grand scale to publics that could afford and access it, metaphorical comparisons have been made of its role in building community and serving a significant social role in the lives of its users

(Kendall, 2002; Schuler, 1996).

Soukup’s (2006) direct comparison between Oldenburg’s (1989) ideal, non- virtual social institutions and the online world thoroughly analyzes the viability of what he appropriately names “virtual third places.” Drawing upon theoretical literature that reaches back to the mid-1990s when the Internet was emerging as a mainstream mode of communication, Soukup (2006) points out that computer-mediated communities of varying forms are similar to traditional, non-virtual third places. He states that they foster and encourage conversation, exist on neutral “ground,” provide an individual a way to feel at home, and involve participation from regular attendees or members—members who like those in traditional third places maintain the culture of the virtual community.

23 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

At the same time, though, Soukup (2006) identifies three characteristics of traditional third places outlined above that are difficult to achieve online. The primary argument against the viability of virtual third places is the simple fact that there is no physical form and guaranteed local community in which the third place physically exists.

Secondly, Soukup argues that computer-mediated communities breed exclusivity around varying interests and therefore do not provide social leveling. Finally, the author notes that access to online communities is limited to only those that can both afford the access and have the technical aptitude and interest to participate in such virtual environments.

In outlining the differences between traditional third places and online communities, Soukup (2006) also identifies some of the major flaws with the original theoretical characteristics, He draws upon Castell’s (2000) networked society thesis in stating virtual third places are indeed characteristically different in some areas from their traditional counterparts, particularly in their break from locality and the significance non- local community has in a digitally connected social structure. Specifically, Soukup

(2006) notes that virtual third places create a new symbolic environment for socialization to occur. He claims that being “virtual” refers to both the necessity for communication to take place digitally and a necessary detachment from a physical, local community.

However, this detachment is only physical in nature. He notes that in order for virtual third places to be viable, individuals must be able to gather or socialize around an identifiable cultural milieu—a symbolic construction of a place online—such as a gaming environment or a themed chat room. He states that through social discourse in an online environment, mutual understandings and definitions of place will be constructed to satisfy, to a degree, a sense of physical interaction. In addition to localization through

24 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 culturally shared meaning and interests, Soukup suggests that in lieu of accessibility, virtual third places must offer opportunities for participation in a diverse online community. He also suggests that entrée and subsequent participation must be constructed by currently participating members of such third places, regardless of the status of electronic access one has in the physical world. Finally, virtual third places must strive to create an online cultural sense of being in a “place.” The author points out that

“the ultimate goal is not a complex multimedia experience, but social connectedness

(social capital)” (p. 435). Theoretically, virtual third places should “fit into the participants ‘mundane’ and ‘ordinary’ lived experiences…a place that is integrated seamlessly into the existing textures and details of our lived communal experiences” (p.

438).

At the same time Soukup (2006) examines the theoretical congruency between traditional third places and virtual communities and social activity, Steinkuehler and

Williams (2006) conducted a mixed-methods study investigating the potential for online

“places,” specifically massively multiplayer online games (MMOs), to serve as virtual third places and social capital generators. Ethnographic observations determined that even though participation in MMOs initially begets what Putnam (2000) describes as bridging social capital—constituted of weak ties and beneficial for connecting a diverse group of individuals—it does not offer the critical socioemotional needs traditional third places are claimed to provide attendees (Oldenburg, 1989). Steinkuehler and Williams

(2006) claim indicators of bonding social capital—the type that strongly connects individuals—occurred as activity in the online games became more collectively strategic.

The authors conclude that MMO participation is largely absent of the emotional

25 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 necessities to recreate the type of relationships observed in non-virtual environments.

However, they do counter the time-displacement theory that many social capital theorists previously drew from to determine the detrimental effects of spending vital time consuming media versus socially engaging others face-to-face. Instead, they argue that

MMO participation can serve as a significant form of informal socialization, agreeing with Williams’ (2006c) claim that “game play is not a single, solitary interaction between an individual and a technology, contrary to worn-out stereotypes” (Steinkuehler &

Williams, 2006, p. 904).

Ducheneaut, Moore, and Nickell (2007) continued ethnographic research on

MMO gameplay and the platform’s viability as a virtual third place, reducing the structure of investigation from the interaction of individuals in the game overall to specific environments within the game’s architecture that were created solely for social engagement. Their more fine-grained analysis of cantinas in a single Star Wars MMO concluded that such in-game climates encourage and foster particular characteristics of traditional third places. Yet, even in virtual settings created to replicate traditional, albeit fictional, non-virtual third places, Oldenburg’s (1989) leveler function was more difficult to identify due to the inherently competitive nature of the game. However, their findings indicated that the players experienced interaction more closely related to that occurring in traditional third places due to the social architecture of the game’s public places.

Ducheneaut et al (2008) state the presence of virtual environments built around the idea of traditional third places encourage informal socialization. This counters those claims made about virtual physicality by Soukup (2006) and also reinforces the idea that those participating in a particular environment construct mutual understanding of a “place”

26 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 through social discourse, even if the environment is virtual. Ultimately, Ducheneaut et al

(2008) claim that virtual third places, in this case MMOs, can supplement non-virtual third places, particularly when you consider the young generation of users that dominate online gaming environments, a generation that the authors, as well as Oldenburg (1989), state are less familiar with the corner bar as opposed to the virtual spaces they are more likely to encounter.

Social Capital

Third places exist as community structures, providing the sinew between multiple aspects of both loosely and tightly constructed social networks of individuals. According to Oldenburg (1989), their significance in society is not unlike Putnam’s (2000) statements regarding social capital. The decline in saliency for third places is akin, characteristically, to the bleak outlook for social capital post-1950s, and many of the theoretical and empirically observed contributors to their diminishment are similar

(Oldenburg, 1989; Putnam, 2000, 1995a, 1995b). Through analysis of the existing literature, it can be inferred that the traditional third place environment is one appropriately suited for building, maintaining, and using social capital. In essence, it is a place where social capital ideally thrives.

Contemporary sociological-, political-, and communications-oriented interest in social capital research has expanded over the past decade, particularly since Putnam’s

(2000) seminal work, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.

In this, Putnam identifies the significance various communal properties hold within

American society. Specifically, the text defines social capital as those relational connections between varying individuals and groups in a society that revolve primarily

27 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 around trust, reciprocity, and civic engagement as means for which “our lives are made more productive by social ties” (Putnam, 2000, p. 19). Indicators of social capital, according to Putnam (2000), include trust and civic participation. Social trust, and “not trust in government or other social institutions” (Putnam, 2000, p. 137) is operationalized as the level of trust individuals have in others, and whether or not people believe individuals are considerate of others in society: “In short, people who trust others are all- round good citizens, and those more engaged in community life are both more trusting and more trustworthy” (p. 137). Research involving trust and social capital has expanded assessment to various levels of trust in other individuals and institutions, both before and after Putnam’s (2000) conceptualization of the dimension (Marquart-Pyatt and Petrzelka,

2008; Grimsley, Meehan, Green, & Stafford, 2003; Beaudoin and Thorson, 2004;

Fukuyama, 1995; Brehm and Rahn, 1997).

Putnam (2000) defines civic participation simply as community involvement.

When operationalized, this indicator accounts for participation in a wide range of activities and organizations, including educational groups such as the Parent Teacher

Association, recreational groups such as city-league softball, labor unions, religious organizations, homeowner’s associations, charity and philanthropic groups, and so on.

Participation in various volunteer and civic organizations brings individuals together in environments that facilitate relationship building, individual reciprocity, and subsequent tolerance of other group and non-group members (Bekkers, 2005; Maloney, van Deth, &

Roßteutscher, 2008; Iglic, 2010; Cigler & Joslyn, 2002).

While defining and drawing out the theoretical significance of social capital,

Putnam also provides empirical evidence of a continuous decline in social capital since

28 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 midway through the past half century. Within this broad theoretical framework, previous sociological investigation on societal connectedness is evident. Theorists such as Alexis deTocqueville (1835/1840), Emile Durkheim (1984; 2007), Georg Simmel (2007), Pierre

Bourdieu (1986) and James Coleman (1988; 1990), among others, carry influence in

Putnam’s (2000) statistical analysis of the state of the United States’ social ties and citizenship. In that analysis, Putnam advances sociological inquiry into the nuances of social relationships and their impact on crucial facets of democratic life.

Bonding and Bridging Social Capital

One key component of social capital, according to Putnam (2000), is the distinction between the two types of social capital present in society: bridging and bonding. Bridging forms of social capital are comprised of relationships between relatively diverse individuals and organizations, transcending relationships that reinforce exclusive identities characteristic of bonding social capital. Whereas Putnam describes bridging social capital as beneficial for the current development of positive social capital, he nevertheless appreciates aspects of a seemingly more restrictive counter form, stating,

“bonding social capital is good for undergirding specific reciprocity and mobilizing solidarity” (Putnam, 2000, p. 22).

Social capital scholars often describe bridging and bonding forms in the context of the degree to which they are heterogeneously or homogenously structured within an individual’s social network. Putnam (2000) analogizes bonding social capital as “a kind of superglue” (p. 23) that reinforces exclusive identities, such as families, fraternal organization membership, or being part of a denominational church. Likewise, he describes bridging social capital as a lubricant fortified by generalized trust and

29 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 reciprocal relationships, noticeable in volunteer organizations and nondenominational churches. Bridging social capital is also seen as similar to what Granovetter (1973) describes as weak ties—ties that provide useful, sometimes strategic, contact across a variety of individual differences.

Dark Side of Social Capital

Those interested in social capital have generated contentious findings in regard to bridging and bonding associational involvement. Several of these findings over the years have highlighted what Putnam (2000) refers to as the “dark side” of social capital. The value that building and maintaining community holds for democracy, according to

Putnam, also poses a threat that “restricts freedom and encourages intolerance” (Putnam,

2000, p. 351). Social networks composed of mostly bonding ties, such as fraternal organizations, groups with high admittance standards and requirements, and even gangs, beget less generalized trust for others outside a particular group (Thiess-Morse &

Hibbing, 2005) and negative perceptions of politics (García-Albacete, 2010). Inversely, group heterogeneity in organizations such as parent teacher associations and home owner associations can lead to conflict among its members due to the lack of strict guiding consensus (Mutz, 2006).

Although bridging forms of social capital are favorable in light of social connectedness, where trust and reciprocity positively correlate, Putnam (2000) also stresses that an individual’s social network that is made up of predominantly bridging, or weak, ties will perhaps lead to indifference. Inversely, he describes a social network comprised of only bonding, or strong, ties, as running the risk of facilitating intolerance toward outgroup members. Having high bridging or bonding social capital does not

30 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 necessarily equate to high social capital in general, according to Putnam, and both often highlight a society’s leaning toward either community-mindedness or individualism.

Media and Social Capital

In Bowling Alone and in related literature, Putnam (1995a; 1995b; 2000) identifies various indicators of social capital, including participation in civic matters, politics, and religious organizations; informal socialization and industry and workplace networking; volunteering and philanthropic participation; generational differences; suburbanization; and time and economic pressures. Although Putnam (2000) includes the third place as a major player in building social capital, he highlights statistics that note that over the two decades leading up to the turn of the century, “Americans are staying home in the evening, and Cheers has become a period piece” (Putnam, 2000, p. 101). Both Putnam

(2000) and Oldenburg (1989) blame the decline of their respective theoretical foci on very similar forces, most of which are listed above. An additional factor heavily considered in both the facilitation of and on some levels the decline of social capital is the emergence of the mass media and electronic communications technology. Whereas

Oldenburg (1989) is rather negative toward the media and technology that further individualizes and privatizes people—as previously discussed—Putnam (2000) and a host of both sociological and media-oriented scholars provide contending, if not inconclusive, perspectives on its effects and overall influence.

Research in this area has been characterized by the correlation between specific types of media use and various operationalizations of those social activities and attitudes that identify social capital, including political engagement, civic engagement, and civic and political participation. For instance, inquiry has found that newspaper readership is

31 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 positively associated with belonging to various community organizations (Beaudoin,

Thorson, & Hong, 2006); volunteering and working on community projects and for social causes (Shah, Cho, Eveland, & Kwak, 2005); participating as a member of a political party and voting (Wilkins, 2000; McLeod, Daily, Guo, Eveland, Bayer, Yang, & Wang

1996); and contacting public officials, circulating petitions, and fundraising (Scheufele,

Nisbet, Brossard, & Nisbet, 2004). Likewise, newspaper readership indirectly relates to political engagement through increased political knowledge (Moy & Gastil, 2006), leading to an increase in participation (McLeod, Scheufuele, & Moy, 1999), as well as interpersonal discussion of political issues (Chaffee & Mutz, 1988).

In regard to social capital—and its conceptual indicators—newspaper consumption is noted as a positive activity in which an individual may be involved.

Television, on the other hand, has received much more consideration, particularly since

Putnam’s (2000) critique of the medium. Stating that “Americans began cocooning in the

1970s” (Putnam, 2000, p. 239), Putnam positions his time displacement theory to explain some of the variance that has caused individuals in American society to participate and engage less with one another. Television in general began to take up more and more of an individual’s time as the technology developed—time that could otherwise be devoted to community and civic-minded activities, such as joining and maintaining membership in volunteer organizations, political activities such as voting and campaigning, and engaging in informal collective activities such as bowling leagues (hence the title of Putnam’s seminal work). According to Putnam (2000), television consumption also decreases civic engagement as a result of impeding psychological effects and content adverse to civic engagement that “encourage[d] lethargy and passivity” (p. 239).

32 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Other social capital researchers, however, have not held such demonizing views of television consumption. Norris (2000) specifically counters Putnam’s (2000) assumption, stating that it is more appropriate to consider the specific type of television content being consumed in relationship to social capital. Specifically, Norris (2000) points out that per the individual, consuming more news-oriented content is positively related to political knowledge, trust, and civic engagement. Similarly, televised hard news consumption is directly associated with political participation (Wilkins, 2000;

Scheufele, Nisbet, Brossard, & Nisbet, 2004). Indirectly, Scheufele, Nisbet, Brossard, and Nisbet (2004) found that television hard news consumption is related to engagement through increased political knowledge, and Shah, Cho, Eveland, and Kwak (2005) found it leads to interpersonal discussion resulting in civic participation. On the other hand, situation comedies, dramas and televised talk shows were found to mitigate civic participation (Keum, Devanathan, Deshpande, Nelson, & Shah, 2004; Shah, McLeod, &

Yoon, 2001).

Social Capital and the Internet

More so than other media formats, the Internet draws academic interest from social capital researchers due not only to its efficiency as a mode of conveying and consuming information, but as a relatively open space for interpersonal communication and social interaction (Neuman, Bimber, & Hindman, 2011; Goode, 2005). In review of the literature, scholarly inquiry on the Internet is divided in accordance to these roles as well.

Despite his critique of television, Putnam (2000) remained more open and positive about the emergence of the Internet as a major facet of social life. Although wary

33 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 of suggesting the Internet as a cure-all for society, he does emphasize that the “timing of the Internet explosion means that it cannot possibly be causally linked to the crumbling of social connectedness…voting, giving, trusting, meeting, visiting, and so on had all begun to decline while Bill Gates was still in grade school” (Putnam, 2000, p. 170). Putnam lauds the Internet’s ability to traverse great physical distances and varieties of people with information, as well as its ability to encourage bridging ties among individuals based on interests rather than on physical space. He, along with others, consider the

“virtual community” to be more equal than offline communities, subsequently encouraging more frank and honest deliberation of salient issues. However, Putnam did propose four areas of concern that the Internet exhibits: the digital divide’s (Norris, 2001) suppression of individuals’ abilities to access the Internet as a result of growing gaps in education, socioeconomic status, race, and family structure; the Internet’s inability (at the time) to convey the physical nuances of face-to-face communication; individuals’ tendencies toward cyberbalkanization (VanAlstyne & Brynjolffson, 2005); and the unknown potential for the Internet to serve as either “a means of active, social communication or a means of passive, private entertainment” (Putnam, 2000, p. 179).

Indeed, research has suggested that the Internet is a viable forum for the development of exclusive communities revolving around niche interests, some of which exhibit high levels of out-group antagonism, a result of high bonding social capital and low levels of tolerance—both of which are constituents of social capital’s darker side (Preece, 1999;

Stolle, 1998; Mandelli, 2002).

More than a decade after Putnam’s (2000) statements, research has endeavored to identify just how the Internet has impacted social capital. As technology advances, access

34 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 to the Internet increases, and information distribution formats change online, the definite answer to this question often seems just as distant as it did at the turn of the century

(Althaus & Tewksbury, 2000). Neuman, Bimber, and Hindman (2011) still note that changes in citizenship that revolve around participation, deliberation, knowledge and mobilization—particularly in the United States—are “numerous, subtle, conditional, and still evolving” (p. 37). The authors also state in their analysis of the literature pertaining to the Internet and the civil sphere that the platform has not met more positive Internet- determinist expectations of revolutionizing political and civic activism in the United

States. They remark that it is more likely that online politics have attracted the attention of the already politically motivated, underlining Norris’s (2001) “virtuous circle” hypothesis. This notion is echoed by Xenos and Moy’s (2007) analysis of 2004 National

Election Study data, in which they found political and civic participation was more likely to coincide with Internet users already more engaged and politically interested.

At the same time, though, inquiry influenced by previous media and social capital research has parsed the Internet’s effects out by type of use, and the results look similar to studies conducted concerning the effects of television. Shortly after Bowling Alone,

Shah, Kwak, and Holbert (2001) identified a positive relationship between social capital and using the Internet for information purposes. Similar results have been found for information acquisition and community building, such as reading online news and political blogs and participating in virtual communities (Shah, Schmierbach, Hawkins,

Espino, & Donavan, 2002; Wellman, Haase, Witte, & Hampton, 2001). Inversely, decreased social capital was found to relate to using the Internet for socio-recreational purposes, such as playing games and streaming online movies. However, gaming

35 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 environments that require networked individuals to cooperate together in order to achieve a significant goal has shown to harbor social capital, and in some cases the more elusive bonding variety (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006) In a community survey assessing the

Internet’s relationship to civic engagement, Moy, Manosevitch, Stamm, and Dunsmore

(2005) identified seven dimensions of Internet use: information, email, household activities, political participation, consumer/shopping, social networking, and community activism. The authors found that the Internet was used primarily as an information source, as a mode of communicating with family, and for material consumption. They also noted that using the Internet for information, email, and community purposes coincided with community involvement, political activity, and membership in formal organizations.

Much of the research since the early 2000s has concentrated on the prevalence and pervasiveness of the Internet in our daily lives. In 2002, Shah, Schmierbach,

Hawkins, Espino, and Donovan noted, “time spent on the Internet contributes to increased levels of [civic] participation, but civic participation is not a significant predictor of time spent online” (p. 975). However, six years later, Ho and McLeod (2008) show through experimental investigation that individuals are more likely to express opinions in an online chat-room environment than during face-to-face discussions. This coincides with others’ remarks that an online civil and political society is growing

(Mossberger Tolbert, & McNeal, 2008). These scholars and others solidified the attraction for social capital researchers to the Internet.

How, then, does the online society grow? Like Putnam’s (2000) earlier statements, the Internet facilitates the expansion of bridging social capital ties,

36 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 particularly for those that already exhibit bridging characteristics and use the Internet more frequently (Kavanaugh, Reese, Carroll, & Rosson, 2005). Best and Krueger (2006) conducted a survey analysis of the time individuals spent online with previously known and unknown others and its association with indicators of social capital, including generalized trust, reciprocity, and integrity. They concluded that even though interaction with others online does not promote strong, loyalty-based relationships, it does encourage and facilitate network expansion and generalized trust. The Internet, in this case, is being used to make new connections. Similarly, Vergeer and Pelzer (2009) indicate through a phone survey in The Netherlands that online network capital often supplements its offline counterpart, and using the Internet for entertainment and informational purposes correlates with increased online socializing. Like Best and Krueger (2006), though,

Vergeer and Pelzer (2009) did not find benefits of online capital for socioemotional needs, such as social support and coping with loneliness.

In conjunction with findings related to the type of social capital identified in an online environment, more nuanced assessment of informational uses of the Internet have highlighted their influence on social practices recognized as valuable to the practice of democracy, such as issue deliberation, participation in the electoral process, and other forms of organizing and participating. As opposed to previous media formats, the Internet allows information consumption at the same time it offers the opportunity to interact with other similar or dissimilar users and media consumers (Putnam, 2000). It also makes available non-traditional sources of information, such as blogs and discussion forums, which compete for attention against large media sources online. In a secondary analysis of data from the Pew Internet & American Life Project, Gil de Zuniga, Puig-i-Abril, and

37 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Rojas (2009) assessed the influence of both consuming traditional sources of media online and reading blogs on an individual’s online and offline political discussion, campaigning, and participation. Their findings indicated that consuming information from both types of sources increased the likelihood of discussing politics online and participating in online political campaigning among other types of participation.

However, they only found seeking information from traditional news sources online transfer to offline participation, indicating that blog use complements traditional media online.

In a survey of chatroom and message board participants, Wojcieszak and Mutz

(2009) assessed the viability of political discussion and deliberation in various online forums, including professional sites, fan forums, hobby-oriented message boards, political- and civic-oriented sites, and religious sites. The authors found that political deliberation over cross-cutting views was more likely to emerge in forums that were not originally purposed for political discussion or information distribution. Conversely, the potential for deliberation occurred in online groups centered on hobbies, shared interests

(outside of politics), and leisure activities. Only ten percent of the political group discourse analyzed was found to include deliberation of cross-cutting political views, indicating that such groups are more homogenous in social makeup than the much larger- attended and diverse hobby groups.

Social Network Sites and Social Capital

Despite the relatively low amount of research regarding social capital and social media, recent popularity of social media sites, or social network(ing) sites, has indeed invigorated scholarly inquiry about the significance of such online platforms in society

38 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

(boyd & Ellison, 2008). This interest follows, and at times falls in line with, previous inquiry about the emergence and makeup of online communities (Blanchard & Horan,

1998). Whereas online and virtual communities have been defined as collective online gatherings between those who share interests (Blanchard & Horan, 1998) and knowledge and goals (Lee & Lee, 2010), boyd and Ellison (2008) conceptualize social network sites as:

“[W]eb-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or

semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other

users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their

list of connections and those made by others within the system” (p. 211).

In their accounting of the history of such platforms, boyd and Ellison determine the uniqueness of social network sites, compared to other online interaction platforms, to reside in the fact that a user is able to make viewing his or her social network available to another member, or in some early cases, to the online public. This allows the relatively easy expansion of one’s network of “friends.” Most social network sites provide a way to interact noticeably with other members, and in most cases, they also provide an email- like messaging service for more private exchanges. Since the late 1990s, several different and functionally different social network sites have emerged, those of note including Six

Degrees.com, LiveJournal, BlackPlanet, Friendster, MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter.

Although many have originated in the United States, several have become more prominent in other continents, including South America and Asia. The prominence of social network sites into the 2000s, according to boyd and Ellison, also influenced the

39 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 introduction of social tools in other popular websites, such as Flickr, a photo-sharing site, and the Internet radio site, Last.fm.

As Hargittai (2007) points out, many social network sites originated to facilitate interaction among relatively niche groups, but as networks expand, they become less homogenous. boyd and Ellison (2008) highlight Facebook as a prime example of this exponential growth, noting that although it started out as a social network site exclusive to Harvard University students, it soon provided access to students and faculty members at other universities, eventually opening up to the general public. At the time of this writing, Facebook is host to approximately one billion users (Associated Press, 2013). In regard to actual use, Wasserman (2012) states that 526 million Facebook account holders access the platform daily, 3.2 billion comments and 300 million photos are received each day, and as a whole, Facebook touts 125 billion friendships. The average user is also connected to 80 community pages, groups and events (Burbary, 2011). Not only do these statistics indicate the size of what is arguably the most well-known social network site in the United States (Wasserman, 2012), it is also indicative of the prominence it holds as an online “place” of social interaction. As a comparison, two more recently established social network sites gaining or having already established prominence online include

Twitter and Google+. As of March 2011, Twitter, a micro-blogging platform that allows exchange between users in the form of 140-character messages, hosted 106 million active accounts, and users send approximately 55 million tweets per day (onlinemarketing- trends.com, 2011). Additionally, Twitter has seen significant growth in recent years

(onlinemarketing-trends.com, 2011), and according to the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project, it is particularly popular among the 25 to 44 year age range

40 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 and a diverse ethnic population (Smith, 2011b). Although Google+ is regarded as a relatively new social media outlet with 26 million registered users as of September 2011

(DigitalBuzz blog, 2011), the site’s ability to allow up to ten people to video chat at one time makes it an attractively viable platform for mitigating earlier deficiencies in computer mediated social interaction (boyd & Ellison, 2008).

Although the statistics are open to interpretation, these numbers pique interest in those considering how interaction across social network sites, in what ever form it may be, influence the generating of different types of social capital and various forms of relative political and civic engagement. Due to its size and popularity, a great deal of research that centers on the growth of social network sites and their value to and in society uses Facebook as the environment of analysis and/or the population from which a sample is drawn. In 2006, Dmitri Williams argued that social capital research conducted online to that point was using measures more suited to the offline environment.

Subsequently, he offered the Internet Social Capital Scales as a valid and reliable response to the high level of interaction online. In them, he developed subscales for

Putnam’s (2000) concepts of bridging and bonding social capital, which are employed for the current study’s survey methodology.

Williams’s scales were put to use in Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe’s (2007) study of Facebook and social capital. This study suggested that using Facebook was associated with both bridging and bonding types of social capital, but more so the former. Ellison et al also implemented measures for maintaining social capital, and they note that Facebook use was associated with perpetuating relationships with already established offline contacts. This echoed research completed a year earlier that noted Facebook users are

41 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 more prone to “friend” people they know offline than to search for strangers (Lampe,

Ellison, & Steinfield, 2006). Additionally, Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2007) found that the amount of Facebook profile information is related to the amount of weak ties relationships a user is able to develop—similar users are more able to connect as a result of increased profile information. The authors also found that Facebook usage was found to interact with measures of psychological well-being, potentially providing benefits for users experiencing low self-esteem and satisfaction. Vergeer and Pelzer (2009) later noted that meeting socioemotional needs indicative of bonding social capital can be achieved through more similar social networking site users locating one another.

In 2009, Valenzuela, Park, and Kee conducted a survey of approximately 2,600 college students to assess the impact Facebook has on attitudes and behaviors that promote individuals’ social capital. Theoretically, the authors used Scheufele and Shah’s

(2000) multidimensional approach to social capital to assess an individual’s intrapersonal domain (life satisfaction), interpersonal domain (trust among individuals and generalized trust), and the behavioral domain (individuals’ active participation in civic and political activities), and they employed the same scales used by Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe

(2007) while also incorporating their own scales associated with Facebook group use.

Valenzuela et al (2009) found that Facebook users did not differ from non-users in regard to life satisfaction, social trust or political participation. However, Facebook members reported higher levels of participation in nonpolitical activities. Facebook group use was also associated with civic and political participation.

42 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

The Augmented Reality of Social Network Sites

In regard to both major theoretical perspectives pushing this research—third place theory, both traditional and virtual (Oldenburg, 1989; Soukup, 2006), and social capital theory (Putnam, 2000)—it is apparent that media and media technologies play a significant role in the day to day lives of individuals in society. Scholars are quick to note the pervasiveness of the Internet and mobile communication technologies in how people interact and coordinate with each other (Farman, 2012; Castells, 2000). In ways, Lin’s

(2005) thesis on technology fluidity highlights the innovative reasons detailing why increased use of electronic mobile communications, the Internet, and more recently, social media has been noted in research. Lin describes fluidity not in technological and social terms. She argues that the higher in fluidity a technology becomes, the greater it’s potential as a means of facilitating social interaction in a constructed space, be it electronic or not. Ultimately, Lin points out the essence of how valuable the ubiquitous nature (Lugmayr, Franssila, Näränen, Sotamaa, Vanhala, & Yu, 2012) of advancing technology becomes for communicating, particularly in an era that is witness to less face- to-face socialization (Putnam, 2000; Oldenburg, 1989).

Theoretical discussions in this direction tend to assume a distinct difference between the online, virtual world and the world in which physical reality takes place

(Jurgenson, 2011; 2012). Jurgenson (2011) identifies this common empirical perspective as digital dualism, and he claims that such a perspective breeds the stereotypical criticisms of other virtual platforms, such as social network sites like Facebook and

Twitter. He argues instead for an “opposite perspective that implodes atoms and bits rather than holding them conceptually separate” (Jurgenson, 2011, para. 2), He identifies

43 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 this perspective as augmented reality. In this, the digital and the physical are so enmeshed that distinguishing the two from one another in terms of the individual self is increasingly difficult, and to continue considering virtual and physical realities from a digital dualism perspective is fallacious. Indeed, Hayles (2008) points out that human embodiment is now more malleable due to mobile communication technologies providing an alternative to dealing with social and environmental pressures. Cool’s (2010) long-term ethnography of legendary Internet services upstart Cyborganic ultimately suggests that the “mutuality of online and onground” (p. 2) does more for the human experience than take away. Her thesis complements Jurgenson’s statements by indicating that a group’s colocation on and offline, and facets of socialization that occur in both environments, results in a synergistic reconfiguration of previously held anthropological notions of place and presence, as well as what it means to actually socialize with one another. The definition of embodiment, in this case, changes from purely physical and place-based to one that is spatially present in a dual environment representing a melding of the online and on ground self. This is also evident in work that highlights the negotiation between technology users and changing techno-urban environments (Wilkin, 2008); the overlaying of Wi-Fi geographies on traditional urban infrastructures and the ability to determine social movement in and between the two (Forlano, 2009; Torrens, 2008); and the redefining of traditional places of informal socialization due to the presence of electronic communications (Hartmann,

2009).

To emphasize this point, particularly in regard to social network sites, Jurgenson

(2011) claims only one reality—augmented—in which the self is made up of a physical body in “constant dialogue” with an individual’s digital profile. For example:

44 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Our Facebook profiles reflect who we know and what we do offline, and

our offline lives are impacted by what happens on Facebook (e.g., how we

might change our behaviors in order to create a more ideal

documentation). (Jurgenson, 2011, para. 7)

Ultimately, Jurgenson sets out to reject what other scholars describe as the triviality of participating on social network platforms. At the same time, he also provides an answer to Soukup’s (2006) concerns about the ability of virtual third places to fulfill the daily experience that traditional third places theoretically do. His augmented reality offers a counter statement in that one is seemingly always interacting with the online public sphere, even when not electronically engaged via mobile or Internet technology.

Jurgenson (2012) points out that recent research assessing use of and sociability on social network sites such as Facebook “have everything to do with the offline” (p. 85).

He argues that due to this technology-influenced augmentation of reality, Facebook users expand their networks not only online but even more so offline, and they tend to be more civically engaged. In research that highlights using social network sites for organizing protestors during the Arab Spring, in which occupying an online social space also encouraged occupation of another kind in multiple offline, physical social spaces,

Jurgenson states that “the online and offline are not separate spheres and are thus not zero-sum. Dialectically related, one can be used to bolster the other” (p. 85). Due to the influence both spheres have on each other, Jurgenson and Rey (2010) call attention to the social network site user as a social cyborg, able to occupy both on and offline social space. Similarly, Clark’s (2003) philosophical work on the cyborg subject suggests that the human brain is malleable and adaptive enough to fluidly appropriate different

45 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 technologies, including information technologies, in a way that allows for such occupation of both spaces. Fundamentally, Haraway’s (1991) definition of a cyborg as a hybrid of organism and machine is strengthened by her encouragement that humanity must embrace the blurring of lines between established distinctions such as that set forth by digital dualism. Likewise, Jurgenson (2012), in regard to Facebook’s influence on both interaction and mobilization, points out that “no longer can we use the terms ‘real’ and ‘virtual’ to describe the physical and the digital. That terminology is woefully inadequate given what I have described above: Facebook is as real as the rest of the world grows increasingly virtual” (p. 86, italics in the original).

Can a Social Network Site Make it as a Third Place?

The previous literature review highlights the primary theoretical perspectives that provide the engine for this research’s investigation. A direct theoretical and empirical connection exists between the third place and informal socialization (Oldenburg, 1989) and community connectedness and social capital (Putnam, 2000; Nisbet, 1953). As

Putnam (2000) points out, physical third places such as bars, taverns, cafes and libraries are part of the framework that supports both bridging and bonding types of social capital.

Notable theorists have continuously echoed such sentiment since before sociology established itself as a formal discipline (deTocqueville, 1835/1840), while others critically describe third place environments as a fleeting arena for true democratic discourse and cultural understanding to take place outside the influence of a larger, colonizing system of power (Habermas, 1981; 1989; 2007).

However, with the population gaining access to the online social space and the evident decline of both cultural and social significance of physical third places, it is

46 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 imperative that we continue investigating to what degree the virtual third place (Soukup,

2006) complements, or completely supplants, the former. Although inquiry exists into the viability of virtual third places in an online environment, and more specifically in online gaming, little research exists exploring both the similarities between traditional third places and social network sites. Likewise, the capacity for face-to-face informal socialization to meet the socioemotional needs of individuals has been documented several times over by those above, yet study of the online social sphere has not empirically, or even theoretically, shown such evidence, either qualitatively or statistically.

To this end, the following research questions and hypotheses were used for initiating further inquiry into the possibilities of social networking sites serving as virtual third places and how perceiving them in such a way influences social capital and civic and political engagement in a democratic society. This research seeks to rediscover the third place in contemporary day-to-day social interaction and theoretically interpret how crucial social network sites are to such discourse.

The first and second primary research questions this project proposed were:

RQ1: Characteristically, how do social network sites compare to

traditional, offline third places?

RQ2: What are the primary differences between social network sites and

those conceptual characteristics Oldenburg (1989) uses to describe

traditional, offline third places?

Third places serve as one of the traditional establishments in which social capital is built, maintained and perpetuated (Putnam, 2000). Research has shown that social

47 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 capital is tied to both offline and online institutions that promote informal socialization and deliberation (see above). Although the increase in mass communication and computer mediated communication technologies and the varying levels of social interactivity each provides have caused concern among many social capital researchers, they have also been noted to bolster what is being lost between individuals in society.

Drawing influence from how traditional third places have been positioned in the literature, the following hypotheses also guided the research:

H1: Users who identify social network sites as virtual third places will

exhibit higher levels of online bridging social capital than those that do

not identify social network sites as virtual third places.

H2: Users who identify social network sites as virtual third places will

exhibit higher levels of offline bridging social capital than those that do

not identify social network sites as virtual third places.

Third places, as noted above, provide its occupants and regular attendees a space in which socioemotional needs are met, including feelings of being needed, collectivity and affiliation, happiness, and relaxation (Oldenburg, 1989). Likewise, Putnam (2000) associates meeting socioemotional needs through bonding social capital, where identities are reinforced, but even more important, where individuals trust in and obtain social support of others. Internet and electronic communication-related literature, however, does not identify significant relationships between bonding forms of social capital and social network site use. For social capital researchers, identifying emerging forms of bonding social capital has eluded investigation. However, with a segment of the population having grown up with digital technologies in hand and increasing amounts of time spent online

48 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

(Palfrey & Gasser, 2008), it behooves sociologists and communications/media researchers alike to further investigate the potential for online social platforms to meet the socioemotional needs of its users:

RQ3: Is there a relationship between identifying a social network site as a

virtual third place and an individual’s online and offline bonding social

capital?

Academic interest in trust is commonly paired with interest in social capital, particularly since Putnam (2000) and the like point out its significance in the formation of the societal characteristic. Likewise, this study is interested in the relationship between perceiving the online environment as a third place and various types of trust:

H3: Users who identify social network sites as virtual third places will

exhibit higher levels of generalized trust than those that do not identify

social network sites as virtual third places.

H4: Users who identify social network sites as virtual third places will

exhibit higher levels of institutional trust than those that do not identify

social network sites as virtual third places.

RQ4: Is there a relationship between identifying a social network site as a

virtual third place and an individual’s interpersonal trust?

Scant research exists investigating how social network sites as virtual third places encourage the discourse that contributes to a civil society. Ultimately, how virtual informal socialization accurately and appropriately translates to non-virtual or virtual civic engagement and activity invokes a comparison between Oldenburg’s (1989) traditional third places and non-virtual counterparts. Assessing virtual third place

49 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 viability in online gaming environments may exhibit the type of behavior that takes place within non-virtual third places (Ducheneaut, Moore, & Nickell, 2008), such as coffee shops, bars, taverns, and salons, but one can argue that those behaviors are exclusively a part of the virtual environment observed. One’s observations of specific virtual third places that were created to replicate traditional ones online does not hold in regard the impact online informal socialization has on non-virtual discourse. Likewise, it does not take into account those virtual platforms that increasingly converge in individuals’ non- virtual activities and matters that more strongly concern a local community, a region, a nation, and ultimately, a global society (Jurgenson, 2011; 2012). In regard to this research, interest lies in whether or not the social network site as a virtual third place influences civic and political engagement:

RQ5: Is there a relationship between identifying a social network site as a

virtual third place and an individual’s civic and political engagement?

The following chapter outlines the study’s mixed method approach to analyzing the structure and social discourse on Facebook, as well as the formation of original measures that statistically identify third place and its relationship with indicators of both online and offline social capital, trust, and civic and political engagement.

50 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

The following sections outline the methodological approach this research took in seeking answers to the questions and hypotheses posed in the previous chapter. In order to conduct a deep analysis of the comparability between traditional third place environments and social network sites, as well as provide a more nuanced analysis of whether or not the virtual third place contributes to one’s online and offline social capital, a mixed-methodological, qualitative/quantitative strategy was employed. Although differences exist between the two distinct epistemological approaches (Tashakkori &

Teddlie, 2010), it was the researcher’s intention to utilize them in complementary fashion

(Kanbur, 2005a; Lin, 1998; Sieber, 1973). A mixed methods approach was sought ultimately as the best route in this case to provide answers to the questions and hypotheses established (Greene, 2008). In doing so, the author took a pragmatist approach, determining and combining the empirical values of both realistic and constructivist perspectives toward knowledge of social discourse (Johnson &

Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

The mixed methodological design for this particular study included ethnographical participant observation and quantitative survey analysis. The procedure for employing such a design took place sequentially, in which the qualitative phase helped inform the development of and implementation of a theory-driven survey instrument (Kanbur, 2005b; Greene, 2008).

51 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Ethnographically Investigating the Social Network Site as a Third Place

The initial phase of this study utilized a mixed ethnographic and netnographic

(Kozinets, 2010) approach involving participant observation. In reviewing the literature that investigates both traditional third place environments and online-based, virtual third places, it is evident that participant observation is the predominant method used

(Oldenburg, 1989; Soukup, 2006; McGovern, 2002; Kleinman, 2006; Sanusi & Palen,

2008; Ducheneaut, Moore, & Nickell, 2008). Through historical and theoretically inductive analysis, immersion and thick description (Geertz, 1977), research in this vein justifies using ethnographical approaches due to both the social constructivist perspective used to identify the environment under concern and the exploratory nature of the investigations.

Participant Observation

This study employed observations of 23 Facebook users’ activities on the social network site, as well as the environmental structure of the site itself.. After approval from the universities institutional review board, Facebook users were recruited from senior level media and communication courses (see Ethnographic Population below). They were informed of the nature of the study and that their Facebook activities were to be observed for a period of five days. Given a history of ethnographic difficulties in the absence of such acknowledgement (Patton, 2002), the researcher ethically felt making participants aware of this observation it was in their best interest, even if it posed a threat to authenticity.

During the period of analysis, which occurred midnight June 11, 2013 through midnight June 16, 2013, observations were made of each participant’s personal Facebook

52 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Timelines. At the beginning of this period, PDFs and paper copies were made of each participant’s Facebook Profiles, which were used to further inform the research of who was being observed and as an indication of their presence and commitment to using the social platform. During the period of analysis, daily observational times were established to “check” the discursive activity on each timeline, which was accompanied by note taking and preliminary comparisons to the third place theoretical concepts of interest.

After the period of analysis, PDFs and paper copies were made of each participant’s

Timelines, and more extensive review of the activity was made in a side-by-side fashion.

This was done in an attempt to not only make a comparison to those theoretical concepts mentioned earlier, but to also introduce analytical rigor by establishing a sense of frequency of participant activity and produced content. Although each participant’s profile information was recorded, the unit of analysis was the Facebook platform itself, as well as the discourse that maintains its social atmosphere. Being a social environment, it was inappropriate to attenuate the significance of the individual user. However, just as the bulk of the original third place characteristics highlight environmental features, the majority of this analysis focused on the Facebook environment, which is given life by the discursive activity within its digital walls.

The researcher chose to follow a participant observer methodology because of his previous and ongoing experience with the social network platform. This left the researcher open to observing his own discursive activities on Facebook, even though he played a strict observational role when analyzing the activities of others. Particularly useful to the immersive analysis of the site’s structure was a period set aside for the researcher, as an insider, to note his perspectives on the site’s social atmosphere and

53 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 general activity. An extensive journaling of these perspectives was undertaken, and it proved not only useful for analyzing the site from a place-based perspective, but it also was used when making thematic comparisons between traditional third place characteristics and observations of study participants’ Facebook Profiles and Timeline activities. Taking into consideration the researcher’s own experience and immersion in the Facebook environment, the qualitative observation moves distinctly away from a textual analysis to a point on the continuum used to describe the degree to which the observer is indeed a participant in the social context of interest.

The primary purpose of the participant observation was to directly compare the conceptual characteristics of traditional third places with the social network platform tools, functionality, and social/communicative discourse. This comparison was also informed by the comparison Soukup (2006) made between Oldenburg’s (1989) third places and virtual communities. Particular attention, though, was paid to assessing whether or not those limitations Soukup (2006) pointed out—a lack of physicality, barriers to access, a diminished sense of “place”—applied to a social network site such as

Facebook.

In regard to the platform itself, observations were strongly focused on the various forms of interaction that occur across Facebook, including both direct interaction, such as posting on another user’s “wall” or “liking,” and other forms of social activity, such as profile creation and intensity (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007) and posting on one’s own wall with little intention to directly connect to another user(s). Being an online platform in which socialization is temporally linear, the researcher had the ability to observe activity after a considerable amount of interaction occurred. This provided

54 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 flexibility in observation times, as well as the ability to revisit discourse for further harvesting of textual data.

Observations alone, however, do not serve as a source of data viable enough to make an adequate comparison between traditional third places, virtual third places, and social network sites. Observations assisted in establishing the researcher in the context conducive to informal socialization, providing an environment in which he was immersed in the nuance of social activity on the online platform.

Positioning the Researcher

During the qualitative phase of this research, it was imperative to acknowledge the researcher as the instrument with which data is collected and assessed (Patton, 2002).

At the same time, it was just as important to consider the positionality of the investigator in regard to his experience with and perception of the social environment under analysis.

As stated above, the author’s own membership, use, and detailing of Facebook provided a lens through which to understand the qualitative data analysis employed. This inquiry offered the investigator a degree of autoethnographic reflexivity (Ellis & Bochner, 2000), in which he conducted an ethnography on his own Facebook activities and environmental perspectives in conjunction with the attention he directed toward others in the same social context. Insight through this level of reflexivity is provided through personally relating where the author is in relationship to the study’s participants, because he himself is considered a participant (Ellis, 2009). In doing so, the author produced a more accurate and honest representation of user experience on the social network site.

55 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Criteria for Evaluation

One of the unique challenges this particular study came across was establishing the criteria by which it was to be evaluated from a methodological and data analysis perspective. As a mixed-methods study—one that combines both qualitative and quantitative assessment—it justifiably fell under a combination of evaluation standards.

In regard to the qualitative phase of the research, Kozinets (2010) outlines the value of bringing together criteria from positivist, post-positivist, postmodern and post- structuralist orientations toward assessment. In doing so, he highlights the plausibility of an evaluation perspective that orients itself toward realism and the crisis of representation, which acknowledges the “politically, historically, socially and culturally”

(Kozinets, 2010, p. 163) situatedness of the analysis in regard to “validity, authenticity, and certainty in the text” (p. 163).

Kozinets (2010) draws attention toward ten criteria that apply to evaluating a netnographic methodology, and they will be used to guide assessment of the qualitative portion of this study. The first criterion, coherence, refers to the ability a researcher has in maintaining internal contradictions between observations, and it bolsters the falsifiability of statements made toward a theoretical perspective used for the study. The second criterion, rigor, simply refers to ensuring the researcher is methodologically conducting the research appropriately and according to established standards of approach. Third, literacy refers to the text’s relationship to the existing literature concerning the issue at hand, a relationship that is based on both knowledge and application of the literature in the study. The fourth criterion, groundedness, assesses the data’s reflection of theory and whether or not the theoretical connections being drawn between data and previous

56 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 literature are “clear and convincing” (Kozinets, 2010, p. 166). Fifth, innovation ensures the collection and analysis of data is advancing an understanding of the topic under investigation. Resonance, the sixth criterion, refers to the study’s and author’s ability to create relevance for others’ lived experiences, particularly when the study reveals an unknown facet of cultural life or social behavior. The seventh criterion, verisimilitude,

“refers to the text’s ability to reproduce or simulate, and map, the ‘real’” (Kozinets, 2010, p. 168), determining the “the extent to which a believable and lifelike sense of cultural and communal contact is achieved” (Kozinets, 2010, p. 168). Eighth, reflexivity acknowledges the presence of the researcher in the study (as discussed above) and the interpretive openness such a presence creates. Ninth, praxis refers to the usefulness of the research, particularly its outcome(s), in addressing specific social issues that initially instigated the inquiry. The final criterion for evaluation, intermix, addresses the

“interconnection of the various modes of social interaction—online and off—in culture members’ daily lived experiences, as well as its own representation” (Kozinets, 2010, p.

171).

Even though the terminology differs from other criteria of evaluation established by previous qualitative methodologists (Patton, 2002), Kozinets (2010) lays out an updated, thorough set of criteria that fit the purposes and investigative environments of this particular study. Throughout data collection and analysis, each of these criteria was addressed and/or acknowledged in order to attenuate issues of concern into the quality of this portion and, to a great degree, the whole of this study’s methodological approach and outcomes.

57 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Triangulation

Although Kozinets (2010) implies evaluating netnographic inquiry on a variety of levels, he does not directly address the issue of triangulation. As Denzin (1989) identifies it, triangulation involves combining multiple units of analyses—whether people or texts—multiple methods under which such analyses take place, multiple theoretical perspectives, and at times, multiple observers, in an effort to substantiate a study’s findings as well as address any issues of inconsistency or incoherence noted during analysis. Triangulation is expected in qualitative methodological approaches (Patton,

2002), and through observing social behavior on Facebook and author reflexivity, this study seeks to achieve methodological triangulation. Furthermore, the implementation of a statistical survey assessment as part of this mixed-methods study provides an additional tool for data triangulation.

Measuring the Effects of the Virtual Third Place

The second phase of the study included the construction and deployment of a survey instrument purposed to investigate the influence perceiving a social network site as a third place environment has on measures of social capital, as well as measures of political and civic participation and trust. The purpose of employing a survey component to this research was to further assess understanding of how social network sites such as

Facebook complement individuals’ daily lived experiences in society on a larger scale.

The instrument and subsequent results worked in conjunction with the qualitative phase of the study, which informed the construction of variables used to quantify third place characteristics, to more fully explore the nuances of social activity in virtual

58 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 environments, as well as the transference and mutual perception of the onground in the online.

An analytical, self-administered, online survey instrument was administered using

Qualtrics, a web-based surveying software (Center for Communications Research, 2012).

All online survey information was collected on the Qualtrics website, and data obtained from participants was kept confidential and was only reported in an aggregate format. All responses to the questionnaire were concealed, and no one other than the primary investigator has access to them. The data for this survey is stored in the HIPPA-compliant

Qualtrics-secure database until the primary investigator deletes it. The instrument is included in Appendix A.

A cross-sectional approach was used to assess responses on a one-time only basis

(Weisberg, 2005). Although there are risks involved with administering Internet-based instruments, particularly the potential for low response rates and responder identification issues (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006; Weisberg, 2005), using the Internet as the channel through which individuals access the instrument was appropriately relevant and contextually convenient for the population concerned (see Population and Sample section below). At the same time, disadvantages arise when using cross-sectional surveys, where more longitudinal approaches serve to more accurately portray changes over time.

However, due to efficiency, the lack of necessity for information related to generational changes, and the exploratory nature of this research, a cross-sectional approach was most appropriate.

59 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Dependent Variables

Social Capital

Williams’s (2006) Internet Social Capital Scales were used to determine the level of stock in online and offline social capital each participant exhibited. The Internet Social

Capital Scales were developed to assess both bridging and bonding types of social capital for online and offline social contexts, an issue that Williams determined was not addressed by traditional measures of social capital that did not take into account the

Internet as a medium through which social interaction takes place. Williams initially developed items for bridging social capital around Putnam’s (2000) four criteria for bridging evaluation, including outward looking, a more broad social network, perceiving one’s self as being part of a larger social context, and reciprocal exchange with a broad network and community. Bonding social capital criteria used included emotional support, ability to obtain limited resources, having leverage in mobilizing strong solidarity, and out-group antagonism. Exploratory factor analysis was followed by confirmatory factor analysis on Williams’s initial measures for both types of social capital to confirm the two final 10-item scales. Factor analysis loadings of .450 were deemed worthy of consideration. The alpha value for the online bridging and bonding scale was .900, and

.889 for the full offline scale. Although most measures for both online and offline constructs were found valid, out-group antagonism was not and therefore not included in the final subscale assessments.

As Williams (2006) encourages, measures included in these scales were adapted to assess the specific environments this study investigated. The online social capital subscales were worded with Facebook as the operationalized online platform, while the

60 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 offline subscales retained the generic term, offline, clearly indicating a non-virtual social context. Response choices for each subscale item, which are included in the attached instrument, were arranged along a five-point Likert scale, where 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2

= Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree. A reliability test of the items comprising the Facebook bonding scale resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of .899, while the

Facebook bridging scale produced an alpha of .918. Offline bonding and bridging scales were also found to be reliable, producing alpha values of .896 and .930, respectively.

Civic and Political Engagement

In addition to measures of social capital, the survey portion of this research sought to determine the influence of perceiving Facebook as a third place on an individual’s civic and political participation. Valenzuela, Park, and Kee (2009) found use in the Index of Civic and Political Engagement (Andoline, Keeter, Zukin, & Jenkins, 2003) to assess operationalizations of the two concepts. Index items assessed whether or not within the last 12 months an individual a) worked or volunteered in a community project; b) worked or volunteered for nonpolitical groups such as a hobby club, environmental group or minority student association; c) raised money for charity or ran/walked/biked for charity; d) worked or volunteered for political groups or candidates; e) voted in a local, state or national election; f) tried to persuade others in an election; g) worn or displayed a badge or sticker related to a political of social cause; and h) deliberately bought certain product for political, ethical, or environmental reasons. Valenzuela et al (2009) combined the first three items into a civic participation scale, and the remaining items were combined into a political participation scale, both of which garnered Cronbach’s alphas of .68.

61 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

This study employed the Index of Civic and Political Engagement, and like

Valenzuela, Park, and Kee (2009), responses were determined using three choices: 1 = no, never; 2 = yes, but not within the last 12 months; and 3 = yes, within the last 12 months. A Cronbach’s alpha of .592 was found for the three items comprising civic engagement, while political engagement items garnered an alpha value of .728.

Trust

Three types of trust were assessed: general, institutional, and interpersonal.

Measures were adapted from the U.S. Citizenship, Involvement, Democracy survey

(Howard, Gibson, & Stolle, 2005). General trust was assessed using three 11-point scale items where 1) 0 meant you can’t be too careful and 10 meant that most people can be trusted; 2) if the respondent thinks that most people would try to take advantage of him or her (0) or they would try to be fair (10); and 3) most of the time people try to be helpful

(10) or they are mostly looking out for themselves (0). When assessed for reliability, the general trust scale produced an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha of .744.

Institutional trust was assessed using 12 items also on an 11-point scale, where 0 meant no trust and 10 meant complete trust. Participants were asked to indicate their level of trust in several legal, commercial, and political institutions: Congress, the legal system, the police, politicians, the United Nations, the U.S. Supreme Court, the local government, political parties, unions, the media, multi-national corporations, and anti-globalization protesters. For institutional trust, a Cronbach’s alpha of .934 was produced when the scale was assessed for reliability.

Interpersonal trust was assessed using a single scale comprised of six items.

Participants were asked how much they trust each of the following groups of people:

62 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 people in your neighborhood; co-workers or people you go to school with; people in your clubs or associations; strangers; people of a different race from yours; and people who have a different religious faith than yours. They rated their responses on an 11-point scale, where 0 meant they cannot be trusted at all and 10 signified they can be trusted a lot. The scale produced a Cronbach’s alpha reliability score of .783.

Independent Variables

Third Place

This study signaled the second attempt at developing and deploying measures focused on determining whether or not a social context’s third place-ness is evident beyond a physical evaluation. Foster and Chambers (2012) quantified Oldenburg’s

(1989) conceptual characteristics in a study that determined, among other things, the degree to which wireless communication technologies were used in traditional third place environments. Items were used to measure a third place’s neutrality, accessibility, level of socialization (conversation), relaxed atmosphere, regularity of patrons, modesty, joyfulness, and its role as a part of an individual’s routine. Foster and Chambers (2012) used principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation to identify whether or not an adequate loading (.70 or higher) for each measured concept was achieved. Three factors emerged—neutrality, socialization, and joyful—from items that garnered factor analysis loads of .704 or higher. Individual items used to assess a place’s neutrality determined whether individuals could come and go as they please, whether they feel free to interact, and the equality of patrons. Items assessing socialization included the ease of starting a conversation, level of comfort individuals have toward interacting with others, and the ease of general socialization. Finally, items addressing a place’s joyfulness

63 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 included the likelihood of hearing laughter and whether or not an individual is at ease in such a place.

Although Foster and Chambers (2012) developed these items in an effort to quantify conceptual characteristics of physical third places, the measures were appropriated for this study to statistically evaluate whether or not Facebook is conceived as a third place by its users. Each hypothetical statement tuned to addressing Facebook as a virtual third place was accounted for responses along a five-item Likert scale, where 1 =

Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree. The specific items included: 1) Facebook is a neutral site; 2) Facebook is safe; 3) individuals can come and go as they please on Facebook; 4) individuals feel free to interact on

Facebook; 5) everyone is seen as an equal to each other on Facebook; 6) it’s easy to start a conversation on Facebook; 7) conversations are easy to find on Facebook; 8) people feel comfortable talking to others on Facebook; 9) people come to Facebook to socialize;

10) it’s easy to socialize on Facebook; 11) it’s common to see joking between users on

Facebook; 12) I’d characterize Facebook as joyful; 13) I’m at ease when I’m on

Facebook.

This study adapted new measures of third place to an online platform for the first time. In support of this, data collected during the qualitative phase of the research informed the refinement of existing measures and the development of new, additional scale items that evaluated, theoretically, assets of a social network site that characterize a third place social environment. Using fieldwork to complement the development of survey instruments is not a new methodological approach (Sieber, 1973), and through the comparative analysis of themes that reflect theoretical concepts relative to third place

64 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 theory (Oldenburg, 1989), quantifiable assessment was fine-tuned. In conjunction with augmenting each item to represent the social media platform, eight items were added to the original 13 after the qualitative analysis: 1) people are free to talk about anything on

Facebook; 2) Facebook is easy to use; 3) I have control over my Facebook Timeline; 4)

Facebook relieves me of stress; 5) I am among familiar faces on Facebook; 6) people support me on Facebook; 7) people share my interests on Facebook; and 8) Facebook is part of my daily routine. Reliability assessment was performed on all 21 scale items before factor analysis, resulting in a Chronbach’s alpha of .875.

Facebook Intensity and Use Measures

This research was also interested in assessing the influence of Facebook use on online and offline social capital. Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2007) developed measures for Facebook intensity, using Facebook to meet new people and and connecting with offline contacts. The Facebook intensity scale, composed of items assessing an individual’s number of friends, minutes of weekly use, and emotional connection to the social network site, garnered a Cronbach’s alpha of .83. This study implemented the

Facebook intensity scale, augmenting items pertaining to an individual user’s number of friends and minutes of weekly use by providing updated response choices. Nine response choices were offered to the item, About how many total Facebook friends do you have (0

= 100 or less, 1 = 101-150, 2 = 151-200, 3 = 201-250, 4 = 251-300, 5 = 301-350, 6 =

351-400, 7 = 401-500, and 8 = more than 500). For the item, Approximately how many minutes per day to you spend on Facebook?, six choices were offered (0 = less than 10, 1

= 10-30, 2 = 31-60, 3 = 1-2 hours, 4 = 2-3 hours, and 5 = more than 3 hours ). The same

Facebook attachment items were used and measured along a five-point Likert scale,

65 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 where 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly

Agree. The items included: Facebook is part of my everyday activity; I am proud to tell people I’m on Facebook; Facebook has become part of my daily routine; I feel out of touch when I haven’t logged onto Facebook for a while; I feel I am part of the Facebook community; I would be sorry if Facebook shut down. The Facebook Intensity Scale implemented for this study produced a reliable Chronbach’s score (α=.89).

Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2007) also developed a scale to assess whether or not individuals used Facebook to stay connected or create a connection with existing offline contacts (Cronbach’s alpha = .70). The scale was composed of four items: I have used Facebook to check out someone I met socially; I use Facebook to learn more about other people in my classes; I use Facebook to learn more about other people living near me; I use Facebook to keep in touch with my old friends. Agreement to these items was measured along a five-point Likert scale, where 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 =

Neutral, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree. An additional single-item measure was used to determine the degree to which individuals used Facebook to meet new people (I use

Facebook to meet new people), which was measured along the same scale. The same

Facebook Use measures (α = .63) were used for this study.

After both scales were found to be reliable, they were computed into separate independent variables for regression analysis.

Demographics

Finally, demographics were included in the survey instrument and used for comparative analysis. Basic items included gender, age, race/ethnicity, education, annual

66 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 household income, political ideology and affiliation, and membership in other social network sites. Duration of holding a Facebook account was also assessed.

Population and Sample

The segment of the overall population in which this study was interested is identified as “digital natives” (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008). Digital natives are defined characteristically as being born after 1980, having knowledge of and access to digital technologies capable of being networked or online, and capable of competently using such technologies. Palfrey and Gasser (2008), the authors of Born Digital:

Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives, distinguish the book’s namesake population from digital “settlers,” who were among the individuals that established and helped shape the digital environment as something different than the analog-only world in which they were indeed natives. The also distinguished digital “natives” from

“immigrants,” individuals that are stereotyped online as those that have very little knowledge about the platform and how to navigate its complexities that seem second nature to “natives.” Palfrey and Gasser simply state that digital natives “only know a world that is digital” (p. 4):

Those who were born digital don’t remember a world in which letters

were printed and sent, much less hand-written, or where people met up at

formal dances rather than on Facebook. The changing nature of human

relationships is second nature to some, and learned behavior to others.

(Palfrey & Gasser, 2008, p. 4).

Additionally, Palfrey and Gasser describe digital natives as more able to integrate online and offline life, and they consider technology that keeps them constantly “connected”

67 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 essential in fulfilling everyday social interactions and the development of new and maintenance of existing relationships. Indeed, digital natives experience fundamental facets of social life differently than their parents, and according to Palfrey and Gasser, this warrants further sociological and psychological assessment of the first all-digital segment of the population.

In regard to this study, digital natives that are members of the social network site

Facebook served as the primary population from which samples were drawn.

Demographically, Brenner (2012) states that 66% of online adults in the United States use a social network site—69% of online women and 60% of online men—and within that proportion, 86% of online 18- to 29-year-olds and 72% of online 30- to 49-year-olds are Facebook users. Brenner also points out that social network sites are popular among individuals with some college education and with an annual household income of less than $30,000. Facebook is the dominant social network site, used by 92% of those that occupy such online spaces as of 2010 (Brenner, 2012). According to Checkfacebook

(2012), the United States accounts for 157,067,260 users as of April 2012. Similar to

Brenner’s (2012) statistics, this number is proportionately more female in composition

(54.9%), and 13- to 34-year-olds constitute 56.9% of Facebook account holders. In regard to Palfrey and Gasser’s (2008) identifying characteristics of digital natives, it is evident

Facebook is a ripe social space in which to study and from which to sample for this particular research project. As such, Facebook served as the operationalized social network site regarding the previously stated questions and hypotheses.

68 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Ethnographic Sample

Specifically, the sample for the ethnographic portion of this study was purposively selected from the student body of a major university’s College of Media and

Communications. The average student body for the college is over 1,300 undergraduate students. Study participants were able to access the study by signing in to the university’s

SONA research participation system and register for participation. As with any study involving human participants, confidentiality is of utmost importance, and participants were provided a researcher-designed confidentiality consent form before the actual ethnographic investigation began. Each volunteer participant was given a pseudonym during data collection and analysis to bolster anonymity, and none of them were informed of others participating in the ethnographic study.

A purposive, criterion-based sample at this stage of the research project was used to intentionally select participants that will provide as many “information-rich cases”

(Patton, 2002, p. 230) centering on the use of a common, online social space. Statistical inference at this phase of the research was less appropriate, and possibly less useful, diminishing the need for probabilistic sampling techniques while justifying those that allow the researcher exploratory depth during both investigation and assessment.

Survey Sample

The sample for the survey portion of this research was drawn from a population composed of digital natives at the same university in the media and communications, business, arts and sciences, and agricultural sciences and natural resources colleges. At the risk of increasing the study’s sampling error (Weisberg, 2005), a convenience sample was used. Recruitment took place in a number of large classes held during the

69 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 university’s second summer academic session, where students were asked to complete a

15-minute long online survey instrument. University classes provide ample sources for the population of interest for this study, reducing coverage error. This increases the study’s level of generalization—despite the potential for sampling error—but only to the population of interest. During recruitment, potential participants were directed to either an online link through SONA or provided a direct link to the instrument hosted on

Qualtrics. Several course instructors elected to provide an extra credit incentive for participation, while others required research participation as part of the class. However, the researcher provided no material or institutional incentive for participation.

70 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Chapter 4

ETHNOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The following details the two phases of the study. The ethnographic phase took place over a period of five days prior to the deployment of the online survey. The first two research questions are of primary importance to the first phase of the analysis, highlighted below:

RQ1: Characteristically, how do social network sites compare to

traditional, offline third places?

RQ2: What are the primary differences between social network sites and

those conceptual characteristics Oldenburg (1989) uses to describe

traditional, offline third places?

To strengthen the qualitative analysis portion of this study, 23 students (six males and 17 females) that use Facebook as their primary social network site were recruited from several higher-level courses in the college. Each participant was considered a digital native (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008) since they were all born after 1980.

The Third Place-ness of Facebook

It is important to keep in mind that this observational analysis of Facebook was not conducted in the grounded theory tradition present in many ethnographic studies.

Instead, it deployed ethnographic techniques in order to make a theoretically informed comparison of traditional, physical third places (Oldenburg, 1989) and the environment

Facebook offers for its users. The comparison was made with an effort to not overestimate the presence of third place-ness in Facebook where it really is not. Gaining familiarity with physical third places through academic and popular press literature,

71 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 previous primary research, and general experience with such places comes with the risk of inappropriately assigning too much similarity between them and the online environment in general. However, such familiarity is used to identify salient similarities between the two social environments in this study, as well as the obvious and not-so- obvious differences. This activity is the main goal of RQ1 and RQ2.

This comparison is not made between an online environment and offline environment to further advance the notion that these are completely separate spaces for social activity to occur. As a member of Facebook himself, the researcher takes into account the role offline social activity has on influencing one’s personal activity online, as well as how participating in the social milieu that makes up Facebook can inform and even directly encourage thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in a purely offline setting, but a social one nonetheless. In so doing, the comparison is strengthened by observing and documenting the characteristic presence of the physical in the virtual, be it the structural similarities of the two social environments or the emergence of the offline in the discourse observed on Facebook. However, this type of comparison runs the risk of reifying the duality of the online and offline that Jurgenson theorizes simply in that the language used cannot avoid partly describing the online platform in offline terminology set forth by theoretical concepts established a decade before the emergence of the Internet as we know it. Ultimately, this qualitative comparison intentionally exploits this duality to illuminate the significant intertwining of the two types of social environments. This intention is not novel to this study alone. Not only does Jurgenson present and use the terminology of digital dualism in a way to argue its theoretical weaknesses, but so does

72 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Cool (2010) in her suggestion that the mutual intertwining of the two contexts results in a colocation of the online and onground.

It is also important to acknowledge that this is not the only virtual ethnography to determine whether or not the third place has been mapped onto the online space. As the literature review identifies, Soukup (2006) made a comprehensive review of factors significant to third place in the online setting, pointing out how strongly some characteristics of the third place present themselves while electronic communication technology disallows others from overtly emerging. However, Soukup’s comparison did not focus singularly on one particular virtual context, but rather covered the variety of social contexts in cyberspace at the time. Soukup’s analysis also came before Facebook gained popularity and gained a sizable enough membership to influence the online social media landscape and warrant a variety of academic analyses of a variety of issues.

Nevertheless, his analysis proved valuable to this observation since it laid the groundwork for conceptualizing the third place as virtual, and particularly salient connections between this study and Soukup’s comparison are discussed in the next chapter.

The following text initially compares the social structure of the Facebook platform with the third place as Oldenburg (1989) describes it. Observations were made from a website architecture and aesthetics point of view, as well as from an individual user’s perspective upon entering the environment. Web sites are often described as if they are brick-and-mortar establishments. The word “site” itself conveys that there is a physical space designated for a particular entity, and the Internet is commonly identified with terms that describe it as if it has actual geography, such as information super

73 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 highway, navigation, gateways, surfing, and even routing. To make the following analysis and theoretical comparison using similar language is to only convey relevance for this research and to further point out the theoretical blurring of the online and offline realms of social discourse.

Entering Facebook: A Doorway to Social Connectivity

To be sure, Facebook is not the most likely name for a neighborhood bar, where local citizens come to put up their feet for a bit and talk through the day’s issues without any threat to doing so. In the realm of techno-termed organizations and websites such as

TechCrunch and Wired, the name itself doesn’t seem marketable for a social network site, but rather a glorified Rolodex. Yet, at its core, from a structural perspective and as a more-than-thriving company, Facebook is synonymous with online sociability and is a ubiquitous symbol of a large, global community of users/consumers.

Upon accessing www.facebook.com, an individual is greeted by an unpretentious, relatively simple homepage compared to other websites. The lower-case type comprising the logo is contemporary and youthful, and the two-tone blue color palette of the homepage and of the site itself conveys the same personality without becoming too busy.

Although complaints were made in the past about changes in the site’s navigational structure (Boutin, 2009), the overall design is not meant to trump the social discourse that takes place after logging in. The “door” of the site is less about information and more about simply getting the individual inside. At this “door,” a short statement about what you are able to do as a Facebook user is presented in sans serif type:

Connect with friends and the world around you on Facebook.

74 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Simple graphics are paired with even shorter sentences about how one can consume and contribute to the social discourse inside Facebook. Easy-to-navigate empty fields point an individual toward the two access points: user login or new user sign-up. Little to no scrolling is needed to consume all of the information on the front page, including the non- intrusive language selection buttons and administrative and legal links at the bottom of the page. The login page, as well as much of Facebook’s general design, is composed in a way that is aware of the correlation between site usability and success.

Ultimately, the homepage is but only a door, through which regular users and newcomers pass into Facebook. The less complicated the door, the easier it is to enter.

Internet cookies—files that let sites recognize computers accessing them—provide easier entrance through this door after a user logs in initially, allowing the user to bypass entering in his or her credentials on return visits because the site “knows” this individual’s digital device. However, there is a fee for entering the site: the necessity for a Facebook account. Like the majority of social network sites and websites that offer or require account registration, signing up for Facebook necessitates certain personal information to create an account, namely a first and last name, gender specification, an email address, and a birthday. The small print outlining terms of use and personal data use policies are agreed upon once a user signs up for Facebook, after which the user is free to navigate the social network site, use tools to both identify him or herself, locate friends and acquaintances, and discover and acquire more via the social milieu beyond the site’s “door.”

Registering for Facebook is akin to paying admission into a traditional, offline third place establishment. However, paying at the door is not the only form of admission

75 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 into such places, nor should it be directly compared to accessing Facebook. Upon entering a traditional third place, such as a coffeeshop, it is both socially and normatively appropriate to purchase a drink to remain a welcome visitor. Entrance can certainly be free, even without purchasing any of the establishment’s wares or services, but both regular patrons and staff will regulate visitors that enter alone and do not partake in the appropriate discourse for the environment. Through selling services, drinks, food, and other consumables, traditional third places are able to maintain their own expenses and remain available for further visitation and patron enjoyment. Like such offline establishments, Facebook’s entrance “fee,” the account registration and agreement with several legal and business-oriented policies, is what also keeps the lights on, so to speak.

And like many websites that require or offer account registration, Facebook receives compensation for the use of individual account holders’ personal information, browsing histories—cookies—and minimum hard disk search information. Obtaining a Facebook account cannot be considered totally free. Even though no monetary exchange is made, the process by which it obtains personal information is intrusive, albeit voluntary and legal from the user’s perspective. The primary difference between initial access into

Facebook and a traditional offline third place, such as a coffee shop or bar, is the physical exchange of money. However, both institutions operate in an economic system that deems it necessary to report a profit in order to maintain operations, and therefore both types of environments must acknowledge their commodity-like qualities and capitalize on them appropriately. This, of course, does not take into account those individuals who enter both traditional offline third places and social network sites such as Facebook without paying any form of admission. Many that enter into a traditional third place, such

76 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 as a coffeeshop, without purchasing a drink are often visiting with someone who has, and certain third place establishments refuse a level of service, such as free wireless internet, to those that do not participate in their normative discourse. Depending on privacy settings, some Facebook pages can be viewed without actually entering the site by logging in, but access to other site features is denied. In this way, full access to and service in both traditional offline third places and online social network environments like Facebook come at a cost.

With that cost—and more importantly, access—comes exclusivity. Exclusivity arises any time an individual is required to create or obtain membership with a certain institution. Although there are just over one billion Facebook account holders as of this writing, the fact that an individual must be a member to access all of the social network site’s features limits that access only to those willing to abide by the policies it sets forth.

If it were not for the great number of Facebook users already registered, this exclusivity could be analogized to that which results from placing membership in other social organizations, such as a variety of clubs, teams, fraternities, and even some bars and restaurants. However, a critical mass of users have made Facebook a mainstream social institution and exclusivity is more than likely a sentiment felt from within among certain users as opposed to those from outside that have ready access to become account holders themselves but choose not to do so.

As ubiquitous as Facebook is, however, a certain level of its exclusivity is based on what has commonly come to be referred to as the digital divide (Norris, 2001). This particular issue limits access to Facebook to only those with an available Internet connection with enough bandwidth to handle the size of the site, as well as an aptitude for

77 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 the necessary technology. When compared to offline traditional third places, of which open access is a noted theoretical characteristic, this virtual portal of social connectivity is short of ideal for all in any given society. One can argue, though, that neither are brick and mortar institutions, given their variety of geographical locations, age restrictions, fee of admission, and other limiting factors for access and participation.

To continue the analogical comparison between Facebook and offline third places, once an individual logs in to her account and passes through into the social environment, she enters a space made up of a rather diverse group of people. Of course, that diversity any one user experiences depends on that user’s list of Facebook “friends,” which is likely comprised of both offline and online-only friends and acquaintances. In this way, though, logging on to—or entering—Facebook is like visiting a site that hosts an individual’s community, a site that is largely chosen for and tailored to that individual’s interests and tolerances, more so than her favorite neighborhood pub or café.

However, an individual user can expect to see activity from unfamiliar users on their

Newsfeed (discussed below) when Facebook deems it appropriate and relevant for that individual. Although not the exact same, nor as frequent, this introduction of a new face in the social milieu on one’s Newsfeed is akin to noticing a new person at the coffee shop one regularly attends.

The Newsfeed: A’buzz with Social Discourse

The initial place an individual lands after logging in is the “Newsfeed.” Briefly, the Newsfeed is a calculated smattering of original content posts, links, shares, likes, comments, and advertisements, and it is housed among the primary navigational structure of the site. Newsfeed content is populated from primarily original statements—status

78 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 updates—and links to other websites containing various information and resources. The types of status updates and posted information range from the ideological and corporate/financial to the humorous, opinionated, and gastronomical. It is not uncommon to read what an individual ate for dinner the day before, as well as their feelings toward the latest popular television program—possibly more common than their stance on new federal legislation and up-and-coming politicians.

The Newsfeed identifies several key facets of Facebook. First, Facebook is comprised of real people, and many of them are sharing information in this virtually constructed social environment. Second, the sharing of any information, whether it is a quick comment/status update about the service at a restaurant or a news story that potentially affects a user’s group of Facebook friends, is done so with that environment in mind. Facebook’s branding and marketing discourse highlights it as a space in which user’s can socialize much like they would offline, and as a result, much of the information shared via the Newsfeed is similar in topic to what a user would come upon in purely offline spaces that encourage informal interaction. Of course, Facebook also accommodates reciprocal exchange, digital links, and statements that might not be shared otherwise. An example of this is the amount of political and ideological statements and opinions present on some user’s Newsfeed. The third facet of Facebook that the

Newsfeed highlights is that the information shared is inviting of continued discourse.

Structurally, any item on the Newsfeed—with the exception of those that let the user know that one of his friends likes a page or another status—comes with a field in which an individual user can make a related—or unrelated—comment. At the very least, a user may choose to “like” something shared to the Newsfeed, which is similar to a positive

79 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 non-verbal acknowledgement of said information, such as nodding one’s head to another individual in close proximity. However, there is no “Dislike” function, even though a user can un-like anything he has “liked” previously.

Ideally, the Newsfeed is similar to the social ongoings of a traditional third place.

A walk through this environment—scrolling down the Newsfeed—allows a user to catch a bit of many different “conversations.” A user’s Facebook friend or a friend’s connection starts these conversations through a status update. Conversations have the potential to be ongoing and presented on the Newsfeed with commenters in tow, so the entering user can catch the conversation as it is unfolding. This is akin to a person walking through the door at a coffee shop, seeing people that she recognizes engaged in conversation or letting her know about their day or their thoughts. The Newsfeed is the primary social space in Facebook. A user does not log in to the site without expecting or not wanting to be engaged with others via this function, much like one doesn’t visit their local pub thinking that no one else will be in attendance. One might argue that if that happened, the individual would be disappointed that such an environment is socially quiet. With people in attendance, whether at the pub or on Facebook, an individual always has the opportunity to engage with others. Even if the individual passes on the opportunity when first entering the environment, it is always there. Interestingly enough, the opportunity for socialization on Facebook has far more flexible temporal allowances than that in a daily, weekly, or monthly visit to the pub.

Time on Facebook is linear as discourse occurs. However, unlike socialization that takes place in the bar at happy hour, socialization on Facebook is largely asynchronous. Users can access an archive of their past statements, links, and other types

80 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 of socialization, as well other users’ activity, at almost any time after said activity occurs.

The formal Timeline is highlighted below, but suffice it to say, joining a conversation started several days in the past is much easier and acceptable on Facebook. This is not meant to take away from conversations held solely offline that two or more people can revisit at a later time or date, but it is meant to highlight the fact that information shared on Facebook is archived in detail along with a timestamp, and in some cases, a geographical location from which it was contributed. Individual users are even alerted with a “notification” when another user has liked, shared, or commented on content he or she produced in the past. Feedback is not necessarily instant on Facebook. One major difference between face-to-face and online interaction is the amount of control over unfolding conversation given to both parties involved. Feedback can be delayed, even intentionally, in the online environment, whereas a long delay in feedback during a face- to-face conversation might introduce a socially awkward ambiance to the exchange.

Statements and comments made on Facebook are generally not made with high expectations that they will result in speedy responses—or responses at all. However, the potential for delay in feedback or response might extend the life of a conversation, which might play out over a period of several days as opposed to minutes. Like a typical news cycle, though, it is common for discourse to cease after two or three days, after it stops appearing in an individual’s Newsfeed. However, the potential to revisit the conversation is constant since it is archived, along with all information shared or posted to Facebook.

Profile and Timeline: The Stool at the End of the Bar

The topics arising in social activity and status updates on Facebook are as varied as one might expect to encounter at a traditional third place, and the individual user, like

81 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 she would in a non-virtual setting, may choose to further engage another individual on the Newsfeed, or continue on to her own personal space in that environment. This personal space—the Facebook page—is an area containing information about the user.

Information ranges from personal information such as birthday, gender, occupation, marital/relationship status and sexual orientation, current city, and what college one attended, to site-specific information such as the number of Facebook friends and followers one has accumulated, photographs one has posted and/or is included in, groups of which the user is a part, and social activity, including offline places one visits, events attended, and favorite television shows, movies, music, and books. Individual users may choose to include as little or as much information about themselves as they deem appropriate.

Participants in this portion of the study vary considerably in respect to the amount of information they include in their Facebook profile. All 23 participants include their birthdays, but that is the extent to which they are similar. Most include the city in which they are currently located, as well as gender—although a few abstain—and sexual orientation and relationship status. Many of the participants also profess their religious views. The majority of those that include such information identify themselves as

Christian, with some stating their specific beliefs or denominations, such as United

Methodist or Catholic. Sam and Amy identify themselves as agnostic, and Angela does not specify her views, but rather states that she has “a personal relationship with the

Creator of the Universe.” However, she does identify herself as a Christian in her political views, stating: “What Jesus says goes.” In regard to political views, Angela and only two others express any perspective. Kirk identifies himself as “nonpartisan,” while

82 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Sam identifies himself as “slightly left of center.” The 20 remaining participants do not reveal their political views on their profile, and as noted later, none do in their social interactions with others during the time of this analysis. Although political identification is certainly exhibited by many Facebook users, either in their profile or interactions, this observed unwillingness to divulge this personal information may also be the result of age.

The majority of the participants are in their early twenties, and as a result may be unsure of their own individual political beliefs because of inexperience with such issues, disinterest in political issues, or they do not see the Facebook platform as a venue for expressing their own political opinions.

However, what they are certain of are their interests in popular culture entertainment. All of the participants in the study revealed many of their favorite television shows—or at least the programs they are currently watching or in which they are interested—movies and music. Although books were not as popular of a form of media to include in their profiles, 14 of the participants did identify at least one book they enjoyed. The list of books ranged from fiction to non-fiction to religious. For example,

Eva included only The Bible while Steve included books like Into the Wild, Zombie

Survival Guide, and A Clockwork Orange, and Kelly, who by her status updates can be assumed to be a prolific reader, included The Rook, Jane Eyre, and Catching Fire, among

16 others.

If accessing the Newsfeed is akin to stepping into the grand social environment of a coffee shop or bar, then accessing one’s own page is like a person sitting down at the table in the coffee shop near the large window where he regularly posts up, or on that stool at the bar that “has his name on it.” By visiting someone else’s Facebook page, a

83 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 user can learn about that individual’s personality, interests, and can come away with a very general—potentially stereotypical—sense of that person’s life. In comparison to the

Newsfeed, an individual user’s page allows another a closer engagement with that person.

In addition to the variety of option-based items a user can use to add personal information to their profile, each individual also has the opportunity to write an “About” statement.

This is a completely open section in which a user may input any additional biographical or personality-revealing information. Although more than half of the participants in this study abstained from including anything in this component of their profile, the statements written by those who did varied greatly and perhaps gave their profile more personality than if they had not. Whereas Susan just listed her name in this field—perhaps a mistake in creating her account and profile—the type of content included in others’ “About” statements ranged from a couple of Bible verses (Guthrie and Chloe) to verbose character-revealing paragraphs. Amy’s “About” statement is relatively short and positive:

“I’m trying to leave this world better than I found it.

I am just a girl and I might not change the world, but le me inspire

someone who can.” (misspelling in original)

Eva, on the other hand, provides a lengthier, literal “About” statement to complement the rest of her profile:

“Hello everyone lol. So you want to know a little bout me, well ok. I am a

[name of high school she attended] Alumni and am attending [university

she is currently attending]. I love to try new things and meet new people.

A few of the things I want to do is sky dive, hang glide, mountain

climbing, travel (mainly to Ireland and Scottland [sic]), and to enjoy every

84 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

moment I can with those I love. A few of my hobbies are taking pictures,

singing, dancing (even though I’m horrible at it), hunting, camping,

drinking coffee, and having fun with others.”

A user’s page is more formally known as the Timeline. What was once known as the Facebook Profile, the Timeline is an archive of the user’s social activity. Unlike traditional third places, this site function allows interested viewers, friends, and page

“owners” themselves a way to look back at their social activity on Facebook, much of which involves other users. In so much, the Timeline indicates a user’s regularity in attending and participating in the social discourse on Facebook. Time-stamped activities, such as posting images, commenting on another user’s status or link, and even befriending another individual, is recorded and can serve as an informal metric to assess a user’s sociability and Facebook involvement. Also, this metric potentially encourages— or discourages—a user befriending another, based on biographical similarities and the personality of an individual as exhibited by his or her Timeline content. Just like befriending another individual in an offline environment commonly results after getting to know a person better than just a simple hello, one can assume “friending”—as it is referred to among Facebook users—comes from at the very least a quick glance at a user’s profile information or content on their Timeline. This may not occur much if one individual knows another outside of the Facebook environment, but it serves as a way to determine two different users’ level of compatibility in that particular social structure.

Facebook is constructed in such a way that a user does not have to visit their own page at all to engage the social discourse of the site. Much like traditional third places, this particularly vital site activity can take place just about anywhere in the virtual layout.

85 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

The point of the site being social is that there is opportunity to interact on or use any given page, link or feature. As opposed to discourse on the Newsfeed, however, a user’s

Timeline allows her to more directly interact with those who connect with her specifically. Whereas the Newsfeed may result in an arbitrary entering into an exchange among other users, the Timeline identifies all of the times she is mentioned or involved in a link or posting. Aside from the notifications she receives upon entering the site, this is the most direct and efficient way to interact with those that involve her in their own social discourse. In a way, discursive activity that occurs from and on the Timeline is similar to engaging that person sitting on the next stool over at the bar during happy hour. Although this interaction takes place within the same social environment, it comes with a lesser degree of noise and distraction that accompanies the place as a whole. In another way, however, the Timeline suggests an existential ontology of the individual that is dependent upon the frequency of his attendance and/or participation. Since activity is time-stamped, the lack of it indicates absence, and to an extreme degree, non-existence. The Timeline, then, becomes an indicator of presence for other users, even if the owner of that Timeline accesses the site frequently but does not participate in its social discourse. To another user, he might as well not exist in that particular environment.

Navigational Structure

When populated with content from over a billion users, Facebook can seem visually busy. As with any initiation into a new environment, especially a social one,

Facebook can seem daunting, even intimidating at times. However, within just a few visits, the usability of the site becomes more transparent. The salient content of the three- column Newsfeed landing page is relatively easy to discern, and the chronological

86 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 unfolding of the Timeline is natural and aptly named. Frequent visits to traditional third places continuously acquaint an individual to the place’s layout, people, and activities, and one can argue the same of Facebook visitation. As mentioned above, the use of geographical vernacular to describe online environments conditions any web user to explore and adapt their activities to them as if they were just being introduced to a new physical environment.

There is also incentive to learn how to use Facebook. The ability to connect with a large community of users, expand one’s own online and, in some cases, offline communities, and re-establishing relationships with others that were lost to physical geography and time provides encouragement to learn to use the social platform. It enables continued—often frequent—use of and participation on the site. The popularity of

Facebook among an individual’s offline relationships has the potential to encourage registering for an account and further interacting with that community on the site. The primary social mission of the site itself perpetuates use. Layout can be learned, and given

Facebook’s simple, relatively straight-forward aesthetics, navigating the grounds on which social activity occurs is, as has been stated, similar and in some cases as simple as walking through the door at the local hangout.

Facebook and the Conceptual Third Place

The analysis turns its attention toward directly comparing the conceptual characteristics of traditional third places (Oldenburg, 1989) to Facebook, heavily relying on observations of the study participants’ Facebook Timelines and Profiles and their activity (or lack of) on each. Extensive note taking complemented the observational analysis to support and document the deep immersion into the Facebook environment the

87 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 researcher undertook. The conceptual characteristics of traditional third places served as thematic guidelines for the research. However, as with all ethnographic studies, the researcher stayed aware of discourse and structure of the environment that might also advance the study’s goals.

Facebook as Neutral Ground

Aside from the physicality that differentiates traditional brick-and-mortar third places and virtual social media sites, Facebook can potentially—and one can argue strongly does—serve as that social space in which friends can meet and informal social activity can take place and prosper, particularly between new acquaintances and/or established relationships weakened by long physical distances. From an internal perspective, Facebook provides a safe, benign environment in which a user can informally socialize to whatever degree one deems appropriate. Certain social restrictions apply that possibly increase the neutrality of the environment, such as a more flexible view on time and timeliness of feedback, as well as the absence of any physical institution at all. The virtual character of the environment affords users efficiency and ease of access and participation. Facebook also allows the user that level of “immunity from those whose company we like best” (Oldenburg, 1989, p. 22) that is stressed about traditional third places. On one hand, Facebook provides everyone involved control as to how the social discourse progresses, and it has the potential to ensure a good deal of privacy from others with whom users are conditionally obligated to frequently interact.

On the other hand, though, one of the vital functions traditional third places serve in reference to their neutrality is that they offer that physical place in which a variety of people can hang out away from their first two “places,” work and home. Facebook can

88 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 arguably be accessed anywhere there is a viable Internet connection and the absence of any restricting firewalls. Home and work, or school in the case of students, are two environments in which many Facebook account holders spend the most time and have ready access to the Internet (Foster & Chambers, 2012). Users may enter this virtual social environment within the walls of the first and second “places.” This invasion of an individual’s personal space may be the cost for which informal socialization—or at the very least some of it—comes in contemporary society.

An additional observation not accounted for in Oldenburg’s original text is the capability that traditional third places provide for visitors/patrons to access the online social environment. As Hampton and Gupta (2008) and Kleinman (2006) highlight, it is common for traditional hangouts, such as coffee shops, to provide Internet access and for patrons to be more virtually involved in social discourse than with the person sitting a couple tables over. Although this research quantitatively determines the extent to which virtual social environments are accessed while the user is physically present in a variety of locations, the notion that continuous access to one third place environment comes with it the potential to access and be more cognitively involved in a similar virtual environment is valuable in understanding the shifting of socialization from offline only situations to a combination and blurring of offline and online environments.

Facebook as a Leveler

Of all third place characteristics, the ability for a social environment, virtual or otherwise, to theoretically erase status and prejudice is seemingly the most difficult to observe. As a place where anyone is welcome, Facebook certainly exhibits a portion of this characteristic. However, a number of factors stand out that create theoretical

89 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 roadblocks for Oldenburg’s ideal facet of places that support and perpetuate informal socialization.

The first hindrance is the technological limitations to gaining access to the site. As mentioned earlier, those individuals in society who are considered to be living in the digital divide are either materially and/or competently unable to access the social network site under any circumstances (Norris, 2001). Second, access to Facebook is only provided through holding a registered account. Although anyone with an Internet connection is considered welcome to join Facebook, the ideal leveler characteristic is based on full inclusiveness. To be a part of the social environment, one must possess the proper and appropriate means of access. In itself, this provides an individual a degree of status, albeit small given the large number of account holders.

Third, status itself is simply difficult to extinguish, even within traditional third places. Although such places dilute status to some extent, social characteristics such as popularity tend to resemble status in such an environment. An indicator of popularity among Facebook users can be assessed via the number of Facebook friends an individual has acquired. Among the 23 participants for this portion of the study, the number of friends each has varies from a little over 100 to over 3,000. Marlie, with 129 friends, is eclipsed by Melanie at 1,148, Ashley at 1,160, Erin at 1,319, and Chloe at 3,188. The number of photographs in which each user is visible or tagged can also be used as an indicator of social popularity and connectedness, particularly since many images include the user posing or interacting with others. A quick glance draws a relationship between the number of friends and the number of photographs one has obtained on Facebook.

Marlie, with the lowest number of friends, is included in 77 photographs, whereas Chloe,

90 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 with over 3,000 friends, appears or is connected to 5,756 photographs. Numbers aside, photographs offer visual evidence of the amount of social engagement one has with others outside of Facebook, in other third places, at parties, voluntary events, and among other activities. This conveys a sense of social involvement and overall popularity and acceptance for any given user. Thus, a larger amount of photographs is evidence of a degree of social status, or a successful social life, outside of the virtual “walls” of the site.

Typical status indicators such as occupation and education are also commonly exhibited on many Facebook Timelines. The content of Facebook posts may also contain indicators of social and professional status. Of the two status updates Elle made during the observational period, one included an image of her working as a broadcast journalist: she looks seriously into the camera, a microphone in one hand while using the other to throw a handful of soil behind her to illustrate the current drought conditions on which she is reporting. The accompanying statement:

“Getting a little dramatic in a cotton field today…’Throw it up throw it up.

Watch it all fall out.’”

Although the written portion of the post relates little to her actual position other than that she is performing for an audience, the image is clearly a mobile phone capture of a television screen, something on which many people in society do not appear frequently, if ever. This visualization of her occupation indicates her social status as a minor celebrity in a local news market. Similarly, Sadie mentions in a Timeline post that she was asked to be the banner bearer for her college during commencement when she graduated at the end of the summer. This type of achievement is met with several “likes” and a comment about walking for graduation in general, and it indicates to others her academic success

91 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 and uniqueness as a representative of her college among the nearly 1,000 students with which she will graduate. At a lower level, Haleigh playfully states that her friend is better than other friends because of a trivial talent he has in performing the theme song to the video game Super Mario Brothers by thumping his throat with his fingers and modulating his mouth. Although the post is not intended to actually belittle anyone, it does exhibit the breadth of her social capital and unique connections. Likewise, Sam makes a statement that only a certain group of people—gamers—is likely to appreciate:

“64 man servers for BF4 on Xbox One.. [sic]”

However exclusive the statement may be, it does reveal that he is knowledgeable, if not an owner, of the newest premium Microsoft gaming system, which retails at $500, as well as a popular game. Although this may not construe status or cultural capital to all of his Facebook friends, it might create envy among those of his that consider themselves heavy gamers but do not yet own or have access to the newly released console.

The content users post or share on Facebook has the strong potential to appear myopic. This comes as no surprise since the field in which an individual posts any comments or status updates asks the default question:

“What’s on your mind?”

Answering this question invites an assortment of answers, many of which highlight what an individual is doing at that moment and/or where that individual is located. Several of the study’s participants either identified their locations by including them in a post or tagging themselves in a location, such as a restaurant in Disney World or at a swimming pool. However benign these posts and tags may be, they do relate to others a sort of “I’m here at this interesting place and you are not” type of perspective.

92 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Even if the status update question is not answered literally, opinions and judgments are also a part of what makes up the bulk of Facebook social content.

Facebook—and the Internet—is often considered neutral ground for armchair commentary on social issues, and one participant in the study bolsters this observation.

Amy, a relatively active Facebook user, is apt to post quotes that suggest the human race can certainly be or can perform better in life, such as the one below from Leonardo daVinci:

“Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!”

She also pokes fun at celebrities in a way that indicates their dubious decision-making and inability to stay in touch with the layperson:

“Madonna is 55 and her boyfriend is 22. Jennifer Lopez is 43 and her

boyfriend is 26. Don’t worry if you’re not dating, they might not be born

Hahaha, you got time.”

As myopic as the discourse may appear on Facebook, such as Kelly’s complaints about living on the first floor of an apartment or Elle’s visual depiction of her occupational achievements, it is worth acknowledging that the structure of Facebook levels the playing field by allowing all users the same opportunity to express themselves.

Although this might not do away with social status as individual users may perceive it, at a minimum, the operation of the site is relatively democratic and unified. No one individual user has any more opportunity to participate in the social discourse on

Facebook than any other.

93 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Facebook and Conversation as Key Activity

Facebook is teeming with conversation. To clarify, the site is teeming with topics of conversation, conversation starters, and continued discussion and reinforcement. As the most popular social network site on the Internet, it goes without saying that the site is full of content created and/or shared there for the purpose of spreading information and engaging others. Conversation is initiated in a number of ways, including statements and status updates, comments on Facebook activity, acknowledgements such as “likes,” mentioning others in such a way that they receive notice of said mention, and sharing outside links and sources of information. At times, it seems the only thing missing from

Facebook is the use of body language and vocal articulation to match face-to-face conversation. Some users overcome even these deficiencies by posting images, emoticons—simple cartoon graphics depicting mood—and/or videos and artwork in lieu of or to complement status updates or comments.

Topics that emerge in content on Facebook run the gamut of those that comprise conversation in a traditional third place. Entertainment, politics, gossip, sports, business, jokes and sarcasm, armchair coaching and analysis on a variety of societal and global issues, punditry, and no shortage of general opinion on everything from the newest band to hit the Top 40 to North and South Korean relations. Interestingly, participants in this portion of the study refrained from voicing opinions about or perspectives on politics or world issues. Only two users, Elle and Kelly linked to content that approached news. Elle posted, “Stay safe and take care of your skin in the sun this season, friends!” with a link to a news story titled “Experts Warn to Watch for Skin Damage this Summer.” One can assume her linking this information is tied to her role as a reporter for the broadcast

94 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 channel from which the story originated. Kelly’s interest in Disney and Star Wars prompted her to share a link that a friend of hers originally posted, stating “Sounds good to me.” The link was to a story found at Theme Park Insider

(www.themeparkinsider.com) titled, “The empire strikes back: Disney readies a major

Hollywood Studios expansion at Walt Disney World.” Kelly also shared a Buzzfeed

(www.buzzfeed.com) op-ed piece titled, “The 17 Greatest Things About The

Congressional Baseball Game.” She shared this link because she saw one of her friends in the story and wanted to let her know via Facebook. Kelly also came the closest to broaching any topic that centered around politics with the automated post from

Goodreads stating that she had finished reading Noam Chomsky’s Media Control, a text focused on wartime propaganda and persuasion. The overall absence of discourse centered on politics and news in this observation does not necessarily make Facebook any less similar to a traditional third place. Any one of Oldenburg’s (1989) third places that is abuzz with political talk only is more akin to a town hall meeting than to a saloon.

Consequently, the lack of political discussion observed in this analysis does convey that digital natives are more apt to use Facebook for less serious communication. As the author’s own Facebook News Feed can reveal, there is certainly a bounty of political and news talk among Facebook users, particularly around election time and among older users outside the digital native generation. This observation does not assume apathy among those observed in this study, though. It simply reveals that for them at this point in their lives, Facebook is not a forum for political talk.

Instead, users under observation enjoy Facebook as a way to voice less serious— and often humorous—aspects of their day-to-day lives, their comings and goings with

95 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 other people, and content that can be described as trivial and general. The latter, however, can be conversational at times and of interest to some of a user’s friends. Kelly, the most active user of the group, satirically posted about Facebook’s new hashtag function for more efficient trend searching while also bemoaning her homework:

“#frustrated #bored #tired #boatlaodofhomework #iwanttheweekendnow

#hashtag #because #yea #overuse #of #hashtags #because #hashtags”

To which the following discourse took place in the comments section of the status update:

Friend #1: “What did I tell you about grad school?!?”

Friend #2: “#yoloswag420”

Kelly: “Friend #1 I need a proper grad school venting session with you.”

Kelly: “Friend #2 what? Please explain. I clicked it. There was some weird

stuff on there.”

Friend #1: “233 Admin”

Kelly: “nicwe”

Kelly: “where did that w come from?”

Friend #2: “Wait, hashtags actually are doing things now? Whatever

people are using that hashtag for, I apologize. I had no idea [Friend #2

inserted a quizzical emoticon at the end of his reply]”

Kate posted an image of her summer school schedule along with the statement:

“Last class of my college career…Documentary photography

#lastthreehoursincollege #GraduationhereIcome

#august10cantgetheresoonenough”

96 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

One friend replied, “Yay! Getting close.” Kelly’s and Kate’s initial posts are not demanding of critical thought or analysis of the problems facing the world. However, they do touch on those issues that are important in their lives currently: school, technology, social media, and in Kate’s case, photography.

Many of those that posted on observed users’ Timelines also kept the mood light and personal, indicating a degree of relationship maintenance in the fun. For example, one of Jackie’s friends posted an image of an M&M’s chocolate bar with the statement,

“Haha see! But it wouldn’t send at the time and forgot but I thought you would get so excited! I can’t help but think of you every time I see M&Ms”. Jackie simply replied,

“That’s so funny!!! Hahaha love you [nickname for her friend]!!” The conversation ended quickly with the friend reciprocating Jackie’s response, “I love love love you!!

Haha”. Again, the discourse contained only day-to-day thoughts and light-hearted back- and-forth—typical of the bulk of discourse created by those observed.

However, a playful status update about a recent popular action film in which Amy was mentioned garnered a small amount of critical argument about the journalism profession (from Friend #1):

“The thing I found most unbelievable about Superman; Man of Steel, is

that Daily Planet EIC Perry White let his staff leave the newsroom without

a single reporter’s notebook or camera between them. Amy and I both

know Friend #3 would never let that happen.”

The following comments stray from the film and wittingly focus on journalism practices:

Friend #2: “Get with the times! Contemporary journalism is all about

spreading conjecture through social media and then slowly correcting the

97 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

story until you either get to the truth or people become uninterested—the

latter occurring more frequently.”

Friend #2: “…ergo, a smartphone is all you need.”

Friend #3: “Until that smart phone dies or something else goes wrong with

your fancy technology. Then nothing works better than a pen and paper.”

Friend #2: “Well, if you’re going to turn my jab at contemporary, mass-

market journalism into an argument about the utility of pens and paper,

then I suppose you’re right.”

Friend #1: “Well hell…”

Amy: “Well it’s clear that they really didn’t care about the paper to get the

story first.”

Amy brings the conversation back to the movie, but not without expressing her thoughts toward the film’s evident—as criticized by the commenters—lack of professional journalism standards. Sarcastic in tone, this conversation does, however, address a serious concern among young media professionals about which the commenters are learning in school and in practice. This type of content and conversation is similar to that which might be present in a traditional third place, and it is often influenced just as much by what individual users do, see, and talk about offline as they do online.

As noted above, topics can also center on the individual that presents them into the social discourse of the site. Myopic or not, conversational topics are often a sharing of individual interests or the interests of others with which they are shared, such as Eva’s status update in which she included eight of her friends:

98 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

“Snakes, Ponies, Lemurs, and Kangaroos mixed it kids and games =

Carnival Time! Even though I didn’t get to play the games or on the

bouncers working it was great’”

Pam also created a status update that was a reflection on herself but as a result of one of her friends giving her a True Blonde beer, of which Pam posted a picture to go along with her update:

“It seemed fitting. Thanks teets! (inserted friend’s Twitter handle)

#trueblonde #vroom”.

The hash tags preceding the final two terms in the statement are part of the cultural vernacular of Facebook, as well as the social networking micro-blog Twitter. Although they are purposed with linking the user’s original statement with other users using the same tags, they also have been adopted for comedic and conversational purposes that indicate personality and familiarity with the site and its community.

Individual accomplishments or the acknowledgement of others is often shared on

Facebook as well. For example, Kelly’s automated updates from Goodreads that emerge after she has finished reading a book are in someway espousing her interest in literature.

Sadie’s afore mentioned status update proclaiming she will be the banner bearer for her college’s graduation commencement ceremony is certainly a recognizing of her own accomplishments. However, whereas social critics might highlight how social media in general has increased how self-centered those considered to be digital natives, there is evidence from this observation of Facebook users that certainly differs. The one status update Chloe made during the analysis was a congratulatory remark to a friend for whom she served as a bridesmaid in a summer wedding:

99 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

“[inserted Friend’s Twitter handle] is the Godliest, sweetest, greatest, most

beautiful, selfless, and genuine human being on this planet. Your

friendship is more than a blessing to me and I am so honored to stand next

to you this Saturday as you marry the man of your dreams! I love you

more than you’ll ever know, you are the best friend a girl could ever have!

Now let’s go to the chapel and get this party started!!! #[Friend]wedding

#tbt [inserted Friend’s Twitter handle]”

Likewise, Kelly mentioned several times that her brother was graduating high school, congratulating him and even posting a link to a family member’s video of the occasion.

Interest in others, even if it involves the person that expresses that interest or to some degree is perceived as self-serving, is still interactive and has the potential to continue as a conversation. The necessary ingredient for conversations to continue is for that communication to be reciprocated. Unfortunately, for Chloe’s or Kelly’s congratulatory remarks, there were no commenters—albeit there were several “likes.”

It is worth noting that conversations on Facebook are relatively short-lived.

Although the virtual environment is supportive and encouraging of making connections, with both offline and online-only relationships, it does not support the immediacy in many cases that propels face-to-face dialogue that can occur in traditional third places.

Comments are always open for any status update, image, or link posted on Facebook, and it is not uncommon for “likes” and comments to populate over the course of several days or weeks. Even at that, many posts will not generate the length of back-and-forth that offline-only conversations tend to create. Social media consultants often suggest one of the most effective ways in creating more engagement on Facebook and other platforms is

100 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 quick response. A lack of response potentially results in the absence of any conversation.

This can be seen in one of Sam’s status updates:

“I want to make a video…”

Two of Sam’s friends “like” this post and another poses the question, “what kind of vid?” in the comments section. Sam, however, does not respond to the query, and the potential for any back-and-forth exchange, possible collaboration, reinforcement, encouragement, etc., never flourishes. Of course, this does not take into account those status updates that do not generate any response outside of the several “likes” any one particular statement may receive over the course of several days. Like conversation in a traditional third place, if the substance of what the initial speaker states bears no interest or lacks the environmental nuance of encouraging a response—such as a question or comment on something of general interest to those in the place—the likelihood of an exchange of any length is low. As active as Kelly appears to be on Facebook, the bulk of her contributions to the site’s discourse does not garner enough interest from her friends or others that see her status updates in their News Feeds to warrant much beyond a “like.” Furthermore, very few of her posts involve someone else, which for others generates some commenting responses. Comparing those that do generate more commenters and back-and-forth to users like Kelly indicates there is a fine social line between the interesting and interactive content and the content that seems over-bearingly frequent, mundane and myopic.

Ultimately, as this section’s discussion started out, it is more appropriate to consider the presence and act of conversation on Facebook instead as the presence of the potential for conversation to begin. Topics of conversation are constantly put forth, and although none of the participants under observation pushed any topics that might be

101 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 considered ideally valuable to the advance of democratic thinking and political discourse, they nonetheless used Facebook to attempt to engage with their personal communities— their friends—about the on-goings of their daily lives. Thoughts, interests, opinions on popular culture, and sharing of personal and others’ achievements are prevalent among the participants, all of which are observable at any given traditional third place. However, to witness much of what is considered a true conversation, especially knowing that it will not be exactly the same as a face-to-face dialogue, is difficult.

Facebook’s Accessibility and Accommodation

“Third places that render the best and fullest service are those to which one may go alone at almost any time of the day or evening with assurance that acquaintances will be there” (Oldenburg, 1989, p. 32). If there is any characteristic of traditional third places that Facebook fulfills the most, it is its 24/7 availability as long as an individual user has ready access to an Internet connection. With the popularity and practical application of smart telephone technology, Facebook can be accessed within the confines of any non- virtual environment, including the home, at work, and even inside traditional third places.

Facebook is always close by and around the corner, so to speak.

As much as Facebook is always accessible and welcoming to a variety of individuals and communities, the constant at-ready state of the social platform is also seen as an intrusion into other areas of life, specifically the afore-mentioned home and work. The amount of access individuals have to Facebook in every type of environment has been a cause for concern among critical scholars, as well as employers and family members. Time taken away from one activity, particularly in the presence of face-to-face communication, is also time taken away from productivity, and to some degree, the

102 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 reinforcement of offline social relationships. Part of what makes a traditional third place uniquely valuable to Oldenburg (1989) is its physical separation from the first two places in an individual’s life. Instead of just incorporating a new social environment within the first two places with access to Facebook, individual users also introduce at some level the personality of the place, something Oldenburg also expresses sincerity about in keeping separate.

Keeping this in mind, it is worth considering that Facebook, even as it manifests itself at home and in the workplace, supplements what has been lost in individuals’ lives since suburbanization, an increase in work hours, and home entertainment (Oldenburg,

1989; Putnam, 2000). As this qualitative analysis indicates, Facebook does offer a similar environment for informal socialization, and in some cases may meet some of the social needs of an individual that cannot receive it anywhere else due to location or time. Being able to easily arrive at an individual’s destination encourages frequent attendance, and the

“regulars”—discussed in the next section—help maintain that open and welcome appeal to the environment.

Another facet that increases the welcome appeal to the site is the control each individual user holds over his own experience. There is no intensive pressure to participate in the social activities taking place on Facebook, just the opportunity.

Likewise, the user determines how much information is placed into the mix. Personal information can be rather limited if the user so chooses, and the user may also be selective about who or what group of other Facebook users receives his status updates.

The Facebook experience can be customized and made more accommodating within structural limitations that are, of course, evident upon use of the site.

103 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

However, there are times when Facebook seems less accommodating, particularly when the usability of the site is affected by substantial layout and navigational changes.

Although user uproar is typically short-lived, significant changes in frequently used functions or areas of the social network site is similar to the local pub being remodeled, after which visitors and regulars alike must become acquainted with a “new” place.

Changes such as the incorporation of the Newsfeed and Timeline have instigated aggravated status updates in the past—updates that speak to the changes affecting users’ access, ease of participation, and ultimately, enjoyment of the Facebook experience they had come to know up until that point. Changes in policy that affect users’ privacy and rights also result in upset groups. Facebook’s management is always quick to address issues that upset its constituents, just like a good manager of a coffee shop would over the change in Internet use policy, but not without the threat of, or actual loss of a certain number of users.

Facebook and its Regulars

As Oldenburg (1989) describes a traditional third place’s regulars, images of the cast of the popular American situational comedy, Cheers, springs to mind. Regulars like these set the mood of the social environment, as well as the discourse. According to

Oldenburg, they are the most important people present, usurping the significance of the owner and the staff. Despite not having vintage Bostonian bar stools to perch upon,

Facebook users that regularly access and use the site, as well as appear in the Newsfeed of others, can exhibit similar social characteristics. It is worth noting that qualitatively determining regularity on Facebook comes only as the user regularly uses the platform.

Frequent access unveils who else is using the site just as regularly. The author draws

104 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 upon his own experiences with the site here, recognizing that he has played both the role of a frequent contributor to the social discourse on the site, as well as one that simply watches the discourse unfold without interjecting or participating.

Regularity in Facebook can be documented in two ways. The first is to assess the statistical frequency of which users post, comment, or interact with others in open exchange on Facebook. This does not account for those that simply log on and never interact with others or contribute to the site’s discourse—lurkers as they are often referred to—since the people Oldenburg (1989) considers regulars are those that do partake in the interchange between third place patrons. Lurkers are akin to those individuals that sit in the corner of the coffee shop or bar, watching the activities of the place but never joining in. Those that do contribute in a traditional third place, and contribute on a fairly frequent basis, are those that temper the social atmosphere, give it its life, and maintain its existence. Regular “Facebookers” both create/initiate and contribute to the conversations and discussions unfolding on both Newsfeeds and

Timelines. Each of these actions performed in Facebook are timestamped—logging in to the site is not—and therefore quantifiable as to their regular attendance and participation.

Of those users observed, Melanie, Marlie, Angela, Declan, and Guthrie exhibited no activity on their respective Timelines during the five-day observational period. This does not negate their activity on Facebook, though, nor does it necessarily make them any different than several others under observation. They are less frequent contributors to the overall discourse on Facebook. A glance at their Timelines reveals they update their statuses, post images, and comment on others’ updates, but infrequently, sometimes allowing several days to pass by before entering into the fray again. Others observed

105 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 reveal the same activity level, specifically Pam, Jimmy, Kirk, Susan, and Steve. During the observational period, these participants did little more than update their status once.

Jimmy was tagged in another user’s humorous update, for which he replied, “ololololol,” and Pam and Steve simply updated their statuses by indicating where they were or what they were doing while involving other users. Kirk made a joke about his mobile phone, and Susan simply changed her profile photograph. Otherwise, these five users were as infrequent as those that did not reveal any activity given the time frame of this analysis.

In a sense, this infrequency of contributing to the social activity of Facebook keeps them from being named a “regular.” However, the remaining participants contributed to the site’s social discourse more frequently, updating their statuses or sharing links or other information at least twice during the five days, as well as responding to comments posted to their Timeline, liking other users’ status updates, and involving others in their own statements. Both Kate and Jackie were observably active three out of the five days observed, but only two users, Amy and Kelly, were active every day. Kelly was by far the most active, updating her status or sharing information up to four times per day.

However, both she and Amy interacted with others, particularly those that engaged them initially, and Amy was involved in several other users’ status updates.

Ultimately, a log of daily activity on Facebook beyond logging on does not characterize a regular only. Like Oldenburg (1989) indicates in traditional third places, a regular is that individual who does visit often—although every day is not necessary—and noticeably contributes to the social atmosphere of the place. Likewise, those that visit

Facebook daily but sit in the corner without engaging others are not considered regulars.

Some critics of Facebook activity even identify those that just “like” status updates and

106 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 other information as having less value to the site than those who keenly occupy it by responding to comments, generating original status updates that involve their friends and others, post images that do the same, and adding resourceful information to the discourse

(Douara, 2012). However, those that more actively and consistently contribute their perspectives and social connections to the site’s discourse are considered as regulars more so than not. Again, it is their social activity that tempers Facebook.

Regulars to the site are also the most adept in navigating the nuances of its construction and are likely to involve others in statements and comments. Mentioning other users on Facebook is as simple as including their name in a comment or status update, tagging another user in an image, or one user mentioning she is with another in a particular location. Several study participants readily involved others in their status updates, particularly if the content mentions an offline public space or is of specific interest. For example, Jackie values including—or mentioning—her boyfriend with a status update that reads: “Had a wonderful dinner tonight!” This simple message involves another person within a greater social environment, and it can potentially lead to more involved interaction. Those observed who showed more frequent site activity and who were mentioned in other users’ status updates or links were also more likely to respond, such as Amy’s involvement and interaction with others in the status update about the recent Superman film. Other participants contribute similarly to comments sections, although it is also common to see their comments remain alone, particularly when the status update in which they were mentioned was observably personal.

Another way to gauge a Facebook user’s regularity from an individual user’s perspective is to assess the frequency with which Facebook friends appear on said user’s

107 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Newsfeed. As mentioned before, the Newsfeed is to some degree populated by those members of a user’s contacts with which they interact the most. In a way, an individual user sees regular members of her list of friends upon entering the social environment, much like seeing the same people at the salon. Not only does regular visitation result in familiarity with the structure of the place, but it also results in familiarity with members of the user’s Facebook community. It also introduces the user to more unfamiliar faces that are connected to “friends” they already have among their list. As stated earlier, if

Facebook determines activity of a user’s friend to be relative to another user, even if that activity is connected to someone with whom the second user is unfamiliar, it will become a part of the latter user’s News Feed. Indeed, frequent attendance to Facebook may place the user among a community of friends, but just like the salon, a stranger may walk in, unfamiliar to everyone in the room. However, the stranger is in the environment for the same purpose nonetheless.

Being or becoming a member of a Facebook group also encourages more frequent participatory attendance to the site. Facebook groups reflect a more homogenous gathering of users based on interests that range from hobby to professional to volunteerism to fraternal. Even though this qualitative analysis does not assess participation in Facebook groups, it does take into consideration each study participants’ membership in such groups. More active users, such as Kelly, Kate, and Chloe are members of several groups, with Chloe being part of 18 groups and Kelly a part of 14.

Others revealed membership in anywhere from three to eleven groups of varying types, and even though each observed user is a member of at least one group, the least active of these, including Susan, Jimmy, and four others, are members of just one.

108 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Facebook’s Low Profile

Aesthetically, simple combinations of non-aggressive colors and familiar column layouts make Facebook as un-pretentious as it can be for a social network site that plays host to over a billion account holders. The visual plainness does nothing to negate the popularity of the site, however, where in some circles being a user is simply what one does to not be considered an outsider of society. The visuals of the site do not get in the way of what is most important to the environment: being social. Considering its audience,

Facebook does not present itself as unwelcoming to anyone, and in doing so, becomes a daily addition to an individual’s life in many cases.

Compared to the history of online social network sites, Facebook is not the oldest, but it is one of the oldest with as much recognition and attendance. In a way, individuals that register for Facebook accounts acknowledge that there is value in becoming part of that community. It is simple and continually polished, but it has outlasted and moved forward with the ever-changing online landscape. Facebook certainly continues to grow, even to the point of reaching mainstream status in popular culture—i.e. Saturday Night

Live spoofs of its creator, Mark Zuckerburg, the popular film The Social Network, the use of the term Facebook in popular vernacular, etc.—but to the general user, it has always fulfilled its purpose as a place where exchange happens. In that, Facebook is reliable and well worn.

Facebook’s Playful Mood

Jokes, teasing, funny pictures and viral memes, sarcasm, rants about trivial issues and social activities, even poking fun at Facebook itself—all are prevalent in the discourse unfolding in any given member’s Newsfeed and are commonly found among

109 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 their Timelines as well. If a display of wit is important in Oldenburg’s (1989) traditional third places, Facebook offers a similar environment for users—one that is not so serious that a playful exchange is not valued. Take for example Kirk’s quip about his new mobile phone and two of his friends’ witty responses:

Kirk: “My phone is a virgin. (Post all clever replys in comment section)”

Friend #1: “(insert Cherry Pie Lyrics By Warrant here)”

Friend #2: “What’s the matter? You couldn’t afford an extra virgin

phone?”

Although Kirk’s activity online is less than frequent, his Timeline suggests he is consistently sarcastic and, for lack of a more fitting term, witty. For him, Facebook seems to be what one can assume is another environment, an always-open forum, for his comical commentary on popular culture.

Many other humorous statements and comments observed came with the inclusion of a visual, be it a still image—both original and the creation of another user or resource—or a link to a video. One of Erin’s friends posted a humorous image that was part of a Buzzfeed link titled “31 Sure Signs You Went To A Liberal Arts College” with the additional statement, “This made me think of you…” The image was that of an administration building at an English university, above which the following statement was included: “You picked your school in part because it reminded you of Hogwarts.”

Erin replied, “hahahaha YES i love it!!” to this reference to the Harry Potter franchise.

Jimmy also received a spoof music video from one of his friends titled “Rich as F*ck

(remix),” in which a young adult sang over the original lyrics and changed them to characterize his own friends as poor college students.

110 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Sharing comical, satirical content such as this is a fairly frequent occurrence on

Facebook considering the number of memes that are given life in that particular environment. Others share original imagery tied to statements created with the intention of being funny. Kate poked fun at her boyfriend by posting an image of him sleeping in the car with his dog doing the same on top of him. She also posted a composited image of a radio console in a rental car, each tuned to a different FM station. Her statement humorously indicated why the image was salient:

“What happens when I get a rental car? I preset all of the radio stations to

the stations I work for #radiostationproblemsss

#mix100KLLLrock1011049thebeat”

Although Kate’s images did not result in any fun banter, they did garner some attention in the way of likes, and they indicate that she was able to create levity for others from something she personally found humorous. Elle’s image of her in the cotton field

(mentioned above) did result in some light-hearted ribbing of the image’s poster:

Friend #1: “MK watch?”

Friend #2: “You? Dramatic? Nooo…”

Friend #3: That’s an awesome image”

Friend #4: “are you angry with the cotton? ‘cause I’ve seen you give that

look before.”

Elle: “Let’s just say I’m a report who’s [sic] not afraid to get her hands

dirty. Or be very intense.”

Part of what constitutes a playful environment is being able to share it with others as well. Instead of practicing their wit, users like Sadie, who posted an image of she and her

111 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 best friend wearing comical glasses, create a lighter mood by visually exhibiting their fun with others. Coincidentally, Amy and two of her friends share humorous, digitally manipulated self-portraits with each other, while one friend sarcastically claims, “We’re so cool” in her status update featuring the images. The other friend and Amy reply in the comments:

Friend #1: “Amy looks super creepy in this one.”

Amy: “Haha, yeah I didn’t know what I was doing Friend #1!”

Sadie’s and Amy’s status updates indicate they enjoy the Facebook social environment with their friends, and both posts are open invitations for those involved to continue the interaction. As displayed by the majority of those observed for this study, users posting images of themselves with friends in other social environments, whether they be hiking the Colorado mountains or attending a wedding rehearsal, is a way of enjoying the virtual environment as well. It creates levity and draws attention away from negative forces that may be present outside Facebook.

To a large degree, the playful atmosphere surrounding Facebook comes as a result of the user’s ability to simply be a part of and enjoy the conviviality present there. If an individual appreciates engaging the social activity on Facebook, she will more likely make a repeat visit. If she encounters people there with which she enjoys that time, she is even more encouraged to return. Interestingly enough, Facebook visits are often made in the presence of many friends and connections an individual knows outside the Facebook environment. These connections may also meet each other at traditional third places, potentially fueling some of their enjoyment of the social environment created by

Facebook.

112 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

With the incorporation of game applications as a part of the Facebook environment in 2009, the site incorporated another function that permits users to have fun. Games on Facebook are largely social, creating competition among users and even encouraging group activity. Game results and statistics are often exhibited on a user’s

Timeline and Newsfeed, potentially interesting non-gamers. Games such as Farmville,

Mafia Wars, Angry Birds, and Words with Friends have reached widespread popularity on the social platform due to not only marketing but also frequent appearance in those areas of the site that highlight another user’s game accomplishments. Furthermore, personal and web-bot automated invitations to play games are often sent from one friend to another. Personal invitations highlight the desire to connect others to the game and even more exchange between two or more individuals. Six of the observed participants list at least one Facebook game application in their profile. Marlie lists eight game applications, each of which is centered on a storyline or a responsibility that keeps her in close interaction with other Facebook users. Although her level of direct social activity observed for this study was extremely low, this portion of her profile suggests she does interact via gaming with others, and she uses them for social purposes akin to how a person at a bar interacts with others in that same venue via electronic trivia gaming. The person is still situated inside a social space and still interacting with others. The interaction, however, is via another means of connection—both of which are games.

Ultimately, discourse on Facebook is largely controlled by its users. The ambiance is generally positive, and where there is certainly potential for sharing information that is normally found on the mainstream news, there is a relatively high amount of discourse that is light, positive, and in many cases, full of jocularity. If there is

113 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 any one characteristic of Oldenburg’s (1989) traditional third places that Facebook fulfills the most, it is found in the site’s tendency toward levity and playfulness.

Facebook, A Home Away from Home

Just as Oldenburg (1989) does not assess traditional third places based on the literal definition of what a home is in regard to four walls and a roof, this analysis has no value in comparing Facebook to what the “four walls” of a house does for an individual in terms of basic needs. However, it is worth considering how well Facebook begins to meet those socio-emotional needs that Oldenburg points out such homes away from homes provide. The congeniality of Facebook is determined by the degree to which it meets the user’s needs. Feedback or exchange between one or more users is largely based on the amount of engaging with others the individual activates. Among those observed, it is evident that the less frequent users are given little attention compared to those that contribute to the social discourse of the site and are recognized as regularly doing so.

The notion that traditional third place attendees begin to appropriate the environment as their own is not an unfamiliar concept for Facebook users. The Timeline becomes property as much as that regular spot in the coffee shop a patron sits each morning. It is common, and appropriate, to claim the Timeline as my Facebook page, or my Facebook profile, both on the virtual platform and in face-to-face interaction. It is not unusual for a user to direct someone to her Facebook page to see a recent photograph she posted or to see the comment so-and-so left about a recently popular song or television program. This claim of ownership reveals the attachment one has toward their Facebook account and activity, and even though it is not as though users are espousing ownership of the site itself, they are given the flexibility to claim at least a portion of it.

114 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Interestingly, Facebook offers this claim of ownership immediately as opposed to traditional third places, where appropriation is earned after frequent visits and interaction with other regulars. Once an individual registers for an account, adds a few images, and supplies some personal information, he can begin to claim the Timeline as his. Users also contribute their own property to the site, including photographs, videos, even poetry and narratives. Even though Facebook policies claim a certain amount of rights to this content once they are posted to the user’s Timeline, individuals are comfortable enough with the platform to continue to do so. It is the price, as stated earlier, for admittance and continued access, just as paying for a drink or two at the local pub costs the regular patron money over time. In both cases, the costs can add up.

In-so-much as social regeneration results from unwinding or dispensing of many of the formalities that provide structure to life, Facebook provides an outlet for venting and having people serve as a sounding board for those needing to both blow off steam and to make a social connection after a day—or a few hours—of isolation. The probability is high that one user will “run into” familiar faces among the Newsfeed, and even though they may see posts minutes, hours, or even days old, being able to see what someone else is up to or get the feeling that someone else has had the same type of day is reassuring that the individual is part of a greater social community. Among all of the users observed for this study, Kelly and Amy exhibited not only the most activity, but also the highest likelihood for sharing details of their day or to release steam from certain parts of it. Kelly’s post about a disturbance in her day provides a relevant example:

“Some crazy just knocked on my window and waved. Go away! I’m

trying to get some of my stuff done. Not everyone has it easy like you

115 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

clearly do. Do you have anything better to do than bother people? This is

why I hate the first floor. Really? Rude.”

Kelly received three likes for this status update, and she was the only one to make a comment:

Kelly: “And now I’m all distracted. What was I doing?”

This statement and subsequent comment only relate to Kelly’s experience, but it is expressed as if there are people—friends—listening. Indeed, at least three took the time to read it and either “liked” the status out of sympathy or appreciation for the humor it excited. Kate, whose earlier comment about taking her last class before graduating this summer garnered eight “likes” and a friend that replied, “Yay! Getting close.” Although the status update and image did not gain many comments, the potential for social reinforcement and reciprocation can be strong on Facebook.

Being among familiar faces upon entering the Facebook environment stands to also put one at ease, a vital part of making one feel at home in a social environment

(Oldenburg, 1989). Facebook provides a great deal of freedom of expression and socialization, whether this comes in the form of status updates that document a user’s mundane daily activity, joking, instigating a playful argument, or any other type of light- hearted exchange. In doing so, it harbors the security to be one’s self while also being able to be a part of the social environment in one’s absence.

Lastly, Oldenburg (1989) describes a traditional third place as having a social warmth about it, a feeling brought on by mutual support and interest in one another.

Facebook provides this to its users, but whether or not individuals recognize it is another matter. Warmth like that which Oldenburg describes can be assessed by the relative

116 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 amount of exchange between individuals on Facebook, and research points toward physiological value being gained after each mention and “like” an individual user receives (Financial Times, 2013). The freedom to interact and be interacted with further conveys a sense that an individual is fulfilling a necessary social purpose in attending and participating in Facebook.

Bridging the Methods Gap for Third Place

An additional purpose of the ethnographic analysis was to fine-tune Foster and

Chambers’ (2012) initial development of measures that quantitatively determine the third place-ness of a social environment. As stated in the previous chapter, the first third place scale was built using 13 items created from analytical consideration of Oldenburg’s

(1989) original text on the subject. Again, the original items included (these have been operationalized for Facebook): 1) Facebook is a neutral site; 2) Facebook is safe; 3) individuals can come and go as they please on Facebook; 4) individuals feel free to interact on Facebook; 5) everyone is seen as an equal to each other on Facebook; 6) it’s easy to start a conversation on Facebook; 7) conversations are easy to find on Facebook;

8) people feel comfortable talking to others on Facebook; 9) people come to Facebook to socialize; 10) it’s easy to socialize on Facebook; 11) it’s common to see joking between users on Facebook; 12) I’d characterize Facebook as joyful; 13) I’m at ease when I’m on

Facebook.

Upon finishing the qualitative phase of the current study, data collected was used to form several more items that carefully consider conjoining the third place theory and an online social media platform. A total of eight items were developed:

117 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

1. People are free to talk about anything on Facebook. This item was developed in

consideration of the freedom of expression one encounters on Facebook.

Although the discourse observed in the study was mostly light-hearted, content

emerging on Facebook from users runs the gamut of interest and, at times,

controversy.

2. Facebook is easy to use. Since Facebook’s ability to accommodate social activity

relies heavily upon an entire community of users efficiently becoming acquainted

with its structure, this item was developed to determine agreement with the notion

that it is indeed a usable site.

3. I have control over my Facebook Timeline. Familiarity comes with it a level of

control over one’s own social activities as well as how they play out in a social

environment.

4. Facebook relieves me of stress. Facebook serves as an outlet for a variety of

people to express opinions, perspectives, and beliefs. In many cases, the type of

content and back-and-forth social exchange on Facebook is unique to other places

that foster informal communication, places revered for their ability to tame

tension among their patrons.

5. I am among familiar faces on Facebook. A welcome appeal and regular

attendance is encouraged by the potential to run into one’s connections he or she

has on and offline.

6. People support me on Facebook. Along with familiar faces, one also assumes a

level of support that comes with them. Third places provide support outside the

118 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

home and work, and Facebook can offer it 24 hours a day as long as one’s

network on the platform is extensive enough.

7. People share my interests on Facebook. Even though traditional third places are

touted for their diversity, they also are made up of individuals that share some

common interests, outlooks, and situations in life. In so much as a brick-and-

mortar third place provides support and familiarity, evidence indicates that

Facebook connections are also built on similar interests.

8. Facebook is part of my daily routine. Unaccounted for in the first attempt at

quantifying third place-ness is an individual’s regular appearance in a social

environment. Few participants in the above analysis made daily entrees into the

social activity of Facebook, but not every individual entering the local pub is

regular about their attendance or social contributions. However, Facebook is an

environment in which quietly entering and exiting is possible, and regular access

to the site is best quantified.

As highlighted in the previous chapter, the eight new items were joined with the previous third place scale, and as a whole, the scale was found to be reliable (α=.875).

The following statistical analysis of the study’s online survey instrument reviews the new scale through factor analysis, and a final scale and series of online third place measures are computed to test its potential for predicting some of the most important facets of a civil society assumed of traditional third places: social capital, trust, and civic and political engagement.

119 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Chapter 5

SURVEY ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

For the second phase of this study, 402 students were recruited for participation in an online survey. A total of 178 participants completed the instrument. Five respondents indicated that they were born before 1980, eliminating them from consideration as a digital native, and subsequently, from this analysis. With 173 complete responses, the survey portion of the study garnered a response rate of 43%.

Demographics and Facebook Membership

Fifty-seven percent of participants were female (n = 99) and the mean age of respondents was 22 years. The bulk of respondents identified themselves as white (non-

Hispanic) (n = 122). Nearly 15 percent identified themselves as Hispanic (n = 25), nearly five percent as Black (n = 8), seven percent as Asian (n = 12), and under four percent as

Other, including Pacific Islander (n = 2), Turkish (n = 1), multiracial (n = 1) and Human

(n = 1). Nearly 67 percent of respondents (n = 115) were classified as seniors, 20 percent

(n = 35) as juniors, nearly nine percent (n = 15) as graduate students, three percent (n = 5) as sophomores, and one percent (n = 2) as freshman. One student did not provide a response for classification.

On average, participants ideologically sat between moderate and conservative on both economic and social issues, the majority of which are moderate on both (n = 68 for economic issues, and n = 54 for social issues). Fifty percent (n = 86) of respondents who answered the political party question identified with the Republican party, 26 percent (n =

45) as Independent, 17 percent (n = 29) as Democrat, and a little over six percent (n = 11) as Other, including Libertarian and several that are nonpartisan. Aside from Facebook, 73

120 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 percent (n = 126) of the respondents also hold accounts with Twitter, as well as other social media platforms, such as LinkedIn (n = 61), Tumblr (n = 36), MySpace (n = 21), and Instagram (n = 36).

In regard to Facebook, half of the individuals in the sample (n = 86) have held an account for four to six years (M = 4.95; SD = 0.95). Just over 30 percent of the sample (n

= 53) spend 10 to 30 minutes a day on Facebook (M = 2.73; SD = 1.41), and over half (n

= 97) have more than 500 friends on the social networking site (M = 8.73; SD = 1.85).

Forty-five percent (n = 78) of the sample accesses Facebook the most at home, while the second most frequent place in which Facebook is accessed is the university to which students attend (n = 49). The third most frequent place Facebook is accessed is work (n =

34), and the fourth is a local business (n = 39). Participants also provided the names of some of the local businesses in which Facebook is accessed, including the names of bars, coffee shops, restaurants, and gyms.

Facebook Intensity and Usage

Items used to compose the Facebook Intensity scale (total of Facebook friends; minutes per day spent on Facebook; five Facebook attachment items discussed in the previous chapter) were computed into a single variable by averaging the responses for each. The resulting variable was named Facebook Intensity (M = 3.88; SD = 0.95).

Likewise, items making up the Facebook Use scale (five items determining why

Facebook was used socially) were computed into a single variable by averaging responses. The new variable was named Facebook Use (M = 3.40; SD = 0.66).

121 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Both Facebook Intensity and Facebook Use were used in regression models as potential predictors on all dependent variables, as well as to assess whether or not they temper the prediction potential of the third place independent variables, discussed below.

Third Place and Social Capital

The qualitative observational portion of this study was purposed in highlighting not only the comparability between Oldenburg’s (1989) traditional third places and the social networking site, but also contextual data that contributed to the development of items used for statistically analyzing the perceptions of Facebook as such an environment. Responses to these items, as well as others, in the online survey instrument, were used to determine the study’s first and second hypotheses and third research question:

H1: Users who identify social network sites as virtual third places will

exhibit higher levels of online bridging social capital than those that do

not identify social network sites as virtual third places.

H2: Users who identify social network sites as virtual third places will

exhibit higher levels of offline bridging social capital than those that do

not identify social network sites as virtual third places.

RQ3: Is there a relationship between identifying a social network site as a

virtual third place and an individual’s online and offline bonding social

capital?

Statistically Finding the Third Place in Facebook

Factor analysis was conducted to determine the potential for common underlying structures to emerge among the 21 items measuring the perceptions of Facebook’s third

122 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 place nature: Facebook’s neutrality; Facebook as a safe environment; an individual’s ability to come and go as they please on Facebook; individuals feeling free to interact on

Facebook; equality among Facebook users; the ease at which a conversation is started on

Facebook; the ease at which a conversation is found on Facebook; an individual’s comfort level talking to others on Facebook; Facebook as a place for socialization; the ease at which socialization occurs on Facebook; a user’s freedom to discuss anything on

Facebook; the platform’s usability; the commonality of joking among users on Facebook; the joyful nature of Facebook; an individual’s control over his or her Facebook timeline; an individual’s sense of being at ease on Facebook; the stress relieving nature of

Facebook; an individual’s sense of being among familiar faces on Facebook; an individual’s sense of support on Facebook; an individual’s sense of others sharing his or her interests on Facebook; an individual’s sense that Facebook is part of his or her daily routine.

Principal components analysis was conducted using varimax rotation. The initial analysis resulted in five factors consisting of 15 items that loaded above .600. Six items did not factor into the model: a) it’s easy to start a conversation on Facebook, .441; b)

Facebook is easy to use, .466; c) conversations are easy to find on Facebook, .513; d) I feel comfortable talking to others on Facebook, .560; e) People come to Facebook to socialize, .560; and f) I am among familiar faces on Facebook, .570. In an effort to strengthen loadings and eliminate weak items, these six items were removed from the analysis. The resulting product was a four-factor model comprised of 13 items loading above .600, with one loading at .590. Two items were removed for weak loading: a)

People are free to talk about anything on Facebook, .345; and b) I’d characterize

123 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Facebook as joyful, .549. This eliminated one of the weakest loading items in the initial analysis (b) and the sole item that made up the fifth factor in the initial analysis (a), resulting in four components emerging: Familiarity, Sociability, Support, and Neutrality.

Final factor loadings are displayed in Table 1.

After rotation, the first component, Familiarity, accounted for 18.90 percent of variance in Facebook perceived as a third place environment. Sociability accounted for

15.31 percent of variance, and Support accounted for 13.91 percent. Neutrality accounted for 10.78 percent of the variance. A new variable was computed for each component by averaging the sum of each item that loaded into them. Familiarity (M = 3.187; SD =

.736), is the average of five items: a) Facebook is safe (M = 2.68; SD = .976); b) I have control over my Facebook Timeline (M = 3.65; SD = .980); c) I am at ease when on

Facebook (M = 3.24; SD = .887); d) Facebook relieves me of stress (M = 2.72; SD =

1.053); and e) Facebook is part of my daily routine (M = 3.65; SD = 1.247). Sociability

(M = 4.077; SD = .637), is the average of four items: a) Individuals can come and go as they please (M = 3.97; SD = .988); b) Individuals feel free to interact on Facebook (M =

4.15; SD = .788); c) It’s easy to socialize on Facebook (M = 4.01; SD = .869); and d) It’s common to see joking between users on Facebook (M = 4.18; SD = .770). Support (M =

3.544; SD = .713), is the average of two items: a) People support me on Facebook (M =

3.44; SD = .844); and b) People share my interests on Facebook (M = 3.65; SD = .746).

Neutrality (M = 2.734; SD = .834) is made up of: a) Facebook is a neutral site (M = 2.97;

SD = .949); and b) Everyone is seen as an equal on Facebook (M = 2.50; SD = 1.071).

124 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Social Capital

As mentioned earlier, Williams’s (2006) Internet Social Capital Scales were used to assess social capital levels for Facebook and offline contexts. Specifically, both types of social capital Putnam (2000) identifies, bridging and bonding were measured for each.

For the online bridging and bonding scales, the online environment was operationalized as Facebook. Since all scales were found to be reliable, a new variable was computed for each by averaging the responses to the ten items that made up the respective scales. A single Facebook Bridging variable (M = 3.261; SD = .793) and an Offline Bridging variable (M = 3.807; SD = .749) were computed in order to test H1 and H2. The

Facebook Bonding variable (M = 3.135; SD = .832) and Offline Bonding variable (M =

4.118; SD = .707) were computed to investigate RQ3.

Third Place and Facebook and Offline Bridging Social Capital

The first hypotheses states that users who identify social network sites as a third place will exhibit higher online bridging social capital than those who do not.

Hierarchical regression was used to determine if indicators of third place predicted a relationship with Facebook bridging social capital. The dependent variable used was the computed Facebook Bridging Social Capital variable. Using the Enter method to build the regression model, the first block included demographic controls age, gender, race/ethnicity, and classification. The second block included Facebook Intensity, and the third block contained the Facebook Use variable. The fourth and final block included the four components of third place as the independent variables of interest: Familiarity,

Sociability, Support, and Neutrality. Regression results indicated the presence of four significant predictors (Support, Neutrality, Facebook Intensity, and Facebook Use) of

125 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

2 Facebook bridging social capital, R adj=.533, F(10, 156)=19.91, p<.001. The final model accounted for 53.3 percent of variance in Facebook bridging social capital.

A summary of the regression model for H1 is presented in Table 2.

The second hypothesis states that the more an individual identifies a social network site as a virtual third place, the more offline bridging social capital they will exhibit compared to those that do not identify such environments as such. Again, hierarchical regression was used to assess whether or not indicators of third place predicted a relationship with offline bridging social capital. The structure of the analysis was similar to that used for H1, where the gender, age, race/ethnicity, and classification were entered into the first block, Facebook Intensity in the second block, Facebook Use in the third block, and the four third place variables in the fourth block. The analysis indicated an overall model of three predictors (Sociability, Support, and Gender) that

2 significantly predict offline bridging social capital, R adj=.203, F(10, 154)=5.17, p<.001.

The final model accounted for 20.3 percent of variance in offline bridging social capital.

A summary of the regression model for H2 is presented in Table 3.

Third Place and Facebook and Offline Bonding Social Capital

The third research question is interested in seeking a predicting relationship between third place factors and bonding social capital on Facebook and in the offline setting. In order to determine whether or not a relationship exists, two hierarchical regression analyses were used, the first with Facebook Bonding social capital as the dependent variable, and the second with Offline Bonding social capital as the dependent variable. Both regression models were built with the first block comprised of gender, age, race/ethnicity, and classification, the second block containing Facebook Intensity, the

126 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 third containing Facebook Use, and the fourth block containing the four third place variables.

The analysis indicated that an overall model of three variables (Facebook

Intensity, Facebook Use, and race/ethnicity) significantly predict Facebook bonding

2 social capital, R adj=.323, F(10, 156)=8.93, p<.001. The final model accounted for 32.3 percent of variance in Facebook bonding social capital. A summary of the regression model for RQ3: Facebook Bonding is presented in Table 4.

The second analysis for RQ3 using offline bonding social capital as the dependent variable produced a single significant predictor, Sociability, that made up for 12.2 percent

2 of the variance in offline bonding social capital, R adj=.122, F(10, 156)=3.30, p≤.001. A summary of the regression model for RQ3: Offline Bonding is presented in Table 5.

Third Place and Trust

Components significantly found to identify the third place nature of Facebook were also used to assess their potential to predict levels of trust. Three types of trust were identified as valuable to this study: generalized, institutional, and interpersonal. The third and fourth hypotheses, as well as the fourth research question pertain to the potential relationship between these types of trust and Facebook as a third place.

H3: Users who identify social network sites as virtual third places will

exhibit higher levels of generalized trust than those that do not identify

social network sites as virtual third places.

H4: Users who identify social network sites as virtual third places will

exhibit higher levels of institutional trust than those that do not identify

social network sites as virtual third places.

127 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

RQ4: Is there a relationship between identifying a social network site as a

virtual third place and an individual’s interpersonal trust?

Third Place and General Trust

As mentioned in the previous chapter, this study utilized the generalized trust scales established for the U.S. Citizenship, Involvement, Democracy survey (Howard,

Gibson, & Stolle, 2005). After establishing reliability, the three items that compose the generalized trust scale were computed into a new variable, Generalized Trust, by averaging the responses (M=5.62; SD=1.815).

To test H3, a linear regression was used to assess any underlying structure of predictability the third place components, Facebook Intensity, and Facebook Use have on

Generalized Trust. Like previous regression analyses, the control variables gender, age, race/ethnicity, and classification were entered into the first block of the hierarchical regression, Facebook Intensity into the second, Facebook Use in the third, and the four third place variables were entered into the model last. The analysis produced two significant predictors (Familiarity and Neutrality), which accounted for 22.5 percent of

2 the variance in Generalized Trust, R adj=.225, F(10, 153)=5.737, p<.001. A summary of the regression model for H3 is presented in Table 6.

Third Place and Institutional Trust

To test H4, items from the U.S. Citizenship, Involvement, Democracy survey

(Howard, Gibson, & Stolle, 2005) that comprised the institutional trust scale were first computed into a new variable, Institutional Trust, by averaging responses (M=4.936;

SD=1.822). Again, regression was used to determine the predictability of third place variables, Facebook Intensity, and Facebook Use on Institutional Trust. The first block in

128 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 the hierarchical regression contained the control variables gender, age, race/ethnicity, and classification. A second block of controls contained Economic Ideology (M=3.65;

SD=1.098), Social Issues Ideology (M=3.31; SD=1.264), and Political Party (M=1.80;

SD=.945). This second block of variables was deemed valuable to the analysis since several items collapsed into the Institutional Trust variable asked participants about their level of trust in government and political institutions, including Congress, politicians, the

U.S. Supreme Court, local government, and political parties. The third block of the regression contained Facebook Intensity, and the fourth block contained Facebook Use.

The fifth block contained the four third place variables used in previous analyses.

The final model of the analysis highlighted four significant predictors of

2 Institutional Trust (Familiarity, Neutrality, Classification, and Political Party), R adj=.175,

F(13, 149)=3.65, p<.001. The final model accounted for 17.5 percent of variance in

Institutional Trust. A summary of the regression model for H4 is presented in Table 7.

Third Place and Interpersonal Trust

To assess the question posed in RQ4, the items composing the interpersonal trust scale identified in the previous chapter were also computed into a single variable,

Interpersonal Trust (M=6.338; SD=1.506), by averaging responses. Linear regression was then used to assess whether an underlying structure of prediction exists among measures of third place, Facebook Intensity, and Facebook Use for Interpersonal Trust. Again, the linear regression model was built with the same block structure entered as the previous analysis, with the exception of the second block of ideology and political party variables.

Interpersonal Trust was entered as the dependent variable.

129 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

The overall model indicated the emergence of four significant predictors

2 (Familiarity, Support, Neutrality, Age) of Institutional Trust, R adj=.208, F(10, 155)=5.33, p<.001. The predictors make up for 20.8 percent of the variance in the model. A summary of the regression model for RQ4 is presented in Table 8.

Third Place and Civic and Political Engagement

The final pair of analyses was used to explore the fifth research question:

RQ5: Is there a relationship between identifying a social network site as a

virtual third place and an individual’s civic and political engagement?

A single civic engagement variable was computed by averaging out the responses to the first three items of the Index of Civic and Political Engagement (Andoline, Keeter,

Zukin, & Jenkins, 2003), which asked whether or not within the last 12 months an individual a) worked or volunteered in a community project; b) worked or volunteered for nonpolitical groups such as a hobby club, environmental group or minority student association; and c) raised money for charity or ran/walked/biked for charity. The new variable, Civic Engagement (M = 2.062; SD = .527), was used as the dependent variable in a linear regression model in which the first block of predictors comprised gender, age, race/ethnicity, and classification. A second block of predictors comprised Economic

Ideology, Social Issues Ideology, and Political Party. The third block included Facebook

Intensity, the fourth included Facebook Use, and the fifth and final block contained the the four third place variables. The regression analysis was not found to be significant,

2 R adj=.021, F(13, 153)=1.271, p=.236.

The remaining five items of the Index of Civic and Political Engagement

(Andoline, Keeter, Zukin, & Jenkins, 2003), (a) worked or volunteered for political

130 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 groups or candidates; b) voted in a local, state or national election; c) tried to persuade others in an election; d) worn or displayed a badge or sticker related to a political of social cause; and e) deliberately bought certain product for political, ethical, or environmental reasons) were computed into a new variable, Political Engagement (M =

1.495; SD = .430), by averaging responses to each item. A linear regression analysis was used to determine whether Political Engagement is predicted by the four third place variables, Facebook Intensity, and Facebook Use. The same control variables as the previous analysis were used as well, and the blocks of independent variables from that analysis were also replicated. Like the previous analysis, the model was not found to be

2 statistically significant, R adj=.033, F(13, 151)=1.429, p=.152.

The following chapter discusses the findings from each phase of the study in regard to their fit with third place and social capital theory, as well how the study advances our understanding of the online social network landscape in conjunction with social activity outside the “doors” of Facebook. The final chapter also discusses the study’s limitations and direction of future research.

131 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Chapter 6

DISCUSSION

Although not novel in approach, this study represents a first on two fronts. It is the first attempt at ethnographically tying conceptual characteristics of traditional third places to a specific virtual social platform, and it is the first effort in statistically exploring and establishing measures that determine the third place-ness of said online entity. Ultimately, the current study was most interested in how social activity that is quickly becoming a blend of the on- and offline is virtually identified and how that relates to long-heralded facets of a society—specifically a democratic one—that keep it together and functioning. A quick glance at perspectives on the state of social life held by authors like Oldenburg (1989), Nisbet (1953), and to some degree Putnam (2000), depict more bleak outlooks on how social exchange and connectivity is changing, especially in the shadow of the constantly changing media and electronic communication technology landscape. However, as this study found, such outlooks might not be as warranted as once thought.

By first extracting rich, qualitative data from an immersive observational period in the most popular social networking site, Facebook, the study outlines the value of comparing the site to—and also perceiving it as—a place conducive for informal socialization: a third place (Oldenburg, 1989). Second, by using that data to influence the creation of an original third place scale of measurement, individual perceptions of a historically valued component of social lifestyle is taken into account in how on and offline social capital emerge. Although results do not exhibit third place-ness as a

132 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 trumping factor in predicting social capital, they do suggest it is an analytical component not to be overlooked in future assessment.

In Search of the Third Place Online

The first phase of this study was inspired by a call from Oldenburg (1989) for society to consider what is lost in physically moving away from and removing ourselves from public places that more than anything are purposed with harboring social relationships of the less serious kind. Oldenburg highlights those characteristics of traditional third places deemed valuable to recognize in emerging social environments, but whereas he cites them to critically bemoan their loss, this study, along with others, finds it necessary to identify their appropriation in other, less traditional, and in the case of this study, virtual social environments. Oldenburg’s classic writing on the subject,

Great Good Places, arrived before the rise of Facebook, let alone the increase in popularity for the Internet, email, instant messaging, and all other forms of contemporary virtual communication technologies. He does not point out alternative or future resources for the same type of informal socialization his third places offer, prompting several authors to explore the digital social landscape for its presence, mostly within early forms of online gaming and first-generation Internet hubs of communication, such as chat rooms and community message boards (Soukup, 2006; Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006;

Williams, 2006a, 2006c; Wadley, Gibbs, Hew, & Graham, 2003; Ducheneaut, Moore, &

Nickell, 2007; Kendall, 2002).

Equally inspiring was the first comparison of traditional third places and the online atmosphere that Soukup (2006) conducted, which resulted in defining virtual third places as general areas that support informal socialization on the Internet. Soukup’s

133 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 analysis was just that, though: general. Although the analysis was not a deep assessment of a particular place on the information super highway, the author did point out the distinct structural differences between the brick-and-mortar offline settings and those online, notably the lack of a physicality online, the fostering of exclusivity in online communities, and the presence of a digital divide keeping many from participating in virtual social environments. The current study takes into consideration these differences, but makes a similar comparison with a specific and very popular online space, Facebook.

As mentioned before, Soukup’s analysis came prior to the emergence of Facebook as a large social and cultural force, and this study attempted to take the next step from his initial assessment.

Facebook as Third Place: Similar, Yet Different

There is no doubt Facebook was made for socialization. Although not created with as broad a scope in mind as it has reached, it nevertheless has reached a level of popularity that makes it ubiquitous for Internet users, and presumably for non-users as well. Even with this size, Facebook has maintained an aesthetic and functional structure that encourages socialization among account holders. Beyond Internet availability and technological aptitude, impeding issues Soukup (2006) points out in light of his original comparison of computer mediated communication, access to Facebook transitions an individual into a neutral, accommodating atmosphere where a wide range of topics and types of social exchange emerge and perpetuate. Friends, family, and acquaintances can easily enter into the foray of jokes, deliberation, and information-sharing taking place within Facebook. Importantly, the topics of interest to those on Facebook are not unlike those one would encounter in a traditional third place setting. This finding suggests that

134 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 rather than informal socialization disappearing with the assumed decline in traditional third places, the environment in which this type of exchange occurs is seen to shift somewhat to a digital context. However, observations in this analysis do not suggest this shift occurring completely from one environment to another. In fact, this study does not uncover any evidence suggesting that activity on Facebook lessens social activity offline.

Rather, it does suggest that for digital natives, Facebook is used as a way to enhance socialization in and around offline life, even within traditional third places.

As the statistical analysis also indicates, Facebook use frequency is apparent, even when social participation is not. In a way, regular attendance defined simply by walking through the door of a third place environment creates a great difference between

Facebook and the traditional context, simply because one does not have to presumably walk, drive, or negotiate any other way to said context to access the website. Nonetheless, the more regularly one attends, and the evidence indicating daily visitation is strong for digital natives (Pempek, Yermolayeva, & Calvert, 2009), one may assume that the user is more acquainted with the environment and likely to keep returning to not only engage with a large community of users, but also to nurture or maintain their own space on the site. This regularity and maintenance is akin to growing attachment toward the social environment. Whereas research examining psychological attachment to Facebook has indicated it to be the result of high levels of social anxiety and the need for social reinforcement (Oldmeadow, Quinn, & Kowert, 2013), this study uses the lens of third place theory in noting that attachment is a component of claiming ownership to a part of the social environment and integrating it into a user’s daily walk.

135 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

However, it is important to review and expand upon some critical differences this study advances beyond those distinctions made by Soukup (2006). Socialization is different on Facebook from that occurring in traditional third places. Although light- hearted jocularity, the venting of opinions, and social commentary occur in both places, the vehicle through which socialization occurs is inherently different. Whereas the normative characteristics of traditional third places guide the way entrée is made into the environment, the acceptance of new community “members,” and in some cases, the topic of conversation, Facebook can be viewed as having similar normative structure regarding social appropriateness, but different rules of engagement.

Notable is the observance of conversation, or the type of conversational activity that occurs on Facebook when compared to that occurring in Oldenburg’s (1989) ideal third place. Changes in the environment make identifying conversation a search based on a looser concept, one where responses do not necessarily come immediately, or ever. An ideal conversation, in the sense that it involves extensive back-and-forth exchanges, may take hours, days, or weeks to unfold. Technical differences between conversation on

Facebook and in traditional third places noted here also support Peaslee’s (2009) highlighting the absence of certain nuances to face-to-face interactions. In work that characterizes online speech, Peaslee identifies three types: monologue, polylogue, and dialogue. He notes that in their manifestation there is a particular disadvantage certain types—polylogue and monologue—have for political deliberation and other types of interactive communication valued in a democratic society. Although no political speech was observed in this study, the characteristics of monologue, polylogue, and dialogue, as

Peaslee identifies them, are present among the discourse recorded. It is common to

136 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 identify the lone statement—a critique or opinion, perhaps—without a reply or “like;” the status update that includes replies that are somewhat related but not necessarily in response to or a solution for the original statement; and the back-and-forth exchange that characterizes face-to-face interaction, however infrequent it might appear.

One can also suggest from observations that many of those that partake in social exchanges on Facebook actually remain “silent,” providing a Like to a statement as opposed to a Comment. As efficient as this type of interaction is, it is also meaningful on

Facebook. However, it is not as deep as making a comment, which is highly valued within the Facebook environment. Only from the emergence of a comment comes the possibility of traditional interaction. As the previous chapter suggests, conversation is best looked at on Facebook as the potential for it to occur. Nothing about discourse on

Facebook suggests that two-way conversation is a given, but it is an environment one may propose conversational statements and topics and one in which many users may feel welcome to engage such information conversationally. Soukup (2006) states that virtual third places are especially conducive for conversation. However, his observations occurred in environments that were more homogenous, less populated, and topically more focused than Facebook. Structurally, Facebook is perhaps a more conducive environment for conversation to take place than message boards and now archaic chat rooms. At the same time, though, the “rules” of typical conversation are more flexible and perhaps more forgiving of some infractions, as well as applicable to new forms of speech (Peaslee, 2009).

Another key difference lies in the notion that third places mitigate the appearance of status. Arguably, Facebook is a more visual indicator of status than many traditional

137 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 third places, bar those that require admittance based on certain traditional indicators— environments that would not comfortably qualify as third places to begin with. Both environments are navigated with certain personal information and activities being more transparent than others. However, those characteristics related to social and economic status, while present to the keen eye in traditional third places, are more overt on

Facebook. Users are privy to the personal and professional information of others on

Facebook, whereas one might avoid sharing that type of information in traditional third places. The number of Facebook friends one has obtained also indicates a degree of popularity, something one can only observe in traditional third places through extensive interaction with another. Also, the content in photographs or other visual media either posted by or linked to a particular Facebook user might also give rise to their status, either by depicting material well-being or social connectivity.

Despite the similarities between traditional third places and Facebook, this research does find it difficult to fully embrace the notion of a virtual third place that

Soukup (2006) puts forward. Indeed, the digital nature of communication taking place strictly on Facebook coincides with Soukup’s definition of a virtual third place. It is with the second important facet of his definition that this study finds difficulty: “…the detachment from the ‘real’ or physical world (i.e. a physical local community)” (Soukup,

2006, p. 432). Facebook exists as a vehicle of communication, much of which is influenced or accurately documented from the said “real” world. Indeed, evidence shows that the bulk of what comprises an individual Facebook user’s friends list is already offline contacts and relationships (Subrahmanyam, Reich, Waechter, & Espinoza, 2009;

Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield, 2006). From a third place perspective, the type of content

138 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 shared amongst Facebook users is just as varied as that occurring in traditional contexts, and each user has the freedom to enter in to any exchange deemed appropriate. Although the social etiquette for Facebook is looser than traditional third places, particularly for conversation (discussed above), it is not outside the bounds of this study to state that

Facebook interaction takes cues from those normative policies that emerge in brick-and- mortar places of socialization. Likewise, contributions to or exchanges among the social activity on Facebook are also likely to enter into social environments and discourse offline, particularly among digital natives. Through observations and personal exchanges made by the researcher, hearing the question, “Did you see the picture I posted on my

Facebook page the other day?” or the statement, “Someone on Facebook was saying…” is not uncommon in the coffee shop or during happy hour at the local watering hole.

Hampton and Gupta (2008) have already examined the use of electronic communication technology as part and parcel to gaining acceptance and even access to the social ongoings of a traditional third place, and in modern day brick-and-mortar third places, individual attendees are privy to the conduction between the offline and online. Not only is the virtual space mapped (Forlano, 2009) along with physical structure (both vehicles of communication), so too is the discursive activity that involves communicative information intertwined.

Measuring the Third Place-ness of Facebook

The second phase of the current research involved the deployment of an online survey instrument aimed at providing statistical information that helped answer several research questions and test theory-driven hypotheses focused on perceiving Facebook as a third place environment and its influence on online and offline social capital, trust, and

139 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 civic and political engagement. In order to initiate this phase, a viable measure of third place needed to be created. Using the first third place scale developed by Foster &

Chambers (2012), this research implemented an additional eight, newly created items to further investigate an individual’s perception of Facebook as having those conceptual characteristics of third place that Oldenburg (1989) identified nearly a quarter of a century ago. Principal components analysis of the scale items resulted in the emergence of four components that highlight in particular those items best suited to measure the third place-ness of Facebook: Familiarity (M=3.187; SD=.736), Sociability (M=4.077;

SD=.637), Support (M=3.544; SD=.713), and Neutrality (M=2.734; SD=.834). These four components highlight the first statistical measures of theoretical third place as they are applied to an online setting and those that were arrived at by primary ethnographic analysis and theory-driven input.

When interpreting the grouping of items for each component, theoretical ideals of the third place become evident. Familiarity relates to the site’s safety, user-driven malleability and their control over the site, and its presence in everyday life of its users.

Ultimately, Familiarity measures the structure of the site and whether or not it is perceived as actually conducive for the initiation of informal social interaction.

Sociability highlights an individual’s perception that the online environment is socially a welcome environment, one where communicative activity takes place and is easy to engage. Although items related to socialization in general factored for this component, those items centered around conversation did not, perhaps based on the shared meaning between socialization and conversation. However, the results in this case cannot dismiss the observations made about conversation in the first phase of the study, where the

140 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 traditional notion of a conversation is less evident on the social networking site. Support is comprised of two items that relate an individual’s perception of the type of reinforcement one receives on Facebook, not so unlike Oldenburg’s (1989) descriptions of how traditional third places meet the emotional needs of attendees and fulfill a home- like urge sought by regulars. Finally, Neutrality uses two items to determine perceptions turned toward Facebook’s ability to come across as a site where each individual has certain social freedoms that allow anyone access and equal footing. Interestingly, as a measure, this component received the least amount of agreement, indicating the sample did not perceive Facebook to convey much neutrality. This coincides with qualitative findings that highlight the difficulty in Facebook (and third places in general) of eliminating, if not at least mitigating, signs of status among attendees.

Overall, this research suggests that in finding reliability for the population of interest for this study, this scale also has the potential to be used for other online social platforms and age groups. This will be addressed at the end of this chapter in regard to future research endeavors that will potentially find utility in these new measures.

Fitting Third Place into the Social Capital Equation

Determining the influence measures of third place would have on online and offline bonding and bridging social capital was novel to this study. Measures used as predictors of social capital on Facebook with some frequency in the literature include

Facebook Intensity and Facebook Use (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). The introduction of the third place variables add depth to this type of investigation by assessing how the perceptions of an online social institution as a heralded part of democratic lifestyle partitions the two former variables’ variance of influence on social

141 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 capital. In doing so, this also sought continued use of Williams’s (2006) Internet Social

Capital Scales for both online (operationalized as Facebook) and offline bridging and bonding social capital.

In seeking influence on Facebook bridging social capital, regression analysis indicated that Support and Neutrality, along with Facebook Intensity (M=3.88; SD=.95) and Facebook Use (M=3.40; SD=.66) predict bridging social capital on Facebook. With controls for gender, age, race/ethnicity, and classification taken into account, the four significant measures make up for 53 percent of variance in bridging social capital on

Facebook, of which the two third place variables comprise a little more than a tenth. This finding suggests that the more an individual perceives Facebook to be supportive and neutral, the more he or she will exhibit bridging social capital on the site. Excitement for the possibility of forming new relationships or strengthening new ones in an online setting, particularly a large site that is comfortably couched in popular culture, is in part predicted by considering the site along the lines of equality and knowing there are connections in such a setting that are not unfamiliar, but rather those that might lead to making more relationships online. Such characteristics of a social environment make expanding one’s weak ties network feasible and an appropriate activity in said context.

In regard to offline social capital, Sociability and Support were found to be significant predictors via regression analysis. Age was also found to be a significant control over the two variables’ influence. Altogether, the predictors make up 20 percent of the variance in offline social capital, indicating that the bulk of offline connectivity is influenced by factors not accounted for in this study, presumably factors that exist outside

Facebook and computer mediated communication. One such offline factor suggested by

142 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 the pertinent literature inspiring this study (Oldenburg, 1989; Putnam, 2000) is social activity that an individual engages in within traditional third place environments, such as the corner coffee shop or neighborhood bar. As waning as these environments are presumed to be, they still strongly harbor the type of communicative discourse that made them third places in the beginning (Oldenburg, 2002; Jeffres, Bracken, Jian, & Casey,

2009). Sociability and Support variables emerging as predictors of offline social capital also suggest that online social networking sites bridge a perceived gap between the offline and online realms of social engagement. Whether the site is used to connect with someone recently met in an offline setting or used to efficiently make contact with an individual to be met later offline, perceiving it as having easy and informal means of socializing with others plays a role in the expanding of one’s offline social capital.

Potentially more evasive is determining bonding social capital online. Analysis indicated that in the case of third place, none of the variables used in this study predict this type of bonding social capital. However, Facebook Intensity, Facebook Use, and race/ethnicity were found to be predictors of bonding social capital on Facebook. This finding suggests that perceiving the online setting as similar to the local café does not factor in building extremely close connections and socioemotionally supportive relationships online. Facebook Intensity and race/ethnicity, instead, have been noted to predict online bonding social capital (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). However, previous studies do not suggest Facebook Use as a predictor, even though Ellison and colleagues (2007) do highlight influence emerging from self-esteem, life satisfaction, and classification.

143 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Although none of the four third place variables foster any influence on bonding social capital on Facebook, Sociability was the sole predictor of offline bonding social capital. Although the amount of variance accounted for by the regression model was 12 percent, Sociability was the single influence on the model, suggesting that the ease with which socialization can occur on Facebook is a positive influence on offline bonding social capital. As with offline bridging social capital, perceiving a social networking site as having third place-ness bridges two structurally different but socially similar environments of communication. In the case of offline bonding social capital, the social networking site potentially offers a way to maintain close connections with strong ties, and it might offer a more attractive, even encouraging, means of communicating with others for those that find difficulty in developing these types of relationships in an offline-only context.

Issues of Trust and Third Place

This study was also interested in the predictable influence of the perception of third place character in a social networking site on different types of trust, particularly from a theoretical perspective that values trust as a vital part of building and maintaining social capital and maintaining a civil society. This study proposed that individuals that perceived Facebook more as a third place environment would also exhibit higher levels of generalized trust and institutional trust. Results indicate that Familiarity and

Neutrality, two third place variables based on the perception that the online social network site is safe to use, a daily social activity, and a place that positions everyone on a similar social plane, predict both types of trust. One suggestion this finding makes is that general perceptions of equality, safety and familiarity among Facebook friends

144 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 correspond to trust in entities that are thought of for the most part as abstract or less familiar. Indeed, generalized trust has been noted to be an indicator of democratic stability, an issue that subsequently is perceived dependent upon notions of abstract democratic principles, such as equality, freedom, and justice (Inglehart, 1999; Rothstein

& Stolle, 2002).

In addition to Familiarity and Neutrality serving as predictors of institutional trust, control factors classification and political party identification were also found to be significant predictors. However, classification and political party identification, both controls in the regression model, were found to have an inverse relationship with institutional trust. Since these last two predictors were used as categorical control measures in the analysis, the nuance of their influence on institutional trust cannot be determined in this study. However, the research here suggests for future analyses with more sophisticated measures of political ideology and party identification be used for more explanatory power.

Three of the four third place variables, Familiarity, Support, and Neutrality, were found to predict more particularized, interpersonal trust. They, in conjunction with Age, make up for just over five percent of the variance in interpersonal trust, indicating that characterizing an online environment as an open and relatively free social forum does not strongly influence a type of trust that binds an individual’s close network of relationships, a type of trust that even Oldenburg (1989) would reserve for individuals existing in one’s first place: the home. Nonetheless, it does suggest that a less abstract type of trust than generalized or institutional is aided by perceiving observational utility in a social networking site such as Facebook. The social networking site may serve as a resource of

145 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 information by which a user can determine his or her willingness to trust in another user or individual outside the virtual walls of the site.

Civic and Political Engagement

Research on social capital, particularly that which involves mediated means of conveying information to both large and smaller, niche audiences, has in part looked at how this facet of society is translated into civic and political engagement. To that end, this study also took into consideration the influence perceiving an online social networking site as a third place would have on motivating such action. Interestingly, the study does not uncover any significance for the regression models in which measures of civic engagement and political engagement served as dependent variables. This potentially is related to perceiving third place-ness in an online entity as opposed to the on-the-ground local capitalistic establishments that have been shown to harbor horizontal linkages to civic engagement and political activity (Tolbert, Lyson, & Irwin, 1998;

Tolbert, Lyson, Irwin, & Nucci, 2002). Social networking sites perceived as third place environments, however useful they are in predicting different types of social capital, might still be viewed as large, impartial organizations with little interest or influence on matters of a much more local context, such as city restoration activities, school board elections, and bond votes.

Countering the Threat to Third Place

A review of the theoretical texts focused on the value of third places in society certainly paints a negative picture of their sustainability and influence in a civil society.

As laid out, the culprits of this situation are in part the increasing demand on an individual’s time, the suburbanization of society, and mainstreamed electronic media

146 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 technology. All of these issues have also been criticized elsewhere (Aries, 1978;

Oldenburg, 1989; Banerjee, 2001) for atomizing people who without informal socialization do not experience the glue that binds a particularly diverse population.

However, amidst pressures on the time or opportunity to coordinate and gather to “hang out,” there is indeed still a need for that socialization to occur.

At this point, it is appropriate to note that even Oldenburg’s (1989) ideal third place is and was hard to come by. Assessing offline third places, such as coffee shops and salons, along the conceptual lines that Oldenburg sets forth will—as it should—result in a variety of incongruities with the theoretical ideal and the physical establishment. Just as it is difficult to possess all of the qualities that make up the perfect offline institution, a comparison between Oldenburg’s pre-digital era third places and web sites that foster social connectivity will also result in differences of significant note, none of which overshadow the fact that one is constructed of 1s and 0s and the other is not. At the same time, though, a comparison of the online social environment, at a height of such popularity, is based less on the physical distinction between the two environments and more on what they beget in terms of social connectivity and discourse resembling that type of informal, democracy-edifying exchange occurring—or has the potential to occur—in such places that Oldenburg and others champion.

Ultimately, the formula for socialization of any kind involves one key factor that does not decline: people in a relatively free society. In the case of informal socialization and in the absence of a physical place in which it is held, evidence from both phases of this study suggest that individuals will construct another environment that characteristically provides similar harbor for such social exchange, and they will use it

147 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 similarly. Although all of the third place variables were never simultaneously found to be predictors of social capital and trust, perceptions of key third place characteristics in an online environment indicate that individuals in a society, particularly younger, theoretically more comfortable users of the technology (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008), appropriate this environment in similar ways as Oldenburg (1989) would say was done with traditional third place institutions in the past. Oldenburg’s own traditional third places were characteristically reliant upon how individuals perceived their social atmospheres. In the case of this study, Facebook’s third place-ness is sensed and can be seen as influential in creating and perpetuating different types of social capital and trust.

To that end, findings from this research focused on the comparison between social networking sites and traditional third places, as well as those items statistically found to significantly characterize the third place qualities of such sites, are visualized in the

Figure 1. The illustration depicts not only the differences in traditional third places and social networking sites (via ethnographic observation of Facebook), but also those characteristics that bridge the virtual gap between the two, highlighting those items that exhibit the third place-ness of the online social platform. The thirteen items found to describe third place-ness in this study are highlighted as existing in both environments, and the degree to how much they reach into the online social platform is determined by the level of agreement by survey respondents with the item statements. Theoretically

(Oldenburg, 1989), these characteristics exist in equal measure in traditional third places, but there is no existing quantitative evidence stating so, as will be discussed in the study’s section on future research:

148 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Figure 6.1: Mapping Third Place-ness in a Social Networking Site

Notes: Items 1-5 form Familiarity component of Third Place Items 6-9 form Sociability component of Third Place Items 10-11 form Support component of Third Place Items 12-13 form Neutrality component of Third Place

It is important to keep in mind that alongside the similarities depicted in the illustration comes the content of much of the discourse that takes place in both social environments. The next section highlights how both environments are integrated, not only in terms of the type of content commonly found in traditional third places and social networking sites, but also in that a digital means of creating, maintaining, and sharing social connections and information is integrated in an individual’s offline life at a time

149 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 when society is seen to be moving away from traditional contexts conducive for informal socialization.

This is important along generational lines as well. With the ubiquitous rise of social networking sites comes their adoption by generations older than the digital natives that were of interest for this study. Not only did the youth and young adults move to the suburbs in Oldenburg’s (1989) and Putnam’s (2000) narratives, so did that pre-digital generation that experienced the actual shift away, both physically and behaviorally, from ideal traditional third places. The emergence of online social networking sites as perceivably offering some of the same types of social discourse and relationship building that traditional third places did beckons these older generations as well—perhaps reluctantly—but beckoning nonetheless.

In an era when much of an individual’s time is taken up by the duties of work, the logistics of attending work, and consuming media of any kind (Putnam, 2000; Norris,

2000), the online social networking site offers an individual efficient access to his or her network of friends, many of whom are also offline relationships. The assumed demise of the traditional third place may be at hand, but the spirit for which it was deemed valuable to society in the first place continues to emerge in newer means of informally socializing.

As positive as this sounds for ideal third place socialization, it is worth noting that not all research supports this sentiment of the online environment, especially study’s that highlight the dark side of social capital and the more negative ramifications of social media use (Gearhart & Zhang, 2013). Previous literature indicates that the Internet is an environment where exclusive communities can be built and narrow interests and opinions supported (Thiess-Morse & Hibbing, 2005). It also suggests that in some cases, high

150 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 amounts of weak ties that occur across such a platform breeds indifference toward community, individuals that comprise community, and issues that affect community

(Putnam, 2000; Mutz, 2006). As a result of this study, though, it is important to consider for future research in this area the manifestation and perception of critical lifestyle environments—and what they provide to the individual and society—in the online, as well as the reversal offline.

A Lifestyle Integrated

Interest in social networking sites, particularly Facebook, has come as a result of their mass appeal and, in the case of the specific site of interest to this study, their sheer size and influence on modern-day communication (Ellison, 2007). An issue germane to this type of research now and in the future is also the site’s mobility, which not only makes communicating with others possible in a number of offline contexts and situations, it also highlights the degree of integration individuals create between their offline and online socialization. Within a decade, society has moved away from the glow of a desktop computer that sat in a home office or bedroom and has taken the Internet, and all of its ancillary functionality, with them in their pocket or backpack.

Many studies that assess social networking sites’ influence on information sharing, social capital, and civic and political knowledge and engagement view the sites themselves as tools (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007), conduits through which communication travels. Not accounted for is how the role sites like this play is integrated in a lifestyle that is shared between the on-ground and online social contexts. Just as the neighborhood tavern served as a regular stop over for community members in Great

Good Places (Oldenburg, 1989), as well as a vital part of one’s life satisfaction, social

151 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 network sites one can visit frequently and without “paying” too much for access are situated to satisfy similar needs—they are social contexts that are welcome, easily routinized, and most importantly, perceived as necessarily unlike home or work.

It is evident that third place-ness is perceived and aesthetically identified by individual users. Theoretically, however, it is difficult to identify social network sites as true third places based on characteristics and differences—identified previously—that run counter to those laid out by Oldenburg (1989). However, this does not negate their role in encouraging the type of sentiment and discourse third places offer and foster within their environments. Nor does it diminish a social network site’s value in influencing the formation and perpetuation of important social connections for each individual. Findings in this study suggest that Facebook and other similar sites, as part of an increasingly mobile and digitally integrated lifestyle, complement theoretical third places. In a sense, social networking sites offer a type of social subsidization that advances modern day informal socialization. Just as with monetary forms, relying completely on the subsidy depletes one of all social resource eventually. The purpose of the subsidy, though, is to complement what resources one already has with the intention of extracting more from them, ultimately in hopes that it will benefit society at large. Based on use, social networking sites provide a jumpstart to social interaction, as well as a way to build upon that interaction in the form of social capital.

Concluding that the integrated lifestyle aspect of social network sites must be accounted for in future assessments, particularly a site’s third place-ness, also bolsters

Jurgenson’s (2011) statements against specifying the online environment as being completely and theoretically separate from its offline counterpart. Evidence here

152 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 indicates the bridging between the offline and online in a way that intertwines them in modern day society. The position a site like Facebook has in maintaining relationships and disseminating information on and off the platform, as well as forging attachment to the site itself, bolsters the argument that reality goes beyond an on and offline dichotomy to a realm of augmented reality, where our actions online affect our activity and communicative discourse offline, and vice versa.

Limitations

The current study is not without its limitations, particularly those regarding methodology. The first limitation deals with the absence of interviews for the ethnographic portion of the research. The addition of face-to-face interviews with participants about their perceived use of Facebook would further deepen the analysis, potentially providing more nuance to the findings focused on characteristics of third place that describe more socioemotional attachment to an environment, such as third places serving as homes away from homes (Oldenburg, 1989) and third places’ ability to appropriately accommodate their patrons/users. Combining an online ethnography of the

Facebook environment and its users’ social activities with in-depth, face-to-face interviews is what Kozinets (2010) refers to as a blend between pure ethnographic practice and purely online netnographic methods. Interviews also strengthen the analysis by supplying an additional source of data with which to triangulate findings. In the absence of a quantitative, self-report instrument, interviews would have been deemed a certain necessity.

A second limitation with the study highlights the size of the sample that completed the second phase’s online survey instrument. Although a 43 percent response

153 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 rate to an online instrument is adequate (Nulty, 2008), a total of 173 participants is considered short of fair for principal components analysis (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005).

Even though analysis has been completed that indicates established rules-of-thumb sample sizes for factor analyses are not valid and potentially not useful (MacCallum,

Widaman, Zhang, & Hong, 1999), this research feels to more securely validate the strength of the third place scale measures, a larger sample is desired.

To a lesser degree, one of the limitations inherent in the study is the result of focusing only on digital natives as the target population from which both phases’ samples were drawn. Although justification for selecting this population has been made in the literature review and methodology, the primary questions of interest in this study also apply to an older generation also populating online social networking environments like

Facebook (Brenner & Smith, 2013), especially as time moves forward and the digital natives of today grow older. Observations of the researcher’s own Facebook network indicates that older Facebook users tend to be more vocal and opinionated about political issues and more apt to share hard news. Future research might take into consideration a comparison of different age groups using Facebook and their perception of the site fulfilling needs long thought met by traditional third places and its influence on their functional and social use of the environment.

Additionally, a limitation comes as a structural design in Facebook. In recruiting participants for the first phase of the study, the researcher was provided observational access to the participants’ pages but was limited to observing only that activity that is actually showcased there. Anytime a participant posted to Facebook or was involved in another user’s content, such activity was observable. However, observing other activity,

154 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 such as “Liking” and private messaging was restricted from the observer. In order to view this type of discourse, the researcher would need username and account password information, which leaves the participant vulnerable to more privacy incursions than the researcher and his academic institution was comfortable in allowing.

Finally, a limitation exists in the contested use of the terms online and offline throughout the study. As stated earlier, Jurgenson’s (2012) augmented reality is one of the theoretical lenses guiding this study. However, in making the comparisons between a traditional third place and a social environment that is based on the Internet, it is difficult to avoid vernacular that highlights online and offline. The author acknowledges this comparison as one being made between a purely offline environment—one theorized before the Internet became widely popular and available—and a virtual-only environment in structure. In the end, however, it is not the structures themselves, but the aspect of lifestyle each supports, perpetuates, and maintains that is of interest, and this issue is what ultimately blurs the lines between the dualistically described social environments.

Unfortunately, the language used to describe such a relationship between the offline and online is not easily identified or used, in scholarship or layman’s terms.

Future Research

The preceding research also encourages interest in pursuing several related endeavors, particularly those focused on further refinement of analysis and measuring the third place-ness of virtual and non-virtual social environments.

As stated in the limitations section above, the need for interview data in the ethnographic observation of Facebook structure and discourse is apparent. Continuing this line or inquiry with multiple face-to-face interviews would bolster the quality of the

155 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 findings in this research, as well as depict individual perceptions of third place-ness in sites like Facebook. In this there is a call also for ethnography of Facebook and social network sites that is purely focused on its use in an integrated lifestyle as opposed to solely a comparison between them and traditional third places.

Additionally, this research encourages the analysis of other social network platforms and their comparability to traditional third place environments. Determining both functional similarities and differences, as well as individual perceptions of how other social networking sites characterize them as having third place-ness, continues the line of inquiry this research lays out. Sites such as Twitter, Google+, and the newly retrofitted MySpace, as well as other popular online social environments such as

Instagram and Reddit, serve as viable research contexts.

Future research may also inquire about the relationship between perceiving third place-ness in a social network site and a user’s virtual community within such a site.

Exploring the impact of third place-ness on social capital variables, particularly bridging and bonding variables, may be further explicated by determining the breadth or exclusivity of one’s Facebook friend’s list. Qualitative findings here suggest that the construction of a social media network’s community is relatively controllable by the user, necessitating a deeper qualitative and quantitative assessment of this facet’s impact on social capital. Research in this vein may also contribute to the literature concerning the less desirable, “dark side” effects of high levels of both bridging and bonding social capital.

Further determining social media’s subsidization of both online and offline discourse is of interest as well. Inquiry can be made in to how consuming information

156 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013 and interacting with others on social networking sites sparks socialization offline.

Likewise, future research might also investigate whether or not this is a function of perceiving third place-ness in an online social platform.

Although this research was unique in that it was the first indicator of third place- ness perceived in an online social space, there is a lack of research that assesses the same of contemporary brick-and-mortar third places. Especially in lieu of increased electronic communication technology use in historically assumed third places, this researcher finds interest in appropriating the statistical third place measures to an offline environment.

Evidence emerging from a study similar to this one but focused on the modern offline context stands to either strengthen Oldenburg’s (1989) and others’ claims that the third place is disappearing in spirit, or rather determine a renewed value in them as they are paired with online media of social exchange. One issue with a study such as this, though, is properly operationalizing the offline third place. In the case of this study, Facebook served as a large, popular, and well-known entity in which to observe social activity and environmental structure, and it served well as an operationalization of the “third place” online. However, determining an on-ground (Cool, 2010) context ubiquitous enough for a survey instrument to maintain relevance for participants after deployment poses difficulty, particularly when traditional third places are considered to be all but mainstreamed. This issues poses not only a methodological problem, it also suggests exploration of whether or not the definition of a traditional third place is also changing in regard to its size and physical structure.

157 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

References

Alexander, J. C. (2006). The civil sphere. New York: Oxford University Press.

Althaus, S. L., & Tewksbury, D. (2000). Patterns of Internet and traditional news media

use in a networked community. Political Communication, 17 (1), 21-45.

Anderson, J. Q. (2012). Millennials will benefit and suffer due to their hyperconnected

lives. Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Andolina, M., Keeter, S., Zukin, C., & Jenkins, K. (2003). A guide to the index of civic

and political engagement. Retrieved April 29, 2012, from

http://www.civicyouth.org/

PopUps/IndexGuide.pdf.

Aries, P. (1978). The family and the city. In The Family (eds Rossi, A., Kagan, J., &

Hareven, T. K.). New York: Norton.

Associated Press (2013, May 1). Number of active users at Facebook over the years.

Retrieved from: http://news.yahoo.com/number-active-users-facebook-over-

230449748.html

Banerjee, T. (2001). The future of public space: Beyond invented streets and reinvented

places. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67 (1), 9-24.

Beaudoin, C. E., & Thorson, E. (2004). Social capital in rural and urban communities:

Testing differences in media effects and models. Journalism and Mass

Communication Quarterly, 81, 378-399.

Beaudoin, C. E., Thorson, E., & Hong, T. (2006). Promoting youth health by social

empowerment: A media campaign targeting social capital. Health

Communication, 19 (2), 175-182.

158 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Bekkers, R. (2005). Participation in voluntary associations: Relations with resources,

personality, and political values. Political Psychology, 26, 439-454.

Best, S. J., & Krueger, B. S. (2006). Online interactions and social capital: Distinguishing

between new and existing ties. Social Science Computer Review, 24, 395-410.

Blanchard, A., & Horan, T. (1998). Virtual communities and social capital. Social

Science Computer Review, 16 (3), 293-307.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). ‘The forms of capital’, in J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of

Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood,

241-258.

Boutin, P. (2009, March 16). Facebook changes bring inevitable complaints. Retrieved

June 5, 2013 from http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com. boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and

scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230.

Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences

of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 999-1023.

Brenner, J. (2012) Pew Internet: Social networking (full detail). Retrieved from the Pew

Internet & American Life Project,

http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/March/Pew-Internet-Social-

Networking-full-detail.aspx

Brenner, J. & Smith, A. (2011). 72% of online adults are social networking site users.

Retrieved from the Pew Internet & American Life Project,

http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2013/PIP_Social_networking

_sites_update.pdf

159 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Burbary, K. (2011, March 07). Facebook demographics revisited – 2011 statistics.

Retrieved from http://socialmediatoday.com/kenburbary/276356/facebook-

demographics-revisited-2011-statistics

Castells, M. (2000) The Rise of the Network Society (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell.

Center for Communications Research (2012). Use of Qualtrics and Sona System online

tools. Retrieved from http://www.depts.ttu.edu/masscom/research/ccr/online-

tools.php

Chaffee, S. H., & Mutz, D. C. (1988). Comparing mediated and interpersonal

communication data. In R. P.Hawkins et al. (Eds.), Advancing communication

science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes (pp. 19–43). Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Cheang, M. (2002). Older adults’ frequent visits to a fast-food restaurant: Nonobligatory

social interaction and the significance of play in a “third place.” Journal of Aging

Studies, 16 (3), 303-321.

Checkfacebook. (2012, April 25). Facebook marketing statistics, demographics, reports,

and news. Retrieved April 25, 2012 from

http://www.checkfacebook.com/?ref=checkfacebook.

Cigler, A., & Joslyn, M. R. (2002). The extensiveness of group membership and social

capital: The impact on political tolerance attitudes. Political Research Quarterly,

55, 7-25.

Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human

intelligence. New York: Oxford University Press.

160 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal

of Sociology, 94, 95-120.

Coleman, J. A. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Cool, J. (2010). The mutual co-construction of online and onground in Cyborganic:

Making an ethnography of networked social media speak to challenges of the

posthuman. Paper presented at the EASA Media Anthropology Network e-

seminar. Retrieved October 10, 2013, from http://www.media-anthropology.net de Tocqueville, A. (1835/1840). Democracy in America. Garden City, NY: Anchor

Books.

Della Cava, M. R. (2006, October 5). Working out of a ‘third place’. USA Today.

Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com

Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological

methods, third edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

DigitalBuzz blog (2011, September 20). Infographic: First Google+statistics and facts.

Retrieved from http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/infographic-first-google-plus-

statistics-and-facts/

Douara, D. (2012, March 2). What does overzealous Facebook “liking” reveal about

you? Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/deena-douara/facebook-liking-

statuses_b_1315073.html

Ducheneaut, N., Moore, R. J., & Nickell, E. (2007). Virtual “third places”: A case study

of sociability in massively multiplayer games. Computer Supported Cooperative

Work, 16, 129-166.

161 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Durkheim, E. (1984). The division of labor in society. New York: Macmillan Publishers.

Durkheim, E. (2007). The division of labor in society. In C. Calhoun, J. Gerteis, J.

Moody, S. Pfaff, & I. Virk (Eds.), Classical sociological theory (pp. 158-180).

Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Eley, G. (1992). Nations, publics, and political cultures: Placing Habermas in the

nineteenth century. In C. Calhoun (ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere, 421-

461. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Ellis, C. (2009). Revision: Autoethnographic reflections on life and work. Walnut Creek,

CA: Left Coast Press.

Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity:

researcher as subject. In N. Densin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative

analysis, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal

of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13 (1), 210-230.

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 Communcation, 12, 1143-1168.

Farman, J. (2012). Mobile interface theory: Embodied space and locative media. New

York: Routledge.

Financial. (2013, Jan 3). Dopamine jolt behind internet addiction: The effect on the brain

is similar to what makes drug addicts reuse cocaine. Retrieved June 3, 2013 from

http://www.ft.com/.

162 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Fitzpatrick, K., & LaGory, M. (2000). Unhealthy places: The ecology of risk in the urban

landscape. New York: Routledge.

Forlano, F. (2009). WiFi Geographies: When code meets place. The Information Society,

25, 344-352.

Foster, J., & Chambers, T. (2012). Accessing the net in a third place. Paper submitted for

review to Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.

Frumkin, H. (2003). Healthy places: Exploring the evidence. American Journal of Public

Health, 93 (9), 1451-1456.

Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York:

Free Press.

García-Albacete, G. M. (2010). The saliency of political cleavages and the “dark sides”

of social capital: Evidence from Spain. American Behavioral Scientist, 53, 691-

716.

Gearhart, S., & Zhang, W. (2013). Gay bullying and online opinion expression: Testing

spiral of silence in the social media environment. Social Science Computer

Review, 00 (0), 1-19.

Geertz, C. (1977). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Gil de Zuniga, H., Puig-i-Abril, E., & Rojas, H. (2009). Weblogs, traditional media

online and political participation: An assessment of how the Internet is changing

the political environment. New Media & Society, 11 (4), 553-574

Goode, L. (2005). Jürgen Habermas: Democracy and the public sphere. London: Pluto

Press.

163 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social order of gatherings.

New York: Free Press.

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78,

1360-1380.

Greene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal

of Mixed Methods Research, 2 (1), 7-22.

Grimsley, M., Meehan, A., Green, G., & Stafford, B. (2003). Social capital, community

trust, and e-government services. In P. Nixon & S. Terzis (Eds.), Trust

Management (pp. 165-178). New York: Springer.

Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Habermas, J. (1992). Further reflections on the Public Sphere. In C. Calhoun (ed.),

Habermas and the Public Sphere, 421-461. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Habermas, J. (2007). Civil society and the political public sphere. In C. Calhoun, J.

Gerteis, J. Moody, S. Pfaff, & I. Virk (Eds.), Contemporary sociological theory

(pp. 388-407). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Hampton, K. N., & Gupta, N. (2008). Community and social interaction in the wireless

city: wi-fi use in public and semi-public spaces. New Media & Society, 10 (6),

831-850.

Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. London:

Free Association Books.

164 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social

network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 276-297.

Harris, C. (2007). Libraries with lattes: The new third place. Aplis, 20 (4), 145-152.

Hartmann, M. (2009). The changing urban landscapes of media consumption and

production. European Journal of Communication, 24, 421-436.

Hayles, N. K. (2008). Electronic literature: New horizons for the literary. Notre

Dame,IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Ho, S. S., & McLeod, D. M. (2008). Social-psychological influences on opinion

expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication.

Communication Research, 35 (2), 190-207.

Howard, M. M., Gibson, J. L., & Stolle, D. (2005). The U.S. Citizenship, Involvement,

Democratic Survey. Center for Democracy and Civil Society (CDACS),

Georgetown University.

Iglic, H. (2010). Voluntary associations and tolerance: An ambiguous relationship.

American Behavioral Scientist, 53, 717-736.

Inglehart, R. (1999). Trust, well-being and democracy. In Democracy & Trust, edited by

M. E. Warren. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Internet World Stats (2012, May 1). Internet usage statistics: The Internet big picture,

world internet users and population stats. Retrieved from

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random

House.

165 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Jeffres, L.W., Bracken, C. C., Jian, G., & Casey, M. F. (2009). The impact of third places

on community quality of life. Applied Research Quality Life, 4, 333-345.

Johnson, D. P. (2008). Contemporary sociological theory: An integrated multi-level

approach. New York: Springer.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research

paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14-26.

Jones, S., Johnson-Yale, C., Millermaier, S., & Perez, F. S. (2009). Everyday life, online:

U.S. college students’ use of the Internet. First Monday, 14 (10). Retrieved from

http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2649/2301

Jurgenson, N. (2011, February 24). Digital dualism versus augmented reality. Retrieved

from http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2011/02/24/digital-dualism-versus-

augmented-reality/

Jurgenson, N. (2012). When atoms meet bits: Social media, the mobile web and

augmented revolution. Future Internet, 4, 83-91.

Jurgenson, N., & Rey, P. J. (2010, October 26). Facebook – A homepage for a cyborg

planet. Retrieved from

http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2010/10/26/facebook-homepage-for-a-

cyborg-planet-2/

Kanbur, R. (2005a). Qualitative and quantitative poverty appraisal: The state of play and

some questions. In R. Kanbur (Ed.), Q-Squared—Qualitative and quantitative

poverty appraisal: Complementarities, tensions and the way forward (pp. 16-20).

166 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Kanbur, R. (2005b). Q-Squared—A commentary on qualitative and quantitative poverty

appraisal. In R. Kanbur (Ed.), Q-Squared—Qualitative and quantitative poverty

appraisal: Complementarities, tensions and the way forward (pp. 1-15).

Kavanaugh, A. L., Reese, D. D., Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2005). Weak ties in

networked communities. The Information Society, 21 (2), 119-131.

Kendall, L. (2002). Hanging out in the virtual pub. Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.

Keum, H., Devanathan, N., Deshpande, S., Nelson, M. R., & Shah, D. V. (2004). The

citizen-consumer: Media effects at the intersection of consumer and civic culture.

Political Communication, 21, 369-391.

Kleinman, S. S. (2006). Café culture in France and the United States: A comparative

ethnographic study of the use of mobile information and communication

technologies. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 14 (4), 191-210.

Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. London:

Sage Publications.

Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., Coley, R. L., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for

community: Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 26 (6), 823-851.

Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A Face(book) in the crowd: Social

searching vs. social browsing. Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary

Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 167–170). New York:

ACM Press.

167 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Lee, J., & Lee, H. (2010). The computer-mediated communication network: exploring the

linkage between the online community and social capital. New Media & Society,

12, 711-727.

Lin, A. C. (1998). Bridging positivist and interpretivist approaches to qualitative

methods. Policy Studies Journal, 26 (1), 162-180.

Lin, C. A. (2005). Webcasting adoption: Technology fluidity, user innovativeness, and

media substitution. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48 (3), 446-465.

Lugmayr, A., Franssila, H., Näränen, P., Sotamaa,O., Vanhala, J., & Yu, Z. (2012).

Media in the ubiquitous era: Ambient, social and gaming media. Hershey, PA:

Information Science Reference.

McGovern, M. (2002). ‘The ‘craic’ market’: Irish theme bars and the commodification of

Irishness in contemporary Britain. Irish Journal of Sociology, 11, 77-98.

McLeod, J. M., Daily, K., Guo, Z., Eveland, W. P., Jr., Bayer, J., Yang, S., & Wang, H.

(1996). Community integration, local media use and democratic processes.

Communication Research, 23, 179–209.

McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication and

participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local

political participation. Political Communication, 16, 315–336.

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor

analysis. Psychological Methods, 4 (1), 84-99.

Maloney, W. A., van Deth, J. W., Roßteutscher, S. (2008). Civic orientations: Does

associational type matter? Political Studies, 56, 261-287.

168 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Mandelli, A. (2002). Bounded sociability, relationship costs and intangible resources in

complex digital networks. IT & Society, 1 (1), 251-274.

Markoff, J. (1999). Globalization and the future of democracy. Journal of World-Systems

Research, 2, 277-309.

Marquart-Pyatt, S. T., & Petrzelka, P. (2008). Trust, the democratic process, and

involvement in a rural community. Rural Sociology, 73, 250-274.

Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2005). Advance and multivariate statistical methods

(3rd Ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship: The Internet,

society, and participation. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.

Moy, P., & Gastil, J. (2006). Predicting deliberative conversation: The impact of

discussion networks, media use, and political cognitions. Political

Communication, 23, 443-460.

Moy, P., Manosevitch, E., Stamm, K., & Dunsmore, K. (2005). Linking dimensions of

Internet use and civic engagement. Journalism and Mass Communication

Quarterly, 82 (3), 571-586.

Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Neuman, W. R., Bimber, B., & Hindman, M. (2011). The Internet and four dimensions of

citizenship. In Shapiro, R.Y., & Jacobs, L.R. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of

public opinion and the media. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nisbet, R. (1953). The quest for community. Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies

Institute.

169 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Norris, P. (2000). A virtuous circle: Political communications in postindustrial societies.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet

worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What

can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33 (3), 301-314.

Oldenburg, R. (1989) The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair

salons and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Cambridge, MA: De Capo

Press.

Oldenburg, R. (1997). Our vanishing “third places.” Planning Commissioners Journal,

25, 6-10.

Oldenburg, R. (2002). Celebrating the third place: Inspiring stories about the “great

good places” at the heart of our communities. Cambridge, MA: De Capo Press.

Oldmeadow, J. A., Quinn, S., & Kowert, R. (2013). Attachment style, social skills, and

Facebook use amongst adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1142-1149.

Online Marketing Trends (2011, March 15). Twitter statistics on its 5th birthday.

Retrieved from http://www.onlinemarketing-trends.com/2011/03/twitter-statistics-

on-its-5th.html.

Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of

digital natives. New York: Basic Books.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

170 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Peaslee, R. M. (2009). Monologue, dialogue, polylogue: Online comments, focus group

language, and the problem of identity free communication. Journal of New Media

& Culture, 6 (1). Retrieved October 15, 2013 from

http://www.ibiblio.org/nmediac/summer2009/polylogue.html.

Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students’ social

networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology, 30, 227-238.

Preece, J. (1999). Empathic communities: Balancing emotional and factual

communication. Interacting with Computers, 12 (1), 63–77.

Putnam, R. D. (1995a). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of

Democracy, 6 (1), 65-78.

Putnam, R. D. (1995b). Tuning in, tuning out: the strange disappearance of social capital

in America. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28, 664-683.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community.

New York: Touchstone.

Putnam, R. D., & Feldstein, L. M. (2003). Better together: Restoring the American

community. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc.

Putnam, R. D., & Campbell, D. E. (2010). American grace: How religion divides and

unites us. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc.

Relph, E. (2013). Prospects for places. In M. Larice & E. Macdonald (Eds.), The Urban

Design Reader, Second Edition (pp. 266-271). New York: Routledge.

Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs: The next social revolution. Cambridge, MA: Perseus

Books.

171 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Ritzer, G. (2005). Enchanting a disenchanted world: Revolutionizing the means of

consumption. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Ritzer, G. (2011). Sociological theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rothstein, B., & Stolle, D. (2002). How political institutions create and destroy social

capital: An institutional theory of generalized trust. Proceedings of the Annual

Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.

Rosenbaum, M. S. (2006). Exploring the social supportive role of third places in

consumers’ lives. Journal of Service Research, 9 (1), 59-72.

Rosenbaum, M. S., Ward, J., Walker, B. A., & Ostrom, A. L. (2007). A cup of coffee

with a dash of love: An investigation of commercial social support and third-place

attachment. Journal of Service Research, 10 (1), 43-59.

Sanusi, A., & Palen, L. (2008). Of coffee shops and parking lots: Considering matters of

space and place in the use of public wi-fi. Computer Supported Cooperative

Work, 17, 257-273.

Scheufele, D. A., & Shah, D. V. (2000). Personality strength and social capital: The role

of dispositional and informational variables in the production of civic

participation. Communication Research, 27, 107-131.

Scheufele, D. A., Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Nisbet, E. C. (2004). Social structure

and citizenship: Examining the impacts of social setting, network heterogeneity,

and informational variables on political participation. Political Communication,

21 (3), 315-338.

Schuler, D. (1996). New community networks. New York: ACM Press.

172 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Shah, D., Cho, J., Eveland, W., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a

digital age: modeling effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32

(5), 531-565.

Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., & Holbert, R. L. (2001). “Connecting” and “disconnecting” with

civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political

Communication, 18, 141-162.

Shah, D. V., McLeod, J. M., & Yoon, S. (2001). Communication, context and

community: An exploration of print, broadcast, and Internet influences.

Communication Research, 28 (4), 464–506.

Shah, D. V., Schmierbach, M., Hawkins, J., Espino, R., & Donavan, J. (2002).

Nonrecursive models of Internet use and community engagement: Questioning

whether time spent online erodes social capital. Journalism & Mass

Communication Quarterly, 79, 964-987.

Sieber, S. D. (1973). The integration of fieldwork and survey methods. American Journal

of Sociology, 78 (6), 1335-1359.

Simmel, G. (2007). Group expansion and the development of individuality. In C.

Calhoun, J. Gerteis, J. Moody, S. Pfaff, & I. Virk (Eds.), Classical sociological

theory (pp. 300-314). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Soukup, C. (2006). Computer-mediated communication as a virtual third place: building

Oldenburg’s great good places on the world wide web. New Media Society, 8,

421-440.

173 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Smith, A. (2011a). 35% of American adults own a smartphone: One quarter of

smartphone owners use their phone for most of their online browsing. Pew

Internet & American Life Project.

Smith, A. (2011b, June 01). Twitter update 2011. Retrieved from

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2007/twitter-users-cell-phone-2011-demographics

Steinkuehler, C. A., & Williams, D. (2006). Where everybody knows your screen name:

Online games as “third places”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,

11, 885-909.

Stolle, D. (1998). Bowling together, bowling alone: The development of generalized trust

in voluntary associations. Political Psychology, 19 (3), 497-526.

Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N., & Espinoza, G. (2008). Online and

offline social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults.

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29 (6), 420-433.

Swagerty, L. (2008). Third place comes to church. Retrieved from the Leadership

Network website: http://www.leadnet.org

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. B. (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and

behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Theiss-Morse, E., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Citizenship and civic engagement. Annual

Review of Political Science, 8, 227-249.

Tolbert, C. M., Lyson, T. A., & Irwin, M. D. (1998). Local capitalism, civic engagement,

and socioeconomic well-being. Social Forces, 77 (2), 401-428.

174 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Tolbert, C. M., Lyson, T. A., Irwin, M. D., & Nucci, A. R. (2002). Civic community in

small-town America: How civic welfare is influenced by local capitalism and

civic engagement. Rural Sociology, 67 (1), 90-113.

Torrens, P. M. (2008). Wi-Fi geographies. Annals of the Association of American

Geographers, 98 (1), 59-84.

Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network

site?: Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 875-901.

VanAlstyne, M., & Brynjolffson, E. (2005). Global village or cyber-balkans? Modeling

and measuring the integration of electronic communities. Management Science

51, 851–868.

Vergeer, M., & Pelzer, B. (2009). Consequences of media and Internet use for offline and

online network capital and well-being. A causal model approach. Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 189-210.

Wadley, G., Gibbs, M., Hew, K., & Graham, C. (2003). Computer supported cooperative

play, “third places” and online videogames. Proceedings of the Thirteenth

Australian Conference on Computer Human Interaction (pp. 238–241). Brisbane:

University of Queensland.

Wasserman, T. (2012, April 23). Facebook now has 901 million users. Mashable.

Retrieved March 12, 2012, from http://mashable.com/2012/04/23/facebook-now-

has-901-million-users/

Weisberg, H. F. (2005). The total survey error approach: A guide to the new science of

survey research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

175 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Wellman, B., Haase, A. Q., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet increase,

decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and

community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 436-455.

Wilkins, K. G. (2000). The role of media in public disengagement from political life.

Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44 (4), 569-580.

Wilkin, R. (2008). Mobilizing place: Mobile media, peripatitics, and the renegotiation of

urban places. Journal of Urban Technology, 15 (3), 39-55

Williams, D. (2006a). A (brief) social history of gaming. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant

(Eds.), Video Games: Motivations and Consequences of Use. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Williams, D. (2006b). On and off the ‘net: Scales for social capital in an online era.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 593-628.

Williams, D. (2006c) Why game studies now? Gamers don’t bowl alone. Games and

Culture, 1 (1), 13-16.

Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2006). Mass media research: An introduction, 8th

edition. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Wojcieszak, M. E., & Mutz, D. (2009). Online groups and political discourse: Do online

discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement? Journal of

Communication, 59, 40-56.

Xenos, M., & Moy, P. (2007). Direct and differential effects of the Internet on political

and civic engagement. Journal of Communication, 57, 704-718.

176 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Appendix A

IRB LETTERS

April 28, 2013

Leslie Todd Chambers Media and Communication Mail Stop: 3082

Regarding: 503848 Oldenburg's Great Good Places Online: Assessing Potential for Social Network Sites to Serve as Third Places, A qualitative Analysis

Dr. Leslie Todd Chambers:

The Texas Tech University Protection of Human Subjects Committee has approved your proposal referenced above. The approval is effective from April 28, 2013 to March 31, 2014. This expiration date must appear on all of your consent documents.

We will remind you of the pending expiration approximately eight weeks before March 31, 2014 and to update information about the project. If you request an extension, the proposal on file and the information you provide will be routed for continuing review.

Sincerely,

Rosemary Cogan, Ph.D., ABPP Protection of Human Subjects Committee

Box 41075 | Lubbock, Texas 79409-1075 | T 806.742.3905 | F 806.742.3947 | www.vpr.ttu.edu An EEO/Affirmative Action Institution

177 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

July 10, 2013

Dr. Leslie Todd Chambers Media and Communication Mail Stop: 3082

Regarding: 502792 Wi-Fi as Media Place

Dr. Leslie Todd Chambers:

The Texas Tech University Protection of Human Subjects Committee received the changes you reported in the memo of July 3, 2013 for this protocol. These changes are approved. The protocol is still classified as exempt.

Exempt research is not subject to continuing review. However, any modifications that (a) change the research in a substantial way, (b) might change the basis for exemption, or (c) might introduce any additional risk to subjects must be reported to the Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) before they are implemented.

To report such changes, you must send a new claim for exemption or a proposal for expedited or full board review to the HRPP. Extension of exempt status for exempt protocols that have not changed is automatic.

The HRPP staff will send annual reminders that ask you to update the status of your research protocol. Once you have completed your research, you must inform the HRPP office by responding to the annual reminder so that the protocol file can be closed.

Sincerely,

Rosemary Cogan, Ph.D., ABPP Protection of Human Subjects Committee

______The above project is complete.

______Signature of Principal Investigator Date

Box 41075 | Lubbock, Texas 79409-1075 | T 806.742.3905 | F 806.742.3947 | www.vpr.ttu.edu An EEO/Affirmative Action Institution

178 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Appendix B

TABLES

Table 1

Factor Analysis of Third Place

Component Loading Familiarity Facebook is safe .643 I have control over my Facebook Timeline. .643 I am at ease when on Facebook. .699 Facebook relieves me of stress. .590 Facebook is part of my daily routine. .690

Sociability Individuals can come and go as they please. .772 Individuals feel free to interact on .714 Facebook. It’s easy to socialize on Facebook. .647 It’s common to see joking between users .642 on Facebook.

Support People support me on Facebook. .821 People share my interests on Facebook. .779

Neutrality Facebook is a neutral site. .704 Everyone is seen as an equal on Facebook. .834

179 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Table 2

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Facebook Bridging Social Capital

Independent Variables Beta SE Demographics Age -.005 .022 Gender (female coded higher) -.050 .089 Classification -.049 .067 Race/Ethnicity (Caucasian coded .059 .041 lower) R2 (%) .700 Facebook Intensity .276** .064 Incremental R2 (%) 27.4*** Facebook Usage .402*** .073 Incremental R2 (%) 19.4*** Third Place Variables Familiarity .049 .087 Sociability .070 .077 Support .174** .067 Neutrality .146* .053 Incremental R2 (%) 5.8*** Total R2 (%) 53.3***

Note: The beta weights are final standardized regression coefficients.

* p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p < .001

180 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Table 3

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Offline Bridging Social Capital

Independent Variables Beta SE Demographics Age .039 .028 Gender (female coded higher) .184** .112 Classification .020 .084 Race/Ethnicity (Caucasian coded .016 .052 lower) R2 (%) 5.8** Facebook Intensity -.193 .080 Incremental R2 (%) -.5* Facebook Usage .106 .093 Incremental R2 (%) 4.9** Third Place Variables Familiarity .171 .109 Sociability .267** .097 Support .158* .084 Neutrality -.082 .067 Incremental R2 (%) 10.1*** Total R2 (%) 20.3***

Note: The beta weights are final standardized regression coefficients.

* p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p < .001

181 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Table 4

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Facebook Bonding Social Capital

Independent Variables Beta SE Demographics Age .033 .028 Gender (female coded higher) -.006 .113 Classification -.005 .085 Race/Ethnicity (Caucasian coded .137* .052 lower) R2 (%) 1.6 Facebook Intensity .297** .081 Incremental R2 (%) 21.7*** Facebook Usage .176* .093 Incremental R2 (%) 5.3*** Third Place Variables Familiarity .098 .110 Sociability .104 .098 Support .130 .084 Neutrality .082 .068 Incremental R2 (%) 3.7*** Total R2 (%) 32.3***

Note: The beta weights are final standardized regression coefficients.

* p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p < .001

182 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Table 5

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Offline Bonding Social Capital

Independent Variables Beta SE Demographics Age .060 .027 Gender (female coded higher) .103 .111 Classification .007 .083 Race/Ethnicity (Caucasian coded .034 .051 lower) R2 (%) 3.3* Facebook Intensity .039 .080 Incremental R2 (%) .3 Facebook Usage .074 .091 Incremental R2 (%) 2.1** Third Place Variables Familiarity -.050 .108 Sociability .273*** .097 Support .137 .084 Neutrality -.100 .066 Incremental R2 (%) 6.5**** Total R2 (%) 12.2****

Note: The beta weights are final standardized regression coefficients.

* p=.05 ** p<.05 *** p < .01 **** p = .001

183 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Table 6

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Generalized Trust

Independent Variables Beta SE Demographics Age .036 .074 Gender (female coded higher) -.006 .273 Classification -.123 .204 Race/Ethnicity (Caucasian coded .107 .127 lower) R2 (%) 1.7 Facebook Intensity .114 .193 Incremental R2 (%) 7.7** Facebook Usage -.056 .223 Incremental R2 (%) -.6** Third Place Variables Familiarity .234* .263 Sociability -.086 .239 Support .148 .204 Neutrality .264** .166 Incremental R2 (%) 13.7*** Total R2 (%) 22.5***

Note: The beta weights are final standardized regression coefficients.

* p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p < .001

184 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Table 7

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Institutional Trust

Independent Variables Beta SE Demographics Age .117 .072 Gender (female coded higher) .149 .293 Classification -.185* .218 Race/Ethnicity (Caucasian coded -.097 .144 lower) R2 (%) 6.4** Political Party and Ideology Variables Economic Ideology (conservative -.027 .167 coded higher) Social Issues Ideology -.048 .151 (conservative coded higher) Political Party (Democrat coded -.223** .159 higher) R2 (%) .4* Facebook Intensity .103 .214 Incremental R2 (%) 5.3*** Facebook Usage -.053 .239 Incremental R2 (%) -.6** Third Place Variables Familiarity .249* .287 Sociability -.058 .263 Support .012 .220 Neutrality .181* .175 Incremental R2 (%) 6.0*** Total R2 (%) 17.5***

Note: The beta weights are final standardized regression coefficients.

* p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p < .001

185 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Table 8

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Interpersonal Trust

Independent Variables Beta SE Demographics Age .160* .056 Gender (female coded higher) -.071 .229 Classification -.010 .171 Race/Ethnicity (Caucasian coded -.098 .105 lower) R2 (%) 5.8*** Facebook Intensity -.080 .162 Incremental R2 (%) 1.6*** Facebook Usage .020 .189 Incremental R2 (%) .4*** Third Place Variables Familiarity .254** .221 Sociability -.079 .198 Support .148** .171 Neutrality .224*** .137 Incremental R2 (%) 13.0**** Total R2 (%) 20.8****

Note: The beta weights are final standardized regression coefficients.

*p=.053 ** p<.05 *** p<.01 **** p < .001

186 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Appendix C

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Third Place Measures Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree):

1. Facebook is a neutral site. 2. Facebook is safe. 3. Individuals can come and go as they please on Facebook. 4. Individuals feel free to interact on Facebook. 5. Everyone is seen as an equal to each other on Facebook. 6. It’s easy to start a conversation on Facebook. 7. Conversations are easy to find on Facebook. 8. I feel comfortable talking to others on Facebook. 9. People come to Facebook to socialize. 10. It’s easy to socialize on Facebook. 11. People are free to talk about anything on Facebook. 12. Facebook is easy to use. 13. It’s common to see joking between users on Facebook. 14. I’d characterize Facebook as joyful. 15. I have control over my Facebook Timeline. 16. I’m at ease when I’m on Facebook. 17. Facebook relieves me of stress. 18. I am among familiar faces on Facebook. 19. People support me on Facebook. 20. People share my interests on Facebook. 21. Facebook is part of my daily routine.

Facebook Intensity:

1. How long have you held an account on Facebook? 0 = less than 6 months, 1 = 6 months to 1 year, 2 = 1 year to 2 years, 3 = 2 years to 4 years, 4 = more than 4 years. 2. About how many total Facebook friends do you have? 0 = 100 or less, 1 = 101- 150, 2 = 151-200, 3 = 201-250, 4 = 251-300, 5 = 301-350, 6 = 351-400, 7 = 401- 500, 8 = more than 500. 3. In the past week, on average, approximately how many minutes per day have you spent on Facebook? 0 = less than 10, 1 = 10-30, 2 = 31-60, 3 = 1-2 hours, 4 = 2-3 hours, 5 = more than 3 hours. 4. Facebook is part of my everyday activity. 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree 5. I am proud to tell people I’m on Facebook. 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree

187 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

6. Facebook has become part of my daily routine. 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree 7. I feel out of touch when I haven’t logged onto Facebook for a while. 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree 8. I feel I am part of the Facebook community. 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree 9. I would be sorry if Facebook shut down. 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree 10. In the following list, please rank order (from the place you spend the most time, to the place you spend the least time) getting wireless Internet access

Please place a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 next to each of the following (with one being the most often and 6 being the least often) a. Home b. Work c. University d. Local Business (Business Name) e. Library (other than university) f. Other (please specify)

Facebook Profile Intensity:

1. Please indicate which components of the Facebook profile you currently use (0 = no, 1 = yes): a. Current City b. Hometown c. Gender d. Birthday e. Interested In (Male/Female) f. Languages you know g. About Me h. Profile Picture i. Relationship Status j. Family k. Employer Information l. Education Information (College/High School) m. Religion n. Political Views o. Favorite Quotations p. Music q. Books r. Movies s. Television t. Games u. Places v. Interests w. Email Address

188 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

x. Phone Number y. Instant Messaging Screen Name(s) z. Physical Address aa. Website Address

2. Please indicate who you believe to have viewed your profile the most: a. High school friends b. College friends/classmates c. Family members d. Coworkers e. Other Facebook friends

Facebook Usage:

1. Off to Online: Use Facebook to connect with offline contacts. (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree): a. I have used Facebook to check out someone I met socially. b. I use Facebook to learn more about other people in my classes. c. I use Facebook to learn more about other people living near me. d. I use Facebook to keep in touch with my old friends.

2. On to Offline: I use Facebook to meet new people. 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree

Bonding Social Capital Subscale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree): 1. There are several people on Facebook/offline I trust to help solve my problems. 2. There is someone on Facebook/offline I can turn to for advice about making very important decisions. 3. There is no one on Facebook/offline that I feel comfortable talking to about intimate personal problems. (reversed). 4. When I feel lonely, there are several people on Facebook /offline I can talk to. 5. If I needed an emergency loan of $500, I know someone on Facebook /offline I can turn to. 6. The people I interact with on Facebook /offline would put their reputation on the line for me. 7. The people I interact with on Facebook /offline would be good job references for me. 8. The people I interact with on Facebook /offline would share their last dollar with me. 9. I do not know people on Facebook /offline well enough to get them to do anything important. (reversed) 10. The people I interact with on Facebook /offline would help me fight an injustice.

189 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

Bridging Social Capital Subscale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree): 1. Interacting with people on Facebook /offline makes me interested in things that happen outside of my town. 2. Interacting with people on Facebook /offline makes me want to try new things. 3. Interacting with people on Facebook /offline makes me interested in what people unlike me are thinking. 4. Talking with people on Facebook /offline makes me curious about other places in the world. 5. Interacting with people on Facebook /offline makes me feel like part of a larger community. 6. Interacting with people on Facebook /offline makes me feel connected to the bigger picture. 7. Interacting with people on Facebook /offline reminds me that everyone in the world is connected. 8. I am willing to spend time to support general on Facebook /offline community activities. 9. Interacting with people on Facebook /offline gives me new people to talk to. 10. On Facebook /Offline, I come in contact with new people all the time.

Civic Participation (0 = no, never; 1 = yes, but not within the last 12 months; and 2 = yes, within the last 12 months)

1. I have worked or volunteered in a community project. 2. I have worked or volunteered for nonpolitical groups such as a hobby club, environmental group or minority student association. 3. I have raised money for charity or ran/walked/biked for charity.

Political Participation (0 = no, never; 1 = yes, but not within the last 12 months; and 2 = yes, within the last 12 months)

1. I have worked or volunteered for political groups or candidates. 2. I have voted in a local, state or national election. 3. I have tried to persuade others in an election. 4. I have worn or displayed a badge or sticker related to a political or social cause. 5. I have deliberately purchased certain product for political, ethical, or environmental reasons.

Generalized Trust 1. Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or that you cannot be too careful in dealing with people (0 = You can’t be too careful, 10 = Most people can be trusted)

2. Do you think that most people would try to take advantage of you if they got the chance, or would they try to be fair? (0 = Most people would try to take advantage of me, 10 = Most people would try to be fair)

190 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

3. Would you say that most of the time people try to be helpful or that they are mostly looking out for themselves? (0 = People mostly look out for themselves, 10 = People mostly try to be helpful)

Interpersonal Trust 1. How much do you trust each of the following groups of people? (0 = Cannot be trusted at all, 10 = Can be trusted a lot) a. People in your neighborhood b. Co-workers or people you go to school with c. People in your clubs or associations d. Strangers e. People of a different race from yours f. People who have a different religious faith than you

2. If you lost a wallet or purse that contained two hundred dollars, how likely is it to be returned with the money in it if it was found… (1 = very likely, 2 = somewhat likely, 3 = not very likely, 4 = not at all likely) a. …by someone who lives close by? b. …by a complete stranger? c. …by a police officer?

Institutional Trust (0 = No trust, 10 = Complete Trust) 1. Please indicate how much you personally trust each of the following institutions: a. Congress b. The Legal System c. The police d. Politicians e. The United Nations f. The US Supreme Court g. Local government h. Political parties i. Unions j. The media k. Multi-national corporations l. Anti-globalization protesters

Demographics:

1. To help identify certain characteristics of our participants, we are interested in asking a few questions about you. What is your gender?

0. Male 1. Female

191 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

2. What is the age on your last birthday?

1. 1-99 (self-select drop down list)

3. What race or ethnicity do you most identify with? 1. White (non-Hispanic) 2. Hispanic 3. Black 4. Asian 5. Other (please specify): ______

4. What is your classification?

1. Freshman 2. Sophomore 3. Junior 4. Senior 5. Graduate Student

5. What is the best estimate of your household income before taxes in 2009?

1. less than $10,000 2. $10,001 to $20,000 3. $20,001 to $30,000 4. $30,001 to $40,000 5. $40,001 to $50,000 6. $50,001 to $60,000 7. $60,001 to $70,000 8. $70,001 and more 9. don’t know

6. We are also interested in your political ideology. In terms of economic issues, would you say you are:

1. very liberal 2. liberal 3. moderate 4. conservative 5. very conservative 6. don’t know

192 Texas Tech University, Jerod Foster, December 2013

7. In terms of social issues, would you say you are:

1. very liberal 2. liberal 3. moderate 4. conservative 5. very conservative 6. don’t know

8. What political party do you most identify with?

1. Republican 2. Independent 3. Democrat 4. Other (Please list): ______

9. Please indicate if you are also a member or participant in any of the following online social media networks (check all that apply):

Check all that apply Twitter MySpace LinkedIn FourSquare Tumblr Posterous Other (please list): ______

193