Social Isolation and New

Technology
How the internet and mobile phones
impact Americans social networks

November 2009

Keith N. Hampton, University of Pennsylvania

Lauren F. Sessions, University of Pennsylvania
Eun Ja Her, University of Pennsylvania
Lee Rainie, Pew Internet Project

202.419.4500

Contents

ExecutiveSummary
Overview
Acknowledgments
Part1:Introduction
Part2:CoreNetworks
Part3:NetworkDiversityandCommunity
Part4:Conclusion
AppendixA:ExtendedLiteratureReview
AppendixB:TheGSSControversy
AppendixC:Methodology
AppendixD:RegressionTables
References

ExecutiveSummary

ThisPewInternetPersonalNetworksandCommunitysurveyisthefirsteverthatexaminesthe
roleoftheinternetandcellphonesinthewaythatpeopleinteractwiththoseintheircore
socialnetwork.Ourkeyfindingschallengepreviousresearchandcommonplacefearsaboutthe
harmfulsocialimpactofnewtechnology:

Americansarenotasisolatedashasbeenpreviouslyreported.Wefindthattheextent
ofsocialisolationhashardlychangedsince1985,contrarytoconcernsthatthe
prevalenceofsevereisolationhastripledsincethen.Only6%oftheadultpopulation
hasnoonewithwhomtheycandiscussimportantmattersorwhotheyconsidertobe
especiallysignificantintheirlife.
WeconfirmthatAmericansdiscussionnetworkshaveshrunkbyaboutathirdsince
1985andhavebecomelessdiversebecausetheycontainfewernonfamilymembers.
However,contrarytotheconsiderableconcernthatpeoplesuseoftheinternetandcell
phonescouldbetiedtothetrendtowardssmallernetworks,wefindthatownershipof
amobilephoneandparticipationinavarietyofinternetactivitiesareassociatedwith
largerandmorediversecorediscussionnetworks.(Discussionnetworksareakey
measureofpeoplesmostimportantsocialties.)

Socialmediaactivitiesareassociatedwithseveralbeneficialsocialactivities,including
havingdiscussionnetworksthataremorelikelytocontainpeoplefromdifferent
backgrounds.Forinstance,frequentinternetusers,andthosewhomaintainablogare
muchmorelikelytoconfideinsomeonewhoisofanotherrace.Thosewhoshare
photosonlinearemorelikelytoreportthattheydiscussimportantmatterswith
someonewhoisamemberofanotherpoliticalparty.

Whenweexaminepeoplesfullpersonalnetworktheirstrongtiesandweakties
internetuseingeneralanduseofsocialnetworkingservicessuchasFacebookin
particularareassociatedwithhavingamorediversesocialnetwork.Again,thisflies
againstthenotionthattechnologypullspeopleawayfromsocialengagement.

Somehaveworriedthatinternetuselimitspeoplesparticipationintheirlocal
communities,butwefindthatmostinternetactivitieshavelittleorapositive
relationshiptolocalactivity.Forinstance,internetusersareaslikelyasanyoneelseto
visitwiththeirneighborsinperson.Cellphoneusers,thosewhousetheinternet
frequentlyatwork,andbloggersaremorelikelytobelongtoalocalvoluntary
association,suchasayouthgrouporacharitableorganization.However,wefindsome
3

evidencethatuseofsocialnetworkingservices(e.g.,Facebook,MySpace,LinkedIn)
substitutesforsomeneighborhoodinvolvement.

Internetusedoesnotpullpeopleawayfrompublicplaces.Rather,itisassociatedwith
engagementinplacessuchasparks,cafes,andrestaurants,thekindsoflocaleswhere
researchshowsthatpeoplearelikelytoencounterawiderarrayofpeopleanddiverse
pointsofview.Indeed,internetaccesshasbecomeacommoncomponentofpeoples
experienceswithinmanypublicspaces.Forinstance,ofthoseAmericanswhohavebeen
inalibrarywithinthepastmonth,38%loggedontotheinternetwhiletheywerethere,
18%havedonesoinacaforcoffeeshop.

Peoplesmobilephoneuseoutpacestheiruseoflandlinephonesasaprimarymethod
ofstayingintouchwiththeirclosestfamilyandfriends,butfacetofacecontactstill
trumpsallothermethods.Onaverageinatypicalyear,peoplehaveinpersoncontact
withtheircorenetworktiesonabout210days;theyhavemobilephonecontacton195
daysoftheyear;landlinephonecontacton125days;textmessagingcontactonthe
mobilephone125days;emailcontact72days;instantmessagingcontact55days;
contactviasocialnetworkingwebsites39days;andcontactvialettersorcardson8
days.

Challengingtheassumptionthatinternetuseencouragessocialcontactacrossvast
distances,wefindthatmanyinternettechnologiesareusedasmuchforlocalcontactas
theyarefordistantcommunication.

Overview

Thisreportaddsnewinsightstoanongoingdebateabouttheextentofsocialisolationin
America.Awidelyreported2006studyarguedthatsince1985Americanshavebecomemore
sociallyisolated,thesizeoftheirdiscussionnetworkshasdeclined,andthediversityofthose
peoplewithwhomtheydiscussimportantmattershasdecreased.Inparticular,thestudyfound
thatAmericanshavefewerclosetiestothosefromtheirneighborhoodsandfromvoluntary
associations.SociologistsMillerMcPherson,LynnSmithLovinandMatthewBrashearssuggest
thatnewtechnologies,suchastheinternetandmobilephone,mayplayaroleinadvancingthis
trend. 1 Specifically,theyarguethatthetypeofsocialtiessupportedbythesetechnologiesare
relativelyweakandgeographicallydispersed,notthestrong,oftenlocallybasedtiesthattend
tobeapartofpeoplescorediscussionnetwork.Theydepictedtheriseofinternetandmobile
phonesasoneofthemajortrendsthatpullspeopleawayfromtraditionalsocialsettings,
neighborhoods,voluntaryassociations,andpublicspacesthathavebeenassociatedwithlarge
anddiversecorenetworks.
Thesurveyresultsreportedherewereundertakentoexploreissuesthathavenotbeenprobed
directlyinthatstudyandotherrelatedresearchonsocialisolation:theroleoftheinternetand
mobilephoneinpeoplescoresocialnetworks.
ThisPewInternetPersonalNetworksandCommunitysurveyfindsthatAmericansarenotas
isolatedashasbeenpreviouslyreported.Peoplesuseofthemobilephoneandtheinternetis
associatedwithlargerandmorediversediscussionnetworks.And,whenweexaminepeoples
fullpersonalnetworktheirstrongandweaktiesinternetuseingeneralanduseofsocial
networkingservicessuchasFacebookinparticularareassociatedwithmorediversesocial
networks.

Awordaboutourmethodologyandfindings
Inthissurvey,wearetryingtounderstandhowtechnologyandotherfactorsarerelatedtothe
size,diversityandcharacterofpeoplessocialnetworks.Butwefaceachallenge.Ifwewere
simplytocomparethesocialnetworksofpeoplewhoareheavyusersoftechnologywiththose
whodonotusetechnology,wewouldhavenowayofknowingwhetheranydifferenceswe
observewereassociatedwithdemographicorotherdifferencesbetweenthesegroups,rather
thanwiththeirdifferingpatternsoftechnologyuse.Thatsbecausesomedemographictraits,

The study can be examined here: http://www.asanet.org/galleries/default-file/June06ASRFeature.pdf

5

suchasmoreyearsofeducation,areassociatedwithlargercoresocialnetworks.Andthose
withmoreformaleducationarealsomorelikelytousetechnology.
Todealwiththischallenge,weuseastatisticaltechniquecalledregressionanalysis,which
allowsustoexaminetherelationshipbetweentechnologyuseandnetworksizewhileholding
constantotherfactorssuchaseducation,ageorgender.Thus,mostoftheresultsreported
herearenotshownassimplecomparisonsofthebehaviorofgroupsonourkeymeasures,
whichisthetypicalapproachofPewInternetreports.Rather,thefindingscomparethesocial
networksofpeoplewhousecertaintechnologieswithdemographicallysimilarpeoplewhodo
notusethetechnologies.Forexample,weuseregressionanalysistocomparetheaveragesize
ofthesocialnetworkofademographicallytypicalAmericanwhousestheinternetandhasa
cellphonewithanAmericanwhosharesthesamedemographiccharacteristicsbutdoesnot
usetheinternetoracellphone.
Anothercommontypeofanalysisinthereportestimateshowmuchmorelikelyacertain
outcomeis(suchashavingatleastonepersonofadifferentraceorethnicgroupinasocial
network)forpeoplewhousecertaintechnologycomparedwithpeoplewhodonot,allother
thingsbeingequal.Forexample,holdingdemographiccharacteristicsconstant,theregression
analysisfindsthatapersonwhoblogsisnearlytwiceaslikelyasademographicallysimilar
person(e.g.,thesamesex,age,educationandmaritalstatus)whodoesnotblogtohave
someoneofadifferentraceintheircorediscussionnetwork.
Aswithallstudiesthatusedatacollectedatonlyonepointintime,noneoftheresultswe
reportshouldbeinterpretedasexplanationsofcauseandeffect.Wecannotsayfromthese
findingsthatinternetandmobilephoneusecausepeopletohavebigger,morediverse
networks.Wecananddosaythattechnologyuseisoftenstronglyassociatedwithlargerand
morediversesocialnetworks.

AreAmericansmoresociallyisolated?
OursurveyresultschallengethefindingthatanincreasingnumberofAmericanshavenoone
withwhomtheycandiscussimportantmatters.However,ourfindingssupportexisting
researchthatsuggeststhattheaveragesizeanddiversityofcorediscussionnetworkshave
declined.Ourfindingsshow:

Comparedto1985,therehasbeensmalltomodestchange,ratherthanalargedropin
thenumberofpeoplewhoreportthattheyhavenoonewithwhomtheycandiscuss
importantmatters.12%ofAmericanshavenodiscussionconfidants.FewAmericansare
trulysociallyisolated.Only6%oftheadultpopulationhasnoonewithwhomtheycan
discussimportantmattersorwhotheyconsidertobeespeciallysignificantintheir
life.
6

TheaveragesizeofAmericanscorediscussionnetworkshasdeclinedsince1985;the
meannetworksizehasdroppedbyaboutonethirdoralossofapproximatelyone
confidant.
Thediversityofcorediscussionnetworkshasmarkedlydeclined;discussionnetworks
arelesslikelytocontainnonkinthatis,peoplewhoarenotrelativesbybloodor
marriage;althoughthedeclineisnotassteepashasbeenpreviouslyreported.

Isinternetormobilephoneuserelatedtosmallerorlessdiversecorenetworks?
Useofnewerinformationandcommunicationtechnologies(ICTs),suchastheinternetand
mobilephones,isnotthesocialchangeresponsiblefortherestructuringofAmericanscore
networks.Wefoundthatownershipofamobilephoneandparticipationinavarietyofinternet
activitieswereassociatedwithlargerandmorediversecorediscussionnetworks:

Largercorediscussionnetworksareassociatedwithowningacellphone,anduseofthe
internetforsharingdigitalphotosandinstantmessaging.Onaverage,thesizeofcore
discussionnetworksis12%largeramongstcellphoneusers,9%largerforthosewho
sharephotosonline,and9%biggerforthosewhouseinstantmessaging.
Whereasonly45%ofAmericansdiscussimportantmatterswithsomeonewhoisnota
familymember,internetusersare55%morelikelytohaveanonkindiscussionpartners.
Internetusersare38%lesslikelytorelyexclusivelyontheirspouses/partnersas
discussionconfidants.Thosewhouseinstantmessagingareevenlesslikely,36%less
likelythanotherinternetusers,or59%lesslikelythannoninternetuserstorely
exclusivelyontheirspouses/partnersforimportantmatters.
Thosewhousetheinternettouploadphotostoshareonlineare61%morelikelyto
havediscussionpartnersthatcrosspoliticallines.
Maintainingablogisassociatedwitha95%higherlikelihoodofhavingacrossrace
discussionconfidant.Frequentathomeinternetusersarealso53%morelikelytohave
aconfidantofadifferentrace.

Whenweexploredthesizeanddiversityofpeoplescorenetworkstheirstrongestsocialties
thatincludeboththosewithwhomtheydiscussimportantmattersandthosetheyconsider
especiallysignificantintheirlifetherecontinuedtobeastrong,positiverelationship
betweenthesizeanddiversityofpeoplesclosestsocialties,mobilephoneuse,and
participationinarangeofinternetactivities.

Mobilephoneusersandthosewhogoonlinetouseinstantmessaginghavelargercore
networks.Mobilephoneuserscorenetworkstendtobe12%largerthannonusers,and
thosewhouseinstantmessaginghavecorenetworksthatareanaverageof11%larger
thanthosewhodonot.
Mobilephoneusers,generalinternetusers,andespeciallyinternetuserswhogoonline
athomemorethanonceperday,sharedigitalphotosonline,orexchangeinstant
7

messageshavemorenonkinintheircorenetworks.Thediversityofcorenetworkstends
tobe25%largerformobilephoneusersand15%largerforinternetusers.However,
someinternetactivitiesareassociatedwithhavinganevenlargernonkincorenetworks.
Comparedtootherinternetusers,thosewhofrequentlyusetheinternetathometend
tohaveanadditional17%nonkin,thosewhosharephotosaverage12%morenonkin,
andthosewhouseinstantmessagingtendtohave19%morenonkin.

Isinternetuseleadingtolessfacetofacecontactwithourclosestsocialtiesor
withlocalsocialties?
Whereasmoststudiesofcoresocialnetworksfocusexclusivelyonfacetofacecontact,this
analysislookedatthemanywaysthatpeoplemaintainsocialnetworksusingcommunication
media.Whenthoseotherkindsofinteractionsaretakenintoaccount,wefind:

Inpersoncontactremainsthedominantmeansofcommunicationwithcorenetwork
members.Onaverage,thereisfacetofacecontactwitheachtieon210outof365days
peryear.
Mobilephoneusehasreplacedthelandlinetelephoneasthemostfrequentlymediated
formofcommunication195daysperyear.
Textmessaginghastiedthelandlinetelephoneasthethirdmostpopularmeansof
contactbetweencoreties125daysperyear.
Cardsandlettersaretheleastfrequentmeansofsocialcontact8lettersorcardsper
year.
Whenavailable,otherICTssupplementthesedominantmodesofcommunication:email
(72daysperyear),instantmessaging(55daysperyear),andsocialnetworkingwebsites
(39daysperyear).

Contrarytotheassumptionthatinternetuseencouragessocialcontactacrossvastdistances,
wefoundthatmanyinternettechnologiesareusedasmuchforlocalcontactastheyarefor
distantcommunication.

Inpersoncontact,landlinetelephones,mobilephones,andtextmessaging(SMS)are
usedmostfrequentlyforcontactwithlocalsocialties.
Cardsandlettersareusedmostextensivelywithdistantsocialties.
Email,socialnetworkingservices,andinstantmessagingpromoteglocalizationthat
is,theyareusedasfrequentlytomaintainnearbycoresocialtiesastheyareusedto
maintaintiesatadistance.

Arecorenetworkmembersalsoourfriendsonsocialnetworkingservicessuch
asFacebook,MySpace,LinkedIn?
Socialnetworkingservices,suchasFacebook,providenewopportunitiesforuserstomaintain
coresocialnetworks.Coretiescanbehighlyinfluentialindecisionmakingandexposureto
ideas,issues,andopinion.Thismakescorenetworkmembersprimetargetsformarketersand
interestgroupswhomaywanttousesocialnetworkingservicestoinfluencedecisionmaking
aboutconsumerproductsorpoliticalopinion.

Amajority71%ofallusersofsocialnetworkingserviceshavelistedatleastone
memberoftheircorenetworkofinfluentialsasafriendonasocialnetworking
service.
Theuseofsocialnetworkingservicestomaintaincorenetworksishighestamong1822
yearolds.Thirtypercentof1822yearoldsuseasocialnetworkingservicetomaintain
contactwith90%ormoreoftheircoreinfluentials.

Isinternetuserelatedtolessinteractionwithneighborsorlowerlevelsof
participationinlocalvoluntaryassociations?
Contrarytotheargumentthatinternetuselimitspeoplesparticipationinthelocalcommunity,
localinstitutions,andlocalspaces,ourfindingsshowthatmostinternetactivitiesare
associatedwithhigherlevelsoflocalactivity.However,wefindsomeevidencethatuseof
socialnetworkingservices(e.g.,Facebook,MySpace,LinkedIn)substitutesforsomelevelof
neighborhoodinvolvement.

Withtheexceptionofthosewhousesocialnetworkingservices,internetusersareno
moreorlesslikelythannonuserstoknowatleastsomeoftheirneighbors.Usersof
socialnetworkingservicesare30%lesslikelytoknowatleastsomeneighbors.
Internetandmobilephoneusersareaslikelyasnonuserstotalktotheirneighborsin
personatleastoncepermonth.And,theysupplementtheirlocalcontactwithemail.
10%ofinternetuserssendemailstotheirneighbors.
Usersofsocialnetworkingservicesare26%lesslikelytousetheirneighborsasasource
ofcompanionship,buttheyremainaslikelyasotherpeopletoprovidecompanionship
totheirneighbors.
Internetusersare40%lesslikelytorelyonneighborsforhelpincaringforthemselves
orafamilymember.Thosewhousesocialnetworkingservicesareevenlesslikelyto
relyonneighborsforfamilycare,theyare39%lesslikelythanotherinternetusers,or
64%lesslikelythannoninternetusers,torelyonneighborsforhelpincaringfor
themselvesorafamilymember.

Internetusersare26%lesslikelytorelyontheirneighborsforhelpwithsmallservices,
suchashouseholdchores,repairs,andlendingtools,buttheyremainaslikelytohelp
theirneighborswiththesameactivities.
Ownersofamobilephone,frequentinternetusersatwork,andbloggersaremorelikely
tobelongtoalocalvoluntarygroup,suchasaneighborhoodassociation,sportsleague,
youthgroup,church,orsocialclub.

Whentheinternetisusedasamediumforneighborhoodsocialcontact,suchasa
neighborhoodemaillistorcommunityforum(e.g.,ineighbors.org),participantstendtohave
veryhighlevelsoflocalengagement.

60%ofthosewhouseanonlineneighborhooddiscussionforumknowallormost
oftheirneighbors,comparedto40%ofAmericans.
79%whouseanonlineneighborhooddiscussionforumtalkwithneighborsin
personatleastonceamonth,comparedto61%ofthegeneralpopulation.
43%ofthoseonaneighborhooddiscussionforumtalktoneighborsonthe
telephoneatleastonceamonth,comparedtotheaverageof25%.
70%onaneighborhooddiscussionforumlistenedtoaneighborsproblemsinthe
previoussixmonths,and63%receivedsimilarsupportfromneighbors,comparedto
49%whogaveand36%whoreceivedthissupportinthegeneralpopulation.

Isinternetuseassociatedwithcocooning,orawithdrawalfrompublicand
semipublicspaces?
Publicspaces,suchasparks,libraries,andcommunitycenters,aswellasthirdplaces
highlightedbyanalystRayOldenburg[1],suchascafsandrestaurants,areanimportant
sourceofexposuretodiverseideas,issues,andopinionsaswellasmeetingplacesfor
interactingwithsocialties. 2 Contrarytoconcernsthatinternetuseleadstowithdrawalfrom
publicspaces,wegenerallyfoundthatinterestuseisassociatedwithengagementinsuch
places.

Comparedtothosewhodonotusetheinternet,internetusersare42%morelikelyto
visitapublicparkorplazaand45%morelikelytovisitacoffeeshoporcaf.
Bloggersare61%morelikelytovisitapublicparkthaninternetuserswhodonot
maintainablog,orabout2.3timesmorelikelythannoninternetusers.

Thefindingsalsoshowthatinternetaccesshasbecomeacommoncomponentofpeoples
experienceswithinmanypublicspaces.Weaskedrespondentswhohadvisitedpublicspaces

Thenumberedreferencesthroughoutthisreportrefertootherresearchthatisdocumented
intheReferencessectionattheendofthisreport.
10

whethertheyhadaccesstheinternetthereinthepastmonth.Examiningallvisitstopublicand
semipublicspaces,wefoundthatasignificantproportionofpeopleaccessedtheinterneteither
throughacellphone,wifinetwork,orsomeothermeansattheselocales:

36%oflibrarypatrons.
18%ofthoseincafsorcoffeeshops.
14%whovisitedacommunitycenter.
11%ofpeoplewhofrequentedabar.
8%ofvisitorstopublicparksandplazas.
6%ofcustomersatfastfoodrestaurants.
7%ofcustomersatotherrestaurants.
5%ofpeoplewhovisitedachurch,synagogue,mosque,ortemple.

Areinternetandmobilephoneuseassociatedwithmoreorlessdiverse
personalnetworks?
Whenthediversityofpeoplesfullsocialnetworkwasmeasured,wefoundtheexpected:that
participationintraditionalsocialmilieus,suchasneighborhoods,voluntarygroups,andpublic
spaces,accountsformuchofthediversityinpeoplessocialnetworks.However,wealso
discoveredthatinternetuse,andinparticulartheuseofsocialnetworkingservices,are
independentlyassociatedwithhigherlevelsofnetworkdiversity.

Comparedtothosewhodonotusetheinternet,mostpeoplewhousetheinternetand
useasocialnetworkingservice,suchasFacebook,MySpace,orLinkedIn,havesocial
networksthatareabout20%morediverse.

Newerinformationandcommunicationtechnologiesprovidenewsettingsandameansof
communicationthatindependentlycontributetothediversityofpeoplessocialnetworks.

11

Acknowledgments

WearegratefultoJohnHorrigan(Pew),BarryWellman(UniversityofToronto),andEvansWitt
(PrincetonSurveyResearchAssociatesInternational),whoassistedinthedesignand
administrationoftheprojectsurvey.Wewouldalsoliketoacknowledgethetechnical
assistanceofChulJooLee(TheOhioStateUniversity)andthesupportoftheAnnenbergSchool
forCommunicationattheUniversityofPennsylvania.
AboutthePewInternet&AmericanLifeProject:ThePewInternetProjectisaninitiativeofthe
PewResearchCenter,anonprofitfacttankthatprovidesinformationontheissues,attitudes,
andtrendsshapingAmericaandtheworld.ThePewInternetProjectexplorestheimpactofthe
internetonchildren,families,communities,theworkplace,schools,healthcareand
civic/politicallife.TheProjectisnonpartisanandtakesnopositiononpolicyissues.Supportfor
theProjectisprovidedbyThePewCharitableTrusts.Moreinformationisavailableat
www.pewinternet.org
KeithN.Hampton:isanassistantprofessorintheAnnenbergSchoolforCommunicationatthe
UniversityofPennsylvania.HereceivedhisPh.D.andM.A.insociologyfromtheUniversityof
Toronto,andaB.A.insociologyfromtheUniversityofCalgary.Hisresearchinterestsfocuson
therelationshipbetweennewinformationandcommunicationtechnologies,socialnetworks,
andtheurbanenvironment.HeispastChairoftheAmericanSociologicalAssociationsSection
onCommunicationandInformationTechnologies(CITASA).AttheUniversityofPennsylvania,
heofferscoursesinsocialnetworkanalysisandinnewmedia.Moreinformationonhis
researchcanbefoundatwww.mysocialnetwork.net.HecanalsobefollowedonTwitterat
www.twitter.com/mysocnet

LaurenF.Sessions:isadoctoralstudentattheAnnenbergSchoolforCommunicationatthe
UniversityofPennsylvania.ShereceivedanM.A.inCommunicationfromtheUniversityof
PennsylvaniaandaB.A.inSociologyfromTuftsUniversity.Hercurrentresearchinterests
includeinformationandcommunicationtechnologiesandsocialnetworks.Beforestartingher
graduatestudiesLaurenworkedintechnologyresearchandconsultingatForresterResearch.
EunJaHer:isadoctoralstudentattheAnnenbergSchoolforCommunicationattheUniversity
ofPennsylvania.ShereceivedherM.A.andB.A.inCommunicationfromSeoulNational
University.Hercurrentresearchinterestsfocusonchangesinsocialnetworkandinterpersonal
communicationasaresultofnewinformationandcommunicationtechnologies.

12

Part1
Introduction

In2006sociologistsMillerMcPherson,LynnSmithLovinandMatthewBrashearsdeliveredgrim
researchfindings:Americanscorediscussionnetworks,thenetworkofpeoplewithwhom
peoplecandiscussimportantmatters,haveshrunkandbecomelessdiverseoverthepast
twentyyears.Theyfoundthatpeopledependmoreonasmallnetworkofhomecenteredkin
andlessonalargernetworkthatincludestiesfromvoluntarygroupsandneighborhoods.The
authorsarguedthatalarge,unexpectedsocialchangewasresponsibleforthistrendand
suggesteditmightbetherisingpopularityofnewcommunicationandinformationtechnologies
suchastheinternetandmobilephone.Theirstudydidnotdirectlyexplorethispossibility.Our
currentstudywasdesignedtoprobe:Ispeoplesuseoftheinternetandcellphonestiedtoa
reductioninthesizeanddiversityofcorediscussionnetworksandsocialnetworksmore
broadly?
IntheirpaperSocialIsolationinAmerica:ChangesinCoreDiscussionNetworksMcPherson,
SmithLovinandBrashearspresentedbleakfindingsfromtheiranalysisofthe2004General
SocialSurvey(GSS),alargebiennialsurveythatexploressocialandeconomictrends.The
authorsfoundthat,incomparisontothe1985GSS,thedatagatheredin2004showedthatthe
averagenumberofconfidantswithwhomAmericansdiscussimportantmattersfellfrom2.94
to2.08.Furthermore,in2004afull25%ofAmericansreportedhavingnocloseconfidants
almostathreefoldincreasesince1985.
McPhersonetal.alsoarguedthatcorediscussionnetworkshadnotonlyshrunkbuthad
becomelessdiverse.Ahighproportionofthoseconfidantslostbetween1985and2004were
nonkin(notfamilymembers).Thatresultedinnetworkscomposedofalargerproportionof
familymembers.Inparticular,spouses,partners,andparentswerefoundtomakeupan
increasinglylargepartofAmericanscorenetworks.ThepeopleAmericansmetthrough
participationoutsidethehome,suchasinneighborhoodsandvoluntaryorganizations,had
beendisproportionatelydroppedfromcorenetworks.
Theimplicationsofthesechangestothecompositionandstructureofpersonalnetworksare
farreaching.Thediminishednumberofcoretiesindiscussionnetworkssuggeststhat
Americanshavefewerpeoplewithwhomtheycandiscussimportantthings,resultingina
decreaseintheavailabilityofsocialsupporttothem.Scholarshaveshowedthatthisincludes
accesstoemotionalaidandcompanionship,andlessaccesstocriticalresourcesinacrisis[2].
Corediscussiontiesarealsoimportantbecauseotherresearchhasdemonstratedthattheyare
highlyinfluentialinattitudeandopinionformation[3,4].Fewerandlessdiversetiesforthe
discussionofimportantmattersmayalsolessenawarenessofthemanysidestoanissue,shape
opinionquality,andreducepoliticalparticipation[5,6].Thosewithlarger,morediverse
13

networkstendtobemoretrustingandmoretolerant[7].Theycopewithdailytroublesand
traumamoreeffectivelyandtendtobephysicallyandmentallyhealthier[8].
Ifthenumberanddiversityofthosewithwhompeoplediscussimportantmattersis
threatened,soistheabilityofindividualstobehealthy,informed,andactiveparticipantsin
Americandemocracy.
Whiletheriseoftheinternetandmobileconnectivitycoincideswiththereporteddeclineof
corediscussionnetworks,themixedevidenceonmobilephoneuseandinternetactivitiesdoes
notprovideaclearlinkbetweenthesetrends(areviewofthisliteraturecanbefoundin
AppendixA:ExtendedLiteratureReview).However,untilnow,nostudyhasfocuseddirectlyon
thecompositionofcorenetworksandtheroleofinternetandmobilephoneuse.

ThePersonalNetworksandCommunitySurvey
InJulyandAugust2008,thePewInternet&AmericanLifeProjectconductedalandlineand
cellularrandomdigitdialsurveyof2,512Americans,aged18andolder.Thegoalofthisstudy
wastoreplicateandexpandonthemethodologyusedinthe1985/2004GSStomeasurecore
discussionnetworks.Wewantedtoexploretherelationshipbetweeninternetandmobile
phoneuseandthesizeandcompositionofcorediscussionnetworks.Specifically,theintent
wastoaddressissuesraisedbyMcPherson,SmithLovin,andBrashearsintheir2006workthat
suggestthatinternetormobilephoneusersdisengagefromlocalrelations,areinvolvedin
fewervoluntaryassociations,havelesspublicandmoreprivateactivities,andthatusersof
theseICTssacrificestrongtiestoconfidantsforalargearrayofdispersedsocialties.
Keyquestionsare:

AreAmericansmoresociallyisolatedthaninthepast?
Hastheaveragesizeofcorediscussionnetworkschanged?
Arecorediscussionnetworkslessdiverseandmorekincentered?
Istheuseoftheinternetandmobilephonesassociatedwithsocialisolationorsmaller,
lessdiversecorenetworks?
WhatroledoICTsplayinthemaintenanceofcorenetworks?
Doestheinternetormobilephonewithdrawpeoplefromneighborhoodnetworksor
participationinlocalinstitutions?
Isinternetormobilephoneuseassociatedwithcocooning,oratendencyto
participatelessinpublicandsemipublicspaces?
DoestheuseofICTscontributetoalarge,diversepersonalnetwork,orasmall,insular
network?

Toaddressthesequestions,itwasnecessarytoexplorethepossibilitythatthefindingsofthe
2004GSSaremisleading.
ThePewInternetPersonalNetworksandCommunitySurveyreplicatedkeycomponentsofthe
2004GSSsurveymoduleonsocialnetworks.Inaddition,weattemptedtominimizeany
technicalproblemsthatmayhavebiasedthe2004GSSdata,includingproblemswithquestion
14

orderintheGSSsurveyinstrument,andproblemswiththewordingoftheGSSsurvey(a
completediscussionoftheseissuescanbefoundinAppendixB:TheGSSControversy). 1 Akey
componentoftheapproachtoovercomesomeofthelimitationsoftheGSSdatawasthe
incorporationofasecondquestioninthePewsurveythataskedparticipantstolistnamesof
peopleintheircorenetwork.
AsintheGSS,PewInternetparticipantswereaskedtoprovidealistofpeopleinresponseto
thequestion:
Fromtimetotime,mostpeoplediscussimportantmatterswithotherpeople.
Lookingbackoverthelastsixmonthswhoarethepeoplewithwhomyou
discussedmattersthatareimportanttoyou?
UnliketheGSS,thePewInternetsurveyrespondentswerealsoasked:
Lookingbackoverthelastsixmonths,whoarethepeopleespeciallysignificant
inyourlife?
Theuseofasecondnamegeneratorallowsustotestthepossibilitythatsomethinghas
changedinthewayAmericansthinkabouttheideaofdiscussion.Iftheydonotthinkthat
discussiontakesplaceoutsidefacetofacemeetings,thissecondquestionwasinsertedto
makesurethattheywereprovidingusthenamesofthemajorsocialactorsintheirlives,not
simplygivingusthenamesofthosewithwhomtheyhadfacetofacedeliberations.Wewere
interestedintryingtogetrespondentstothinkinamorefullyroundedwayaboutthekeyties
intheirsocialnetworks.IfthemeaningofdiscusshaschangedinAmericansmindssincethe
1985GSSsurvey,thenashiftisexpectedtobeobserved:internetandcellphoneuserswould
bemorelikelythannonuserstohavepeopleintheirliveswhoareespeciallysignificant,but
whomightnotbelistedasdiscussionpartnerswhentheyaredealingwithimportant
matters. 2
Participantswereaskedadditionalquestionsabouttheirneighborhood,participationin
voluntarygroups,useofpublicandsemipublicspaces,networkdiversity,anduseofthe
internetandmobilephones(acompletediscussionofthesurveymethodologycanbefoundin
AppendixC:Methodology). 3

Tominimizeanycontextbiasassociatedwithsurveyfatigueorprimingfrompriorquestions,thetwoname
generatorquestionswerelocatedclosetothestartofthesurvey.Theywereplacedafterasmallnumberof
questionsaboutbasicinternetusethatwereusedtoestablishtrustwiththesurveyparticipant.
2
Previousresearchhasidentifiedahighdegreeofoverlapbetweenthosewithwhompeoplediscussimportant
mattersandthosetheyconsidermostsignificantintheirlives[9].
3
UnliketheGSS,whichisadministeredfacetofaceinparticipantshomes,thePewsurveywasadministeredto
participantsoverthetelephone.Theuseofthetelephoneinplaceoffacetofaceinterviewshasthepotentialto
introducebiasasaresultofchangestothecontextoftheinterview,aswellasvariationinresponserate.In
general,telephonesurveyshavealowerresponseratethanfacetofaceinterviews.Itisknownthathigherlevels
ofnonresponseleadtoestimatesofvolunteeractivity(andpossiblyotherprosocialactivities)thataretoohigh.
However,itisalsoknownthattheseinflatedmeasuresofactivitydonotaffectinferencesaboutindividual
characteristics[10].Itisnotknownifthenumberofcorenetworkmemberparticipantsreportissubjecttothe

15

AnotherlookattheGeneralSocialSurvey
Muchoftheanalysispresentedinthisreportdrawscomparisonstodatacollectedaspartof
the1985and2004GeneralSocialSurveys.Foreaseofcomparison,keyvariablesfromthe1985
and2004GSShavebeenreanalyzedandpresentedTable1aandTable1b.Thisanalysisisbased
ontherevised2004GSSdatasetthatwasadjustedafterresearchersdiscoveredthat41cases
weremisclassifiedintheoriginaldataset[11].Inaddition,therearethreekeydifferences
betweentheanalysisoftheGSSdatausedinthisreportandtheanalysesofpreviousauthors
[12,13].
ThefirstdifferenceisthatwhentheGSSaskedparticipantsaboutthosewithwhomthey
discussimportantmatters,respondentscouldprovideuptofiveuniquenames;theinterviewer
thenaskeddetailedquestionsabouteachnameprovided.TheGSSintervieweralsonotedifthe
respondentprovidedmorethanfivenames,butdidnotaskquestionsabouttheseadditional
people.ThePewInternetPersonalNetworksandCommunitySurveyreplicatedthisprocedure,
recordinguptofivenamestoeachnamegenerator,buttoreducesurveylengthdidnotrecord
ifparticipantslistedmorethanthemaximumoffivenames.
Theseconddifferenceisinthepresentationofakeyvariablefornetworkdiversity.Prior
analysisoftheGSSsocialnetworkdataonthediversityofcorediscussionnetworksfocuseson
thekin/nonkincompositionofthenetworks[12,13].Thatfocusisreplicatedinthecurrent
analysis.However,inpriorwork,whencalculatingthepercentageofrespondentsthathaveat
leastonenonkinconfidantresearcherscodedanynamegivenbyarespondentasanonkin
iftherespondentidentifiedhim/herashavingaconnectionclassifiedascoworker,friend,
advisor,neighbor,orgroupmember,evenifs/hewasalsoidentifiedbytherespondent
asaspouse,parent,sibling,child,orotherfamilymember.Forexample,ifacoretiewas
identifiedasbothabrotherandaneighbor,thistiewasclassifiedasnonkin.Wewerestricterin
interpretingwhocouldbenonkin;ifanamegivenbyaparticipantwasidentifiedasaspouse,
parent,sibling,childorotherfamilymember,thatnamecouldnotalsobecodedasnonkin. 4
Thewayweusedtoidentifykin/nonkinchangedthecharacterizationof269casesinthe1985
GSS,and146casesin2004.
Thefinaldifferenceisintheanalysisofspousalnetworks.Whenpreviousresearchers
calculatedvariablessuchasspouseisonlyconfidantoratleastonenonspousekin,they
didsousingallsurveyrespondents.Welimitthisportionofouranalysisonlytothosewho
reportedbeingmarriedorcohabitatingwithapartner.Thus,ouranalysisofspousalnetworks
wasappliedto870peoplewholivedaspartofacoupleinthe1985GSS(ratherthanthefull
sampleof1,531people)and771inthe2004GSS(ratherthanthefullsampleof1,426).

sameinflationasaresultofnonresponse.Itisalsopossiblethatpeoplehaveaneasiertimerecallingnamesinthe
contextofalongerpersonalinterviewinthehome,thanwhentalkingonthetelephoneperhapsnotevenat
home(inthecaseofcellphoneinterviews).Whilewehavenoevidenceofaresponsebiasinoursurvey,ifone
existsweexpectithaslittleinfluenceonthesizeofcorenetworksthatparticipantsreported,andthatintroduces
nobiasintotheinferenceswedrawbasedonindividualcharacteristics.
4
ThisapproachisconsistentwiththewayMcPhersonetal(2006)presentednonkinnetworksize,but
inconsistentwiththewayinwhichtheatleastonenonkinconfidantvariablewaspresented.

16

Table1aand1breportdatafromthe1985and2004GSSthathavebeenstructuredtomatch
thePewInternetPersonalNetworksandCommunitySurveycappingthenumberofcoreties
atfivepernamegenerator,conformingtoourunderstandingofwhatshouldbeconsidered
nonkin,andconstrainedvariablesthatfocusonspousalnetworkstoincludeonlythosewhoare
married.
Whenthe1985and2004GSSarecompared,basedonouranalyticalchanges,thefindings
showthesamegeneralpatternthatwasreportedbyMcPherson,SmithLovin,andBrashearsin
2006,withanearlyidenticalmagnitudeofchangeacrosskeyvariableswithoneexception.
Thestricterinterpretationofwhoshouldbeclassifiedasnonkinchangestheproportionof
thepopulationwithatleastonenonkinconfidant.Previously,thepercentofAmericanswith
atleastonenonkinconfidantin1985wasreportedas80.1%andin2004as57.2%[13].Our
analysissuggeststhatalthoughtherewasstillalargedropinthediversityofcorediscussion
networksfrom1985to2004,themagnitudeofthisdeclineislessthanMcPhersonsgroup
stated;adifferenceof16.2percentagepoints,notthe22.9pointdropthatwasreportedby
McPhersonandcolleagues.

17

Table1a:Sizeofcorediscussionnetworks:1985and2004GSSsamples

TotalNetwork

NonkinNetwork

Size

1985

2004

1985

2004

1985

2004

8.1%

22.5%

24.4%

37.8%

36.1%

52.3%

14.8%

19.6%

29.7%

30.5%

22.4%

22.1%

14.7%

19.7%

22.6%

16.5%

19.7%

14.8%

21.6%

17.4%

13.1%

9.7%

12.6%

6.2%

15.4%

9.1%

6.7%

4.1%

6.1%

3.2%

25.4%

11.7%

3.5%

1.3%

3.0%

1.5%

KinNetwork

Mean

2.98

2.06

1.58

1.16

1.39

0.90

Mode

5.00

0.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

SD

1.62

1.64

1.35

1.22

1.39

1.20

Note:N(1985)=1,531;N(2004)=1,426.

Table1b:Networkcomposition:1985and2004GSSsamples
TypesofRelationship
1985
1
Spouseisonlyconfidant
11.1%
1
Atleastonenonspousekininthenetwork
54.6%
Atleastonenonkinconfidantinthenetwork2
63.9%
1
N(1985)=870;N(2004)=771
2
N(1985)=1,531;N(2004)=1,426

18

2004
13.9%
40.9%
47.7%

Part2
CoreNetworks:TheInternetandMobilePhone
Thereisagreatconcernthatoverthelasttwentyyearsthesizeanddiversityof
Americanscorenetworkshavedeclined;thatcorenetworksareincreasinglycentered
onasmallsetofrelativelysimilarsocialtiesattheexpenseoflargermorediverse
networks.Isthereevidencetosuggestthatnewerinformationandcommunications
technologies(ICTs)suchastheinternetandmobilephoneareresponsibleforatrend
towardsocialisolation?

Whatisassociatedwiththesizeofdiscussionnetworks?
Thosepeoplewithwhomwediscussimportantmattersareourcorediscussion
network.ThePewInternetPersonalNetworksandCommunitysurveyfoundthatthe
averageAmericanhasabouttwodiscussionconfidants(1.93),whichissimilartothe
meanof2.06fromthe2004GSS(Table1a).However,thePewInternetsurveyfound
thatamuchsmallerproportionofthepopulationreportedhavingnodiscussion
partnersthanthe2004GSSsurvey:ThePewInternetsurveyfoundthat12.0%of
Americanshavenodiscussionpartners,comparedtothe22.5%recordedinthe2004
GSS.Ourfindingsalsoshowthatthemodalrespondentthemostcommonresponse
listsoneconfidant,notzero,aswasfoundinthe2004GSSanalysis.
Ourfindingssuggestthatsocialisolationmaynothaveincreasedoverthepasttwenty
years.Ourfindingthatonly12.0%ofAmericanshavenodiscussionpartnersisrelatively
closetothe8.1%thatwasfoundinthe1985GSS(Table1a),sothenumberof
Americanswhoaretrulyisolatedhasnotnotablychanged.Atthesametime,thePew
InternetsurveysupportstheGSSevidencethattheaveragenumberofdiscussion
partnersAmericanshaveissmallernowthanitwasinthepast.Ourdataindicatethat
theaverageAmericanhas1.93discussionpartners,afiguresimilartothe2.06foundin
the2004GSS,andafullonetiesmallerthanthe2.98foundin1985.

19

Figure2a:Sizeofcorediscussionnetworks(1985GSS,2004GSS,2008Pew)

ICTusersdonotsufferfromadeficitofdiscussionpartners.
WhenthePewInternetPersonalNetworksandCommunitysurveywasconducted(July
9August10,2008),77%oftheU.S.adultpopulationusedtheinternet,and82%owned
amobilephone.ContrarytoconcernsthatuseofICTsmaybeassociatedwithan
absenceofconfidants,noevidencewasfoundthatinternetusershavesmaller
discussionnetworks.Instead,ourdataindicatethat,onaverage,internetandmobile
phoneusersappeartobelesslikelytohavenoconfidantsandtendtohavemore
peoplewithwhomtheydiscussimportantmatters.

12%ofallAmericansreportnodiscussionpartners,butonly10%ofinternet
usersand11%ofmobilephoneusershavenodiscussionties.
30%oftheAmericanpopulationhasdiscussionnetworksofthreeormore
peoplecomparedto34%ofinternetand32%ofmobilephoneusers.

20


Table2a:Sizeofcorediscussionnetworks
NetworkSize Sample1 InternetUser CellPhoneUser
0
12.0%
9.7%
11.1%
1
34.9%
32.8%
32.8%
2
23.1%
23.5%
24.2%
3
15.4%
17.7%
16.4%
4
7.8%
8.7%
8.1%
5
6.8%
7.4%
7.4%

Mean
1.93
2.05
2.00
Mode
1.00
1.00
1.00
SD
1.38
1.38
1.39
N
2162
1642
1671
1
Nissmallerthan2512(totalsamplesize)becauseof
missinginformation.350respondentsdidnotanswer
questionsabouttheirdiscussionnetwork.

Mobilephoneuse,anduseoftheinternetforsharingdigitalphotos,andfor
instantmessagingareassociatedwithlargerdiscussionnetworks.
Thereisconsiderablevariationacrosspeopleintermsoftheirdemographic
characteristics,andinhowtheyuseICTs.Regressionanalysisisastatisticaltechnique
thatallowsustoidentifywhatspecificcharacteristicsarepositivelyornegatively
associatedwithanoutcome,suchasthenumberofdiscussionties.Tobesurethatthe
relationshipwehaveidentifiedcannotbeexplainedbyotherfactors,andsothatwecan
lookatdifferenttypesofonlineactivity,weuseregressiontoidentifythestatistically
significantfactorsthatareassociatedwiththesizeofcorediscussionnetworks. 1 The
resultsofthisregressionanalysis,listedinAppendixD:RegressionTablesasTable1,
showthatanumberofdemographicfactorsareindependentlylinkedwiththesizeof
discussionnetworks.Consistentwithpriorresearch[12,13],thePewInternetstudy
revealedthefollowing:

Educationattainmentisassociatedwithhavingalargernumberofpeoplewith
whomonecandiscussimportantthings.Themoreformalschoolingpeoplehave,

AtypeofregressioncalledPoissonRegressionisusedwhentheoutcomevariableiscountdata(e.g.,ranges
from0to5ties).Forthisanalysis,theratioofthedeviancetothedegreesoffreedomwas1.01.Thisdispersion
parametersuggestsnoevidenceofoverdispersionandsuggestsastrongfitbetweenthePoissondistributionand
thedata.Inallcases,wherePoissonregressionisusedinthisreport,thedispersionparameterwascomparedtoa
negativebinomialmodel,andinallcasesthePoissonwasfoundtobethebestfittothedata.

21

thebiggertheirnetworks.Forexample,comparedtoahighschooldiploma,an
undergraduatedegreeisassociatedwithapproximately14%additional
discussionpartners.
ThosewhoarearaceotherthanwhiteorAfricanAmericanhavesignificantly
smallerdiscussionnetworks;about14%smaller.
Womenhaveabout13%morediscussiontiesthantheirmalecounterparts.

RegressionanalysisalsoconfirmedtherelationshipbetweenICTuseandcorediscussion
networkswhileidentifyingspecifictypesoftechnologyusethatarepositivelyassociated
withthenumberofdiscussionpartners.

Thosewhoownamobilephoneaverage12%moreconfidants.
Simplyhavingaccesstotheinternet,aswellasfrequencyofinternetusehasno
impactoncorediscussionnetworksize,whatmattersiswhatpeopledoonline.
Uploadingphotosonlinetosharewithothersisassociatedwithhaving
9%moreconfidants.
Thosewhouseinstantmessaginghave9%additionalconfidants.
Otheractivities,suchasusingasocialnetworkingservice(e.g.,Facebook,
LinkedIn,andMySpace)ormaintaininganonlinejournalorbloghaveno
relationshiptothenumberofconfidants.

Example:AnaveragewhiteorAfricanAmerican,femalewithanundergraduateuniversitydegree,who
hasamobilephone,usestheinternettosharephotosbyuploadingthemtotheinternet,andusesinstant
messaginghas2.55confidants.Thiscomparesto1.91tiesforanaveragewomanofthesameraceand
educationwhodoesnotuploadphotosonline,useinstantmessaging,orownamobilephone.Inthis
example,useofICTsisassociatedwithacorediscussionnetworkthatis34%larger.

Notonlyisinternetandmobilephoneusenotassociatedwithhavingfewerconfidants,
butthecompoundinfluenceofICTusehasaverystrongrelationshiptothesizeofcore
discussionnetworksincomparisontootherimportantdemographic,suchasrace,
gender,andeducation.Inotherwords,ICTusecanhavearelativelybigeffectonthe
sizeofpeoplescorenetworks.

22

Howisinternetuseandmobilephoneuserelatedtothe
compositionofcorediscussionnetworks?
Discussionnetworksincludepeoplefromavarietyofsettings.Theymayincludespouses
andhouseholdmembers,extendedfamily,workmates,neighbors,andotherfriends.
Thereisabundantevidencethathavingadiversediscussionnetworkmadeupofpeople
fromavarietyofsettings,suchasneighborhoodandcommunitycontexts,bringspeople
benefitsbyensuringthemaccesstodifferenttypesofsocialsupportandexposureto
diverseideasandopinions.Onewaytolookatthediversityofadiscussionnetworkisto
separatekinandnonkin.Peopletendtohavemorethingsincommon,including
interests,values,andopinionswithfamilythantheydowithpeoplefromothersettings.
ThePewInternetPersonalNetworksandCommunitysurveyfoundthatmostpeople
discussimportantmatterswithmembersoftheirfamily(70%),butlessthanhalfofall
Americans(45%)haveaconfidantthatisnotafamilymember.Theproportionofthe
populationfoundtohaveatleastonenonkinconfidantissimilartothe47.7%foundin
the2004GSS(Table1b).

Table2b:Diversityofcorediscussionnetworks(N=2,162) 1
NetworkSize
TotalDiscussionNetwork
Kin
Nonkin
0
12.0%
30.5%
55.3%
1
34.9%
38.1%
26.1%
2
23.1%
18.7%
10.8%
3
15.4%
8.9%
5.8%
4
7.8%
2.6%
1.3%
5
6.8%
1.2%
0.7%

Mean
1.93
1.19
0.74
Mode
1.00
1.00
0.00
SD
1.38
1.11
1.03
1
Nissmallerthan2512(totalsamplesize)becauseofmissinginformation.350respondentsdidnot
answerquestionsabouttheirdiscussionnetwork.

23

Figure2b:Diversityofcorediscussionnetworks(1985GSS,2004GSS,2008Pew)

Mobilephoneusers,andinternetuserswhousesocialnetworkingservices,rely
moreonfamilymemberstodiscussimportantmatters.
Familymembersareanimportantsourceofbroadsocialsupport[2].Regression
analysiswasusedtoidentifydemographicfactorsassociatedwiththenumberoffamily
tieswhoareconfidants.Theanalysis,reportedinAppendixDasTable2,showsthat:

Womentendtorelyonagreaternumberofkinasconfidantsonaverage21%
additionalfamilymembers.
Thosewhoaremarriedorcohabitatingwithapartnertendtodiscussimportant
matterswithabout28%morekinshipties.
Moreyearsofeducationisassociatedwithalargernumberofkinconfidants;
about3%moreforeachyearofeducation.

Therelationshipbetweennumberofkinandparticipationinvariousinternetandmobile
activitieswasalsotested.

Thosewhouseamobilephonehaveabout15%morefamilymemberswith
whomtheydiscussimportantmatters.
24

Useofasocialnetworkingwebsiteisassociatedwithakinshipdiscussion
networkthatisabout12%larger.

Example:Anaveragefemale,withahighschooldiploma,andwhoismarriedhas0.94corediscussion
memberswhoarealsokin.Ademographicallysimilarwomanwhoownsacellphoneandalsousesa
socialnetworkingwebsitehasanaverageof1.21familymemberswhoarecoreconfidants.Inthis
example,ICTuseisassociatedwithacorenetworkthathas29%additionalkinshipties.

Marriedinternetusersarelesslikelytorelyexclusivelyontheirpartnerto
discussimportantmatters,especiallyiftheyalsouseinstantmessaging.
Likeotherfamilyties,aspousecanbeanimportantsourceofsocialsupport.Butthose
whorelyexclusivelyontheirspouse/partnerastheironlyconfidantmayhavelimited
exposuretodiverseopinions,issues,andpointsofviewthatcomefromdiscussing
importantmatterswithalarger,morediversenetwork.Incomparisontoothertypesof
socialties,spousesareparticularlylikelytobesimilarinmanywaystotheirmatesand
thatlimitstheextrainformationandexperiencesaspousecancontribute.
Lookingonlyatmarriedandcohabitatingcouplesinthesurvey,thePewInternet
PersonalNetworksandCommunitysurveyshowsthat19.3%ofthosewholivewitha
partnerrelyexclusivelyonthepartnertodiscussimportantmatters;thiscomparestoa
smallernumber13.9%foundinthe2004GSS(Table1b).
Regressionanalysiswasusedtoexploretherelationshipbetweendifferent
demographiccharacteristicsanddifferenttypesofICTusetopredicttheoddsofhaving
aspouseasonlyconfidant. 2 Theresults,reportedinAppendixDasTable3,showamong
otherthings,thatinternetusersaremorelikelythanotherstohavesomeonein
additiontoaspouseasadiscussionpartner:

Theoddsthatawomenreliessolelyonherpartnertodiscussimportantmatters
are43%lessthantheyareformen.
Havingchildrenundertheageof18athomeincreasestheoddsofapartner
beingtheonlydiscussionconfidantby52%.
ThelikelihoodofsomeonewhoisAfricanAmericanlimitingthediscussionof
importantmatterstoaspouse/partnerare54%lessthantheyareforwhite
Americans.
ThelikelihoodofsomeonewhoisHispanicrelyingexclusivelyonaspouseto
discussimportantmattersis54%lowerthanthosewhoarenotHispanic.

AtypeofregressioncalledLogisticRegressionisusedwhentheoutcomevariableisa
dichotomy(onlytwopossibleoutcomes,e.g.,itiseither1or0;haveordonothave).
25

Thelikelihoodofaninternetuserhavingaspouse/partnerwhoistheironly
confidantis37%lowerthannonusers.
Inaddition,thosewhousetheinternetforinstantmessagingareevenlesslikely
thanotherinternetuserstohaveaspouseastheironlyconfidant.Instant
messagingusersare35%lesslikelythanotherinternetusers,or59%lesslikely
thannoninternetusers,tohaveaspouseastheironlyconfidant.

Example:Theprobabilitythatanaveragewhite(nonHispanic),womanwhohaschildrenathomerelies
exclusivelyonherspousetodiscussimportantmattersisabout46%.However,theprobabilityofasimilar
woman,whousestheinternetandinstantmessagingrelyingexclusivelyonherspouseforimportant
mattersisonly26%.

Internetusershavemorediversecorediscussionnetworks.
Thereisconsiderablescholarshipshowingthatpeoplewhohaveacorediscussion
networkthatincludesnonkin,suchasworkmatesorneighbors,improvetheiraccessto
abroadrangeofsupportandinformation.Regressionanalysisshowstherearea
numberofdemographicfactorsassociatedwithhavingnonkindiscussionpartners.The
results,reportedinAppendixDasTable4,indicate:

Thelikelihoodofhavingatleastonenonkindiscussiontieis5%higherforeach
yearofformaleducation.
Marriedandcohabitatingcoupleshaveoddsofhavingatleastonenonkin
discussiontiethatare50%lessthanthosewholivealone.

Example:Theprobabilityofsomeonewhoismarried,withahighschooleducationhavingatleastone
nonfamilymemberintheirdiscussionnetworkisabout21%.Theprobabilityofsomeonewhoismarried,
withanundergraduatedegreehavinganonkindiscussionpartnerishigher,at24%.Asinglepersonwith
thesamelevelofuniversityeducationhasa39%chanceofdiscussingimportantmatterswithsomeone
whoisnotafamilymember.

Internetusersaremorelikelytohavenonkinintheirdiscussionnetwork.Mobilephone
usersarenomoreorlesslikelytodiscussimportantmatterswithnonkin.

Theoddsthataninternetuserhasaconfidantoutsideofhis/herfamilyare55%
higherthannonusers.
Frequencyofinternetuse,theuseofamobilephone,instantmessaging,
uploadingphotosonline,blogging,andusingsocialnetworkingwebsiteshaveno
notablerelationshipwiththelikelihoodofhavingnonkindiscussionpartners.

Example:Theprobabilityofsomeonewhoismarried,withahighschooleducation,whousestheinternet
havingatleastonenonfamilymemberinhisdiscussionnetworkisabout29%.Thiscompareswiththe
21%probabilityforademographicallysimilarpersonwhodoesnotusetheinternet.

26

Frequentinternetuseandbloggingareassociatedwithraciallydiversecore
discussionnetworks.
Thissurveyfoundthatabout24%ofAmericansdiscussimportantmatterswith
someonewhoisofadifferentraceorethnicityfromthemselves. 3
Regressionanalysis,reportedasTable5inAppendixD,findsthatminoritiesaremost
likelytohaveatleastonecrossraceorethnicityconfidant.

TheoddsthatanAfricanAmericanhasadiscussionpartnerofanotherraceor
ethnicityare2.13timeshigherthantheyareforwhiteAmericans,4.52times
morelikelyforotherraceAmericans,and4.41timesmorelikelyforHispanic
Americans.

Anumberofotherdemographicfactorswerealsoassociatedwiththelikelihoodof
havingacrossraceorethnicityconfidant.

Thelikelihoodofafemalehavingaconfidantofanotherraceorethnicityis27%
lowerthanforamale.
Theoddsare28%lowerthatsomeonewhoismarriedwillhaveacrossraceor
ethnicitydiscussionpartner.

VeryspecificICTactivitiesareassociatedwiththeracialandethnicdiversityofcore
discussionnetworks.

Frequenthomeinternetusersthosewhousetheinternetfromhomeatleasta
fewtimesperdayare53%morelikelytohaveacrossraceorethnicity
confidant,comparedtothosewhousetheinternetlessoften.
Theoddsofhavingacrossraceorethnicityconfidantare94%higherforthose
whomaintainablog.

Example:TheprobabilitythatanAfricanAmericanmalewhoismarrieddiscussesimportantmatterswith
someoneofanotherraceisabout25%.TheprobabilitythatawhiteAmericanmaleofthesamemarital
statushasacrossracediscussiontieisonly14%.IfasimilarwhiteAmericanwasafrequenthome
internetuserandmaintainedablog,theprobabilitythathewouldhaveadiscussionconfidantofanother
racewouldincreaseto32%.

Notethat24%ofthesampledidnotcompletelyanswerquestionsthatidentifiedtheparticipantsraceor
ethnicityortheraceorethnicityoftheirdiscussionpartners.Theanalysiscomparesforgroupsbasedonthe
followingcategories:WhiteAmericans,AfricanAmericans,Hispanic/LatinoAmericans,andOtherRaceAmericans.

27

Onlinephotosharingisassociatedwithdiversepoliticaldiscussionpartners.
AmongthosewhoidentifythemselvesasaRepublicanoraDemocrat,19%reported
thattheydiscussedimportantmatterswithsomeoneaffiliatedwiththemajor
oppositionpoliticalparty. 4 Wefound,andreportedinTable6ofAppendixD,thatage
wasassociatedwithpoliticallydiversediscussionnetworkstheolder,themorelikelya
personsnetworkwaspoliticallydiverse.Whereasbeingnonwhitewasnotassociated
withhavingadiversenetwork.Onlyoneinternetactivitywasassociatedwithhavinga
politicallydiversediscussionnetwork.

Thosewhouploadedphotostoshareonlinewere61%morelikelytohavea
crosspoliticaldiscussiontie.
Otherformsofinternetuse,frequencyofuse,anduseofamobilephonearenot
associatedwiththelikelihoodofdiscussingimportantmatterswithsomeoneof
adifferentpoliticalparty.

Example:Theprobabilityofa45yearold,whiteAmericanwhoconsidersthemselvestobeaDemocrat
havingsomeonewhoconsidersthemselvesaRepublicanasaconfidantisabout27%.However,ifthat45
yearold,whiteAmericanuploadsphotostosharewithothersonline,theprobabilityofhavingacross
partytieincreasesto37%.AnAfricanAmericanwithasimilardemographicandinternetuseprofilewould
haveonlya17%probabilityofacrosspoliticaltie.

Someinternetactivities,suchasphotosharing,provideopportunitiesforexposureand
interactionwithdiverseotherswhointurncontributetopoliticaldiversitywithincore
discussionnetworks.However,itisalsopossiblethatthosewithmorepoliticallydiverse
networksaremorelikelytotaketheopportunitytosharephotosonline.Itisalso
recognizedthatmostpeoplebelievetheyaremoresimilartotheirnetworkmembers
thantheyreallyare.Therefore,anactivitylikesharingphotosonlinemaysimply
improvetheflowofinformationwithincorediscussionnetworks,eliminatingasenseof
samenessthatactuallyneverexisted.Thosewhosharephotosonlinemayeitherhave
morepoliticallydiversenetworks,ortheymayhaveamoreaccuratesenseofthe
politicaltendenciesoftheircorediscussionpartners.

FiftyninepercentofthepopulationidentifiedthemselvesasRepublicanorDemocrat,28%asIndependent,and
7%withnopreferenceoranotherparty.

28

Hasthemeaningofdiscusschangedintheageofthe
internet?
Participantsinoursurvey,aswellasthoseinthe1985and2004GeneralSocialSurveys,
wereaskedtoprovidealistofpeoplewithwhom[they]discussedimportantmatters
overthelastsixmonths.Althoughthismethodologyhasbeenusedinthepastto
measurecorenetworks,thecontinueduseofthisquestiontocomparenetworksover
timeassumesthattherehasnotbeenashiftinhowpeopleunderstandtheconceptof
discussion[13].Forexample,theriseoftheinternetasapartofeverydaylifemight
havechangedhowmanypeoplediscussimportantmatters.Whenaskedaboutthose
withwhomtheydiscuss,peoplemaybemorelikelytothinkofthosewhomthey
frequentlyseeinperson.If,asaresultoftheinternet,someimportantdiscussionnow
takesplaceonline,respondentsmayomitmentioningimportantandsupportivetiesto
thosewhomtheyseelessfrequentlyinpersonbutwithwhomtheyofteninteract,
partiallyorprimarilyonline.
TotestthepossibilitythatAmericansunderstandingofdiscusshaschanged,people
inthePewInternetsurveywereaskedasecondquestionabouttheirsocialnetworks.
Afteraskingthemtonamethepeoplewithwhomtheydiscussimportantmatters,we
askedthemtolistthosewhoareespeciallysignificantintheirlife.Thisisanotherway
togetpeopletofocusontheirimportantties.Whentheyansweredthisquestion,the
secondlistcouldcontainthesameordifferentpeopleasthosementionedinthefirst
questionthataskedaboutdiscussionpartners.Priorresearchhasidentifiedahigh
degreeofnetworkoverlapbetweenresponsestothesetwotypesofquestions[9].Ifthe
meaningofdiscusshaschangedovertime,thenICTusersanswerstothesecond
questionwouldbedifferentfromnonusersanswers.Thatis,internetandcellphone
userswouldbemorelikelythannonuserstohavepeopleintheirlifewhoare
especiallysignificant,butwithwhomtheydonotdiscussimportantmatters.
Whenthelistsofdiscussandsignificanttiesarecombined,theyrepresentalistof
corenetworkmembersalistofapersonsstrongestsocialties.Ifinternetuserslist
moreuniquenewnamesthataresignificantintheirlifethatarenotpartoftheir
discussionnetwork,suchevidencewouldsuggestthatinternetusersdonotinterpret
aquestionthataskswithwhomtheydiscussimportantmattersinthesamewayas
otherpeople.Ifthisisthecase,itmayexplainwhypreviousresearchsuggeststhat
therehasbeenanincreaseinsocialisolationinAmericaoverthelasttwentyyears[13].

29

Internetusehasnotchangedthemeaningofdiscuss
Thereisconsiderableoverlapinmostpeoplesnetworkofdiscussionconfidantsand
thosetheyconsidertobeespeciallysignificantintheirlives.However,inthissurvey,
26%ofpeoplelistedone,16%listedtwo,and18%listedbetweenthreeandfivepeople
whowereespeciallysignificantintheirlives,butwithwhomtheydidnotdiscuss
importantmatters.Contrarytotheargumentthatinternetorcellphoneusersmight
interpretdiscussinawaythatisdifferentthanotherpeople,theydidnotlistalarger
numberofnewnamesassignificantincomparisonwiththerestofthepopulation.
Table2c:Numberofuniquesignificantties
NetworkSize Sample1 InternetUser CellPhoneUser
0
40.6
41.5
40.8
1
26.2
25.4
25.9
2
15.7
15.7
15.8
3
8.3
7.8
7.7
4
5.2
5.7
5.6
5
4.0
4.0
4.1

Mean
1.23
1.22
1.24
Mode
0.00
0.00
0.00
SD
1.40
1.40
1.41
N
2211
1674
1695
1
Nissmallerthan2512(totalsamplesize)becauseof
missinginformation.301respondentsdidnotanswer
questionsabouttheircorenetworks.

Aregressionanalysis,reportedasTable7inAppendixD,exploresthelikelihoodofa
personlistingatleastonesignificanttiethattheydidnotlistasadiscussionpartner
findsnomeaningfulvariationbasedoninternetuse.Internetandmobilephoneuse,
frequencyofinternetuse,andnosingleinternetactivitythatwemeasuredpredicted
thelikelihoodofhavingasignificanttiethatwasnotalsoadiscussiontie.
Thisevidencesuggeststhattheintroductionoftheinternethasnothadasignificant
influenceonhowpeoplerespondtoaquestionthatasksthemtolistthosewithwhom
[they]discussimportantmatters.Thatis,internetusersarenotwithholdingnamesof
corenetworkmembersinresponsetothisquestionsimplybecauseofthechanging
natureofhowdiscussionismediated.

30


AreAmericanstrulysociallyisolated?
Corediscussionnetworksareonesegmentofabroadernetworkofstrongtiesthat
providemostofpeoplessocialsupport.Thissurveyaskedpeopletolistthosewith
whomtheydiscussimportantmattersandtoprovideanadditionallistofnamesof
thosewhoareespeciallysignificantintheirlives.Thelistofsignificanttiescould
containthesameordifferentpeopleasthosewithwhomapersondiscussesimportant
matters.Combined,theselistsofnamesrepresentapersonscorenetworkthose
peoplewhoprovidealargesegmentofeverydaysocialsupport.

FewAmericansaresociallyisolated,andthesociallyisolatedarenomorelikely
tobeinternetormobilephoneusers.
TheresultsofthePewInternetsurveyshowthattheaveragepersonhasthreecore
networkmembers.Onlyaverysmallproportionofthepopulationistrulysocially
isolated(5.8%),withnoonewithwhomtheyeitherdiscussimportantmattersor
considertobeespeciallysignificantintheirlives.
Table2d:Sizeofcorenetworks
NetworkSize Sample internetUser
0
5.8
5.1
1
17.4
16.7
2
21.1
19.4
3
19.0
19.5
4
14.8
15.6
5
11.0
12.1
6
5.8
6.0
7
2.5
2.9
8
1.4
1.6
9
0.5
0.5
10
0.6
0.6

CellPhoneUser
5.1
16.7
20.9
19.1
14.8
11.9
6.1
2.6
1.6
0.6
0.8

Mean
3.05
3.17
3.15
Mode
2.00
3.00
2.00
SD
1.94
1.95
1.97
N
2258
1711
1728
1
Nissmallerthan2512(totalsamplesize)because254
respondentsdidnotanswerquestionsabouttheircore
relationships.

31

Onaverage,internetandmobilephoneusersarenomorelikelytobesocially
isolatedthanthegeneralpopulation(5%ofcellphoneusershavenocoreties
comparedto6%ofthegeneralpopulation).Internetusersandmobilephone
usersareslightlymorelikelytoreportthattheyhaveacorenetworkofthreeor
moreties;56%ofthegeneralpopulationhasacorenetworkofthreeormore
tiescomparedto59%ofinternetusersand57%ofmobileusers.

Mobilephoneusersandthosewhousetheinternetforinstantmessaginghave
largercorenetworks.
Aswithouranalysisofdiscussionnetworks,regressionanalysisallowsustoexplorethe
truerelationshipbetweenICTuse,demographiccharacteristics,andnetworksize.
Aswithdiscussionnetworks,men,thosewithfewyearsofformaleducation,andthose
ofracesotherthanwhiteorAfricanAmericantendtohavesmallercorenetworks.
Theregression,reportedinAppendixDasTable8,showsthattheICTsassociatedwitha
largecorenetworkaremorespecificthantheyarefordiscussionnetworks.Largercore
networksareassociatedwiththeuseofamobilephoneanduseoftheinternetfor
instantmessaging.Internetuseisotherwisenotinfluentialonthesizeofcorenetworks.

Thosewithamobilephonehavecorenetworksthatareabout12%larger.
Thosewhouseinstantmessagingtendtohavecorenetworksthatareabout
11%larger.
Frequentinternetuse,andotherinternetactivities,suchasblogging,theuseof
socialnetworkingwebsites,andsharingphotosonlinehavenoinfluenceonthe
sizeofcorenetworks.

Example:Theaverage40yearold,whiteorAfricanAmerican,malewithanundergraduateuniversity
degree,whohasamobilephone,andusesinstantmessaging,hasacorenetworkofaboutthreepeople
(3.11).Amaleofthesameage,race,andeducation,whodoesnotuseamobilephoneandneverusesIM
typicallyhasacorenetworkthatisabout19%smaller(2.51ties).

32

OnlyhalfofAmericanshaveanyoneintheircorenetworkwhoisnotafamily
member.
Corenetworksincludenotonlycloseconfidants,butthosewhoprovidemuchofthe
personalsupportrequiredfordailylifeanddealingwithemergencies.Aswithdiscussion
networks,adiversecorenetwork,consistingoffamilymembersandpeoplefromother
settings,suchastheworkplaceandneighborhood,isimportanttoensureaccessto
differenttypesofsocialsupport.
Resultsshowthat84%ofAmericanshaveafamilymemberintheircorenetwork,but
onlyonehalfofAmericans(52%)havenonkinasmembersoftheircorenetwork.

Table 2e: Diversity of core network (N=2258)1

Network Size

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Total Core Network

5.8%
17.4%
21.1%
19.0%
14.8%
11.0%
5.8%
2.5%
1.4%
0.5%
0.6%

Kin

Nonkin

15.7%
27.8%
22.2%
16.8%
9.2%
5.5%
1.8%
0.6%
0.3%
0%
0%

47.6%
26.0%
14.1%
6.8%
3.2%
1.6%
0.5%
0.1%
0%
0.1%
0%

Mean
3.05
2.05
1.01
Mode
2.00
1.00
0.00
SD
1.94
1.58
1.30
3
Nissmallerthan2512(totalsamplesize)becausesomerespondentsdidnotanswerquestions
abouttheircorenetwork

Alargernumberofnonkinwithincorenetworksisassociatedwithgeneral
internetuse,frequentathomeuse,sharingphotosonline,usinginstant
messaging,andowningamobilephone.
Regressionanalysis,Table9inAppendixD,confirmsthathavingalargernumberof
nonkinaspartofacorenetworkisassociatedwithowningamobilephone,spending

33

timeonline,usinginstantmessaging,uploadingphotostosharewithothers,and
frequentathomeinternetuse.

Thosewhoownacellphonetendtohave25%morecorenetworkmembers
whoarenotfamilymembers.
Internetuserstendtohave15%additionalcorenetworktieswhoarenot
membersoftheirfamily.
Usingtheinternetathomemorethanafewtimesperdayisassociatedwithan
additional17%morenonkinaspartofacorenetwork.
Thosewhousetheinternetforinstantmessaginghave19%additionalnonkinin
theircorenetworks.
Sharingphotosonlineisassociatedwithhavingalargercorenetworkofnonkin,
suchthatthosewhouploadphotostosharewithothershave12%morenonkin
intheirnetworks.

Thereareanumberofadditionaldemographicfactorsassociatedwiththenumberof
nonkinthatpeopletendtohaveintheircorenetwork.Educationisassociatedwith
havingalargernumberofpeoplewhoarenotfamilywithinacorenetwork;onaverage,
fouryearsofadditionaleducationisequaltoa14%boostinthenumberofnonkin
withinacorenetwork.Thosewhoaremarriedorlivingwithapartnertendtohave31%
fewernonkin,withthosewithchildrenathomegenerallyhave10%fewernonkinin
theircorenetwork.
Example:Theaveragepersonwithanundergraduatedegree,whoissinglewithnochildren,andwhoisa
frequenthomeinternetuser,ownsacellphone,usesinstantmessaging,andsharesphotosonlinehasa
littlelessthantwopeople(1.64)inhis/hercorenetworkwhoarenotmembersofhis/herfamily.Aperson
withthesamelevelofeducationwhodoesnotusetheinternetoracellphoneaveragesonefewer
personinhis/hercorenetworkwhoisnotafamilymember(0.73).

Internetandmobilephoneuserscorenetworksareasstableasnonusers.
Theaveragelengthoftimeinternetandmobilephoneusershaveknowncorenetwork
memberswhoarenotmembersoftheirfamilytendstobeaboutthesameasfornon
users. 5 Theonlydemographicfactorsfoundtopredictnetworkstabilitywasage,with
olderpeoplehavingmorestablenetworks(seeTable10inAppendixD).

AtypeofregressioncalledOrdinaryLeastSquaresRegressionwasused,whichisusedwhentheoutcome
variableiscontinuous.

34

Howaretheinternetandmobilephoneusedtocommunicate
withcorenetworkmembers?
Moststudiesofhowpeoplecommunicatewithmembersoftheircorenetworkfocus
exclusivelyoninpersoncontact.ThisincludestheGeneralSocialSurvey,which,in2004,
askedonlyonequestionaboutinteractionwithcorenetworkmembers:Howoftendo
networkmemberstalk?Thisfocusprivilegesacertaintypeofcommunication,mainly
thatwhichcantakeplaceinpersonorpossiblyoverthetelephone.Itleaveslittleroom
forthepossibilitythatimportantsocialcontacttakesplacethroughotherformsof
communication,suchaspostalmail,email,instantmessaging,textmessaging(SMS),
andsocialnetworkingservices.
Tocalculatefrequencyofcontactacrossvariouscommunicationplatformsweasked
participantshowmanydayspermonththeywereincontactwitheachoftheircoreties
usingavarietyofmedia,includingfacetoface.Weaveragedtheanswersrespondents
gaveacrossallcoretiesandextrapolatedtoafullyearofcommunicationactivityper
coretie.
WefoundthatAmericanstakeadvantageofawiderangeofmediatomaintaintheir
corenetworksandthattalk,whetherinpersonoroverthetelephone,isonlya
fractionofthetotalsupportiveexchangebetweencorenetworkmembers.

Traditionalmedia:Theaveragepersonseeseachmemberoftheircorenetwork
210daysoftheyear,talkstothemusingalandlinetelephoneon125days,and
sendseachcorenetworkmemberanaverageof8lettersorcards.
ICTs:Iftheyhaveamobilephone,theaveragepersontalkstoeachcorenetwork
memberbymobilephoneon195days.Emailuserssendmessagestoeachcore
tieon72daysoftheyear.Ifapersonusestextmessaging(SMS),onaverage
theysendtextmessagestoeachcorenetworkmemberon125days.Thosewho
useinstantmessaging,contactcoretiesbyIMon55daysoftheyear.Ofthose
whousesocialnetworkingservices(SNS),SNSareusedtomessageeachcoretie
anaverageof39dayseachyear.

35


Table2f:Frequencyofcontactwithcorenetworkmembersperyearbymedium(%).
#Contacts
peryear
InPerson
Cell Landline
Letter
Email
SMS
IM
0
0.6
4.3
12.3
40.2
24.5
17.3
41.9
112
4.7
5.5
9.8
53.2
18.8
11.4
17.6
>1252
6.0
7.8
14.8
3.8
17.7
12.1
10.2
>52364
65.0
60.3
53.0
2.7
35.4
47.4
26.0
365
23.7
22.2
10.1
0.1
3.6
11.8
4.3

Mean
210.3 195.0
124.5
7.5
71.9
125.0
55.2
SD
113.6 122.2
114.1
26.0
94.5
122.3
93.4
N
2125
1642
1927
2125
1625
848
636

SNS
42.1
19.3
17.1
19.3
2.2
39.2
74.6
484

Distancemattersinthechoiceofcommunicationmedia.
Researchthatfocusesmainlyoninpersoncontactignoresthefactthatfacetoface
interactionisjustoneofanumberofmethodsthroughwhichpeopleexchangesupport
[2,14,15].Digitalmediaprovidenewopportunitiesforpeopletomaintaincontact
acrossdistance.Inaddition,thereisclearevidencethatdigitalmediaarealsoimportant
inmaintainingcontactwithverylocalties.KeithHamptonandBarryWellmanhave
calledthisglocalization[16]peopleusenewICTstoexpandtheirhorizonsatthe
sametimetheyusethetechnologytomaintainlocalties.
ThePewInternetPersonalNetworksandCommunitysurveyfindsthatinperson
contact,landlinetelephones,mobilephones,andtextmessaging(SMS)areusedmost
frequentlyforcontactwithlocaltiesandmuchlessfrequentlywithcoretieswholiveat
adistance.Cardsandlettersareusedmostfrequentlywithcoretiesatadistance.These
mediacontrastwithemail,socialnetworkingservices,andinstantmessaging,allof
whichfacilitateglocalization(bothlocalanddistantties).Theyareusedalmostas
frequentlytomaintaincontactwithlocaltiesastheyaretocontactdistantcoreties.

Themostfrequentmediumusedtomaintaincontactwithcorenetwork
membersisinperson,facetofacecontact.However,inpersoncontact
decreaseswithdistance,fromnearlydailycontactforthosewithwhomaperson
sharesahome(359/365days),tolessthanonethirdasoftenforcoretieswho
live50100milesaway(107/365days).

36

Figure2c:Daysofcontactperyearbymediumofcommunication.

Likefacetofacecontact,traditional,landlinetelephonecontactislessfrequent
withcorenetworkmemberswholiveatadistance,andmostfrequentwith
thosewholivenearby.Coretieswholive50100milesawayreceivelessthan
halfasmanycalls(82/365days)asthosewholiveonthesameblockorstreet
(173/365days).
Textmessagingandshortmessageservice(SMS)onmobilephonesresemble
landlinetelephoneandfacetofacecontact.Communicationismostfrequent
amongcoretieswholivenearby137/365daysforthosewholive15miles
away;itdropssharplywithcoretieswholivefurtheraway69/365daysfor
those50500milesaway.
Similarly,theuseofvoicecallsonmobilephonesismostfrequentwiththose
wholivenearby(276/365daysforcoretieswithinthesamehome),andless
frequentwithdistance(138/365daysforcoreties50100milesaway).However,
unliketheseothermedia,contactislessdependentondistance,andfrequency
ofusetrailsofflesssteeply.
Emailisusedrelativelyconsistentlyacrossdistance81/365daysperyearfor
coretieswithin15miles,and73/365daysforcoretieswhoare5003000miles
away.
Messagessentthroughsocialnetworkingservices,suchasFacebook,tendto
resembleemailcommunication.Theyareusedrelativelyconsistentlywithcore
tiesatalldistances48/365daysperyearforcoretieswholive15milesaway,
and43daysperyearforcoreties5003000milesaway.

37

Instantmessaging(IM)alsoresemblesemailandsocialnetworkingservices.
CommunicationwithcorenetworkmembersusingIMisalmostasfrequentwith
thosewholivelocally(72/365days,15milesaway),asitiswiththosewholive
faraway(55/365daysforthosewholive5003000milesaway).Postalmailin
theformoflettersandcardsisinsharpcontrastwithinpersoncontact.Itisthe
leastfrequentmediumoverallandisusedmostoftentocommunicatewithcore
tieswholivefurthestaway.Coretieswholivemorethan3,000milesaway
receiveonaveragetwentyfourcardsandlettersperyear.Thiscompareswith
theaveragesixcards/lettersgiventocorenetworkmembersinthesame
household.

Arecorenetworkmembersourfriends?Theuseofsocial
networkingservices(SNS)inthemaintenanceofcore
networks.
Socialnetworkingservices,suchasFacebook,MySpace,andLinkedIn,providepeople
withawaytofriendandthencommunicatewithpeoplewhoareapartoftheirsocial
network.Wefoundthat26%ofAmericanadultsusesocialnetworkingservices,with
youngercohortsmuchmorelikelytouseSNSthanoldercohorts:75%of1822year
olds,49%of2335yearolds,21%ofthosewhoare3649,9%ofthosewhoare5065,
andonly3%ofthosewhoareover65.

Figure2d:Membershipinsocialnetworkingservicesbyagecohort(%)

38

Youngerusersofsocialnetworkingservicesaremostlikelytohaveinfluentials
associalnetworkingsite(SNS)friends.
Socialnetworksites(SNS)provideanewwayforpeopletocommunicatewithmembers
oftheirsocialnetwork.FriendsonaSNScanbecorenetworkmembers,weakersocial
ties,friendsoffriends,orevennearstrangers.However,ifcorenetworkmembersare
listedasfriendsonSNS,itmaybepossibleforthoseoutsideofpeoplesimmediate
socialcircletoidentifycorenetworkmembers[17].Corenetworkmembersoftenserve
asinfuentialsinthedecisionmakingprocess[4].Ifmarketersandinterestgroupscan
usesocialnetworkingservicestotargetinfluentials,theymaybeabletomanipulatean
individualsdecisionmakingonavarietyofsubjects,rangingfromconsumerproductsto
politics.

71%ofallSNSuserslistedatleastonememberoftheircorenetworkasa
friend.
18%ofallSNSuserslistedmorethan90%ofalltheircorenetworkmembersas
SNSfriends.

YoungerSNSusersweremuchmorelikelytolistatleastoneorthemajorityoftheir
corenetworkmembersasSNSfriends.

83%of1822yearoldSNSuserslistedatleastonecorenetworkmemberasan
SNSfriend.
Thelikelihoodoflistingacorenetworkmemberasafriendwaslowerwithage,
suchthatonly46%of5065yearoldSNSuserslistatleastonecorenetwork
memberasanSNSfriend.
30%of1822yearoldSNSusershavemorethan90%oftheircorenetwork
memberslistedasSNSfriends.
Only15%of2335yearolds,13%of3649yearolds,and5%of5065yearold
SNSuserslistmorethan90%oftheircorenetworkmembersasSNSfriends.

Thesefindingssuggestthatyoungercohorts,particularlythoseinthe1822yearrange,
areparticularlylikelytohaveaconcentrationofcorenetworkmembersonsocial
networkingservices.AlthoughtheseSNSmaybenefitfromanewformofaccesstocore
networkmembers,theymayalsobeparticularlyopentoinfluencefrommarketersand
lobbygroupsthatuseSNStotargetinfluentialsasastrategytomanipulateorguide
decisionmaking.

39


Table2g:ProportionofcorenetworkmemberswhoarefriendsonSNS
All
Users
Users
Users
Users
Proportionofcorenetwork Users
1822
2335
3649
5065
0
29.2
16.9
28.1
34.5
54.5
.01.90
52.7
52.8
56.5
52.7
41.0
>.90
18.1
30.2
15.4
12.8
4.5
N
484
135
176
104
54

40

Users
>65
48.9
32.1
19.1
15

Part3
NetworkDiversityandCommunity:TheRoleofthe
InternetandMobilePhones
Corenetworksprovideaccesstoabroadrangeofsocialsupport[2,1214].However,thesmall
numberofsocialtiesthatmakeupacorenetworkarealsolikelytobedenselyconnectedand
thepeopletobehighlysimilaratrendthatscholarscallhomophily[18].Corenetwork
membersarelikelytosharemanysocialcharacteristics,includinginterests,beliefs,and
opinions.Thistypeofnetworkisidealforaccesstobroadsocialsupportandopinionvalidation,
butgenerallyislessthanidealforaccesstouniqueinformationordiversityofopinion[3,19].
Themorenumerous,weakersocialtiesoutsideofthecorenetworkarethemostdiverse.
Thesetiesaretypicallyformedandmaintainedasaresultofparticipationindiversesocial
settings,includingneighborhoods,publicspaces,andvoluntaryorganizations.Scholarshave
foundthatthesediversenetworksprovidespecializedsocialsupportandaccesstonovel
informationandresources,whichhasbeenshowntoassistinsearchprocesses,suchasfinding
ajob[20,21].Individualswhohavemorediversenetworkstendtobemoretrusting[7],
demonstrategreatersocialtolerance,copewithdailytroublesandtraumamoreeffectively,
andtendtobephysicallyhealthier[22].However,someresearchers,includingRobertPutnam
ofHarvard,havefoundthatparticipationinsocialsettingsthatsupportdiversenetworks,like
neighborhoodsandvoluntarygroups,hasdeclinedinthelastquartercentury,andthathas
contributedtolessernetworkdiversity.Doestheuseofnewinformationandcommunication
technology(ICT),includingtheinternetandmobilephone,contributetothisdecline?
Somefearthatinternetactivitiesinthehomemaysubstituteforparticipationinneighborhood
andpublicspaces.Timespentonlinemayreplacetimethatwouldotherwisebespent
socializingwithtiesandinplacesoutsidethehome.Otherssuggestthattheinternetprovides
newopportunitiesforinteractionwithdiversesocialties.ThePewInternetsurveyexamined
theseissues:IstheuseofICTsassociatedwithlessparticipationinneighborhoodandpublic
life?And,inturn,doesinternetandmobilephoneuseconstrainthediversityofpeoplessocial
networks?

41

Areinternetuserslesslikelytoparticipateinthelocal
community?
Mostpeopleknowatleastsomeoftheirneighbors.
Aspartofthesurvey,peoplewereaskediftheyknowthenamesoftheirneighbors
wholiveclosetothem.Some40%ofAmericansreportedthattheyknowallormostof
theirnearestneighbors.Another30%reportedthattheyknowatleastsomeoftheir
neighbors.Some31%ofpeoplesaidthattheydonotknowanyoftheirneighbors.
Doyouknowthenamesofyourneighborswholive
closetoyou,ornot?

30.6%

Yes,knowallormost

39.8%

Yes,knowsome
Donotknowany
29.6%

Figure3a:Americansneighborhoodties

Weexpectedthatmanyofthosewhoreportednoconnectionwithneighborsare
disconnectedbecauseoftheirstageinthelifecycleandnotbecausetheyaresocially
isolated(forexample,youngadultswhohaveyetputdownrootsinacommunity).
Regressionanalysis,reportedinAppendixDasTable11,confirmsthatwhereonelives,
howoldhe/sheis,andtheiruseofICTsallmatterforconnectionstolocalcommunity.
Youngerpeople,apartmentdwellers,andthosewhoareneithermarriednor
cohabitatingaretypicallyatastageintheirliveswhenneighborsarelessimportantthan
othertypesofsocialrelationships[23].

42

Apartmentdwellersare60%lesslikelythanhomedwellerstoknowatleast
someoftheirneighbors.
Thosewhoaremarriedorcohabitatingare31%morelikelytoknowtheir
neighbors.
Thelikelihoodofknowingatleastsomeneighborsincreases3%foreveryyearof
age.

Additionaldemographicfactorsalsomatter.

Residentialstability,thelongeronelivesinanyoneplaceincreasestheoddsof
knowingneighbors;6%peryear.
Theoddsthatwomenknowatleastsomeneighborsare41%higherthanfor
men.
Thosewithlarger,corenetworksaremorelikelytoknowneighbors.Theodds
are19%higherpercoretieintheirnetwork.
Theoddsofknowingatleastsomeneighborsare50%lowerforAfrican
Americansand43%lessforthoseofotherraces,incomparisontowhite
Americans.

Withtheexceptionofthosewhousesocialnetworkingservices,internetusers
arenomoreorlesslikelytoknowatleastsomeoftheirneighbors.
Thosewhouseamobilephoneandmostinternetusersarenomoreorlesslikelythan
nontechuserstoknowneighbors.However,thisisnotthecaseforthoseinternetusers
whousesocialnetworkingservices.
Usersofsocialnetworkingservicesare30%lesslikelytoknowtheirneighbors.

Example:Thereisa82%probabilitythatanaverage30yearold,white,female,whoismarriedor
cohabitating,anddoesnotliveinanapartmentbuilding,knowsatleastsomeofherneighbors.Ifsheuses
socialnetworkingservices,theprobabilityislower,at77%. 1

Intheexamplesusedinthissection,theaveragepersonisconsideredtohavethreecoreties,thirteenyearsof
formaleducation,andtohavelivedinhis/hercurrentneighborhoodforelevenyears.

43

ThemajorityofAmericanstalkwiththeirneighborsonaregularbases.
Previousresearchhasfoundthatcommunicationattheneighborhoodlevelis
associatedwithhigherlevelsofpersonalsocialcapital,butitalsocontributestothe
wellbeingofthecommunityasawhole.Previousresearchhasshownthat
neighborhoodcohesionisassociatedwithavarietyofpositiveoutcomes,including
lowercrimerates,informalsocialcontrols,andthelikelihoodofcommunity
interventioninlocaldisturbances[24,25].
PewInternetparticipantswereaskedhowoftentheytalked,phoned,andemailedthose
neighborswhomtheyknowbyname.Findingsrevealthat61%ofAmericanstalkface
tofacewithneighborsatleastonceamonth.Inaddition,25%talktotheirneighborson
thephoneatleastonamonthlybasis,and10%ofinternetusersemailwithneighborsat
leastoncepermonth.
Table3a:Contactwithatleastoneneighborovertheprevioussixmonths(%)
facetoface
Phone
Everyday
10.8

3.7

Severaltimesaweek
19.8

4.9

Onceaweek
18.6

8.0

Onceamonth
11.6

8.8

Lessoften
6.6

11.3

Never
32.5

63.4

email1
1.0
2.0
3.6
3.2
3.9
86.3

1922

2512

2512

Internetusersonly.

Internetandmobilephoneuseisnotrelatedtothelikelihoodofhavingfaceto
facecontactwithneighbors.
Regressionanalysis,reportedasTable12inAppendixD,confirmsthatinternetusedoes
notsubstituteforinpersoncontactattheneighborhoodlevel.

Mobilephoneuse,internetuse,frequencyofuse,orparticipatinginsocial
networkingservices,blogging,photosharing,orinstantmessaging,wasfoundto
havenorelationshipwiththelikelihoodoffacetofacecontactwithneighbors.

44

Neighborsremainanimportantsourceofcompanionshipandareavailablefor
smallservices,borrowingsmallsumsofmoney,andcareforfamilymembers.
Neighborshavetraditionallybeenasourceofveryspecifictypesofsocialsupport.
Studiesshowthatneighborsaccessibilitymakesthemidealfor
companionship/emotionalaid,theexchangeofsmallservices,helpincaringforfamily
members,andlendingsmallsumsofmoney[2].Inbothpersonalandlocalemergencies,
suchasahealthproblemoranaturaldisaster,neighborsareoftenthemostaccessible
sourceofinformalaidandsupport.
InthePewInternetsurvey,49%ofAmericanshadhelpedtheirneighborsoverthe
previoussixmonthsbylisteningtotheirproblems;41%helpedwithhouseholdchores,
shopping,repairs,housesat,orloanedtoolsorsupplies;22%caredforamemberofa
neighborsfamily,eitherachildoranadult;and9%loanedaneighbormoney.
Manymorepeoplereportedgivingthanreceivinghelpfromneighbors.Only36%
reportedthataneighborhadlistenedtotheirproblems,31%receivedhelpwithchores
orborrowedtoolsorsupplies,15%werecaredfororhadafamilymembercaredforby
aneighbor,and3%borrowedmoney.
Althoughtheexchangeofsupportattheneighborhoodlevelisextensive,thereisa
modestlackofreciprocityinneighborexchanges(orpossiblyaheightened
awareness/memoryofgivingandareducedawareness/memoryofreceivingsupport).

Figure3b:Exchangeofsupportwithneighborspastsixmonths
45

Theinternetmakessomeformsofsocialsupportmoreaccessibleoutsideofthe
neighborhoodsetting.Asaresult,someinternetusersarelesslikelytorelyon
neighborsforsupport.
Regressionanalyses,reportedasTable13andTable14inAppendixD,explorethe
relationshipbetweenICTuseandvariousformsofsocialsupport.Thefindingsinclude:

Usersofsocialnetworkingservicesare26%lesslikelytohaveusedneighborsas
asourceofcompanionship.
Withtheexceptionofthosewhouseinstantmessaging,internetusersare26%
lesslikelytohavereceivedsmallservices(e.g.,householdchores,shopping,
repairs,housesat,lenttoolsorsupplies)fromneighbors.
Internetusersare40%lesslikelytohavebeencaredfor,orhadamemberof
theirfamilycaredfor,byaneighbor.And,usersofsocialnetworkingservicesare
39%lesslikelythanotherinternetusers,or64%lesslikelythanthosewhodo
notusetheinternet,tohavereceivedfamilycarefromaneighbor.
Internetuserswhoarefrequentusersatworkare57%lesslikelytoborrow
moneyfromneighbors.
Theonlyinternetactivitiesassociatedwithreceivinghigherlevelsof
neighborhoodsupportaresharingdigitalphotosonline,whichisassociatedwith
a52%higherlikelihoodofreceivingcompanionship,andinstantmessaging,with
oddsthatare32%higherofreceivingsmallservices.

Variationinwhatpeopledoonlineisrelatedtothelikelihoodofgivingsupport
toneighbors.

Thosewhosharedigitalphotosonlineare44%morelikelytogive
companionshiptoneighbors.
Bloggersare79%morelikely,andthosewhouploadphotostoshareonlineare
40%morelikelytoprovidesmallservicestoneighbors.
Internetusersare40%lesslikelytoprovidefamilycaretoneighbors.However,
thisrelationshipismoderated,orevenreversed,dependingonapersonsonline
activities.Frequentinternetusersathomeare46%morelikelythanother
internetusers,bloggersare84%morelikelythanotherinternetusers,andthose
whouseinstantmessagingare33%morelikelythanotherinternetusersto
providefamilycaretoneighbors.
Withtheexceptionofbloggers,whoareaslikelytolendmoneyasanyoneelse,
internetusersare48%lesslikelytolendmoneytoneighbors.

Itisunlikelythatinternetusersneedlessfamilycareorlesshelpwithhouseholdchores
andrepairsthandononusers.Instead,theinternetmayprovideaccesstoexisting
socialnetworkmembersinawaythatsubstitutesforsomeofthesmallservicesand
familycarethatpeopleotherwisewouldhavereceivedfromneighbors.Thismaybe
46

particularlytrueforusersofsocialnetworkingservices,whoreceivecompanionship
fromothersocialtiesandcoordinatefamilycareonline,ratherthaninthe
neighborhood.

Itisalsolikelythatsomeofwhatweobservedhaslesstodowiththeuseoftechnology
thanitdoeswithindividualcharacteristics.Forexample,thosewhousetheinternet
frequentlyatworklikelyrepresentanoccupationalclassthathashighersocioeconomic
characteristicsingeneral,makingthemlesslikelytoborrowmoneyfromneighbors
becauseoftheireconomicstanding,ratherthanafunctionoftheirtechnologicaluse.
Similarly,thosewhouploadphotostoshareonlinemayrepresentparticularly
extroverted,hypersocialsharingtypes,whoexperienceincreasedcompanionshipasa
resultoftheirindividualnature,notspecificallyasaresultoftheiruseoftheinternet.

Connectingwithneighborsonlineisassociatedwithhighsocialcohesionanda
networkofsupport.
AsmallnumberofAmericans4%(N=103)reportedthattheybelongedtoa
neighborhoodemaillistorinternetdiscussionforumfortheirneighborhood(e.g.,i
neighbors.org).Althoughthissuggeststhatonlyasmallfractionofneighborhoodsare
usingtheinternetforlocalcommunicationandinformationsharing,thosewhodoadopt
thistechnologybenefitfromhighlevelsofneighborhoodengagement.

60%ofthosewhouseaneighborhooddiscussionforumknowallormostoftheir
neighbors,comparedto40%otherAmericans.
79%whouseaneighborhooddiscussionforumtalkwithneighborsinpersonatleast
onceamonth,comparedto61%ofthegeneralpopulation.
43%onaneighborhooddiscussionforumtalktoneighborsonthetelephoneatleast
onceamonth,comparedtotheaverageof25%.
42%ofthosewhobelongtoaneighborhooddiscussionforumemailneighborsat
leastmonthly,comparedto10%ofgeneralinternetusers.
70%onaneighborhooddiscussionforumlistenedtoaneighborsproblemsinthe
previoussixmonths,and63%receivedsimilarsupportfromneighbors,in
comparisonwith49%whogaveand36%whoreceivedthissupportinthegeneral
population.
65%whobelongtoaneighborhooddiscussionforumhelpedaneighborwith
householdchoresorloanedahouseholditemintheprevioussixmonths,54%
receivedthissupportcomparedtotheaverage41%whogaveand31%who
received.
29%whouseaneighborhooddiscussionforumcaredforaneighborintheprevious
sixmonths,and29%werecaredforbyaneighbor,comparedtotheaverage
American,22%ofwhomgavecareand15%ofwhomreceivedcarefromneighbors.
47

16%ofthoseonaneighborhooddiscussionforumloanedmoneytoaneighborin
theprevioussixmonths,3%borrowed,incomparisonwiththe9%wholoanedand
3%whoborrowedinthegeneralpopulation.

Figure3c:Thosewhouseaneighborhoodforumcomparedtopopulation

AmajorityofAmericansbelongtoatleastonelocalvoluntarygroup.
Inadditiontoparticipationintheirimmediateneighborhood,aspartofthesurvey
peoplewereaskedaboutparticipationinbroaderlocalvoluntarygroups.Theywere
askediftheybelongtooreverworkwithacommunitygrouporneighborhood
associationthatfocusesonissuesorproblemsinyourcommunity,alocalsports
league,alocalyouthgroup,suchasscoutsortheYMCA,alocalchurch,synagogue,
mosqueortemple,alocalsocialcluborcharitableorganization,orsomeotherlocal
groupthathadnotalreadybeenmentioned.Resultsshowthat65%ofAmericans
belongtoatleastonelocalgroup.

48


Table3b:Participationinlocalvoluntarygroups(N=2512)

Localchurch,synagogue,mosqueortemple
Localsocialcluborcharitableorganization
Communitygrouporneighborhoodassociation
Localsportsleague
Localyouthgroup,suchasscoutsorYMCA
Someotherlocalgroup

%Yes
46.1
24.4
16.0
16.0
15.7
10.8

%No
53.9
75.6
84.0
84.0
84.3
89.2

Mobilephoneusers,bloggers,andfrequentinternetusersatworkaremore
likelytobelongtoalocalgroup.
Regressionanalysis,reportedinAppendixDasTable15,confirmsthatparticipationinlocal
groupsvaries,basedonmobilephoneandinternetactivity.Wefoundnonegative
relationshipsbetweeninternetuseandparticipationinlocalgroups.Comparedtoother
demographicfactorsassociatedwithparticipationinlocalgroups,suchaseducation,the
positiverelationshipbetweenICTuseandlocalgroupmembershipisrelativelystrong.

Theoddsofmobilephoneusersbelongingtoalocalgroupare72%higherthanfor
thosewhodonotownamobilephone.
Thosewhoaccesstheinternetfromworkatleastafewtimesperdayare46%more
likelytobelongtoatleastonelocalgroup.
Bloggersare72%morelikelytobelongtoalocalgroup.

Therelationshipbetweenmobilephoneuseorblogging,independentofeachother,on
groupmembershipiscomparabletothatofapproximatelyfouryearsofeducation.The
relationshipbetweenfrequentinternetaccessfromworkandgroupmembershipis
comparabletothatofmarriageorhavingchildrenathome,allofwhichareassociatedwith
about50%higheroddsoflocalgroupinvolvement.
Example:Anaveragepersonwhoissingle,white,withnochildrenhasa40%probabilityofbelongingtoatleast
onelocalvoluntarygroup.Ifhe/sheownsacellphone,theprobabilityishigher,at54%.Ifhe/shealsofrequently
usestheinternetatworkandblogs,theprobabilityis74%.

49

Mostpeoplespendtimeinadiversenumberofplacesoutsideofthehomeand
workplace.
Thissurveyaskedpeoplehowfrequentlyinthepastmonththeyvisiteddifferenttypes
ofspacesoutsideofthehomeandworkplace(andstayedforatleastfifteenminutes).
Thesespacespublicparks,cafes,restaurants,libraries,communitycenters,and
religiousbuildingshavelongbeenrecognizedassourcesofdiversesocialtiesand
spaceswherepeoplemaybeexposedtodiverseideasandopinions[1,7,2629].
Findingsrevealthatmostpeoplemakeatleasttwelvevisitstopublicandsemipublic
spaceseachmonth. 2
Table3c:Frequencyofvisitstopublicandsemipublicspaces(%)(N=2512).
Coffee
Churchor
Public
Fastfood
Other Community

shop
temple
library restaurant restaurant
center
0
54.4
46.5
65.3
31.8
29.8
82.5
1
8.3
6.9
12.0
12.9
9.3
5.9
2
9.8
6.9
8.5
14.1
12.0
3.6
3
5.4
4.5
4.0
8.0
9.1
1.7
4
6.7
19.2
3.4
7.8
10.5
2.0
5
3.3
4.3
1.6
6.5
7.1
0.8
6+
12.1
11.7
5.1
18.9
22.2
3.4

Park
39.2
13.5
13.4
8.6
7.2
4.9
13.2

Bar
72.2
6.9
6.3
3.3
3.2
1.9
6.3

Internetusersandmobilephoneusersaremorelikelytousemanypublicand
semipublicspacesoutsideofthehomeandworkplace.
Ourfindingsfromaseriesofregressionanalyses,reportedasTable16andTable17in
AppendixD,showthatinternetusersareconsiderablymorelikelytovisitarangeof
publicandsemipublicspaces,includingparks,cafs,libraries,andrestaurants,thanare
nonusersoftheinternet.

Internetusersare45%morelikelytovisitacaf,52%morelikelytovisita
library,34%morelikelytovisitafastfoodrestaurant,69%morelikelytovisit
otherrestaurants,and42%morelikelytovisitapublicpark.

Resultsarebasedonthesumofallvisitsinthepastmonthtoeachofeightdifferentpublic
andsemipublicspaces(minimumstayoffifteenminutespervisit).Thesurveyrecordeda
maximumofsixvisitstoeachtypeofspace.Medianandmode=12(mean=13).
50

Similarly,thosewhouseamobilephonearemorelikelytovisitsemipublicspacesthan
thosewhodonotownaphone.

Mobilephoneusersare82%morelikelytoattendchurch,81%morelikelyto
visitafastfoodrestaurant,63%morelikelytovisitotherrestaurants,and56%
morelikelytovisitabar.

Inaddition,comparedtootherinternetusers,thosewhoaccessedtheinternetatwork
atleastafewtimesperdayweremorelikelytovisitarangeofpublicandsemipublic
spaces.

Thosewhofrequentlyaccesstheinternetatworkare49%morelikelytogotoa
nonfastfoodrestaurant,35%morelikelytovisitacommunitycenter,21%more
likelytovisitapublicpark,and71%morelikelytogotoabar.
However,frequentinternetusersatworkwere26%lesslikelytovisitalibrary.

Wealsofoundthat:

Thosewhocontributetoablogare61%morelikelytogotoapublicparkthan
internetuserswhodonotblog.
Usersofsocialnetworkingwebsitesare40%morelikelytovisitabar,but36%
lesslikelytovisitareligiousinstitution.
Usersofinstantmessagingare21%lesslikelytovisitalibrarythanthosewhodo
notuseIM.

Example:Theprobabilitythatanaverage,single,35yearoldmanwillvisitapublicparkatleastoncea
monthisabout39%.However,ifheisaninternetuser,theprobabilityishigher;thereisa48%chancehe
willvisitapark.Ifhealsomaintainsablog,thereisa60%chancehewillvisit.

Aswithotherlocalcommunityactivities,therelationshipbetweeninternetuseand
participationinpublicandsemipublicspacesislikelyacombinationofselfselection
andanoutcomeofinternetuse.Forexample,thosewhoareinoccupationsthatrequire
frequentinternetuseintheworkplaceareprobablymorelikelyasaresultoftheir
socioeconomicstatusandstageinthelifecycletovisitarangeofpublicandsemipublic
spaces.Atthesametime,theinternetmayalsoenablevisitstopublicspacesthrough
opportunitiestocoordinaterendezvousandsearchfornewplacestovisit.

Internetuseisacommonactivityinmanykindsofpublicandsemipublicspaces.
Althoughhomeandworkplacearethedominantlocationsfromwhichpeopleaccessthe
internet,ithasbecomeincreasinglypossibleforpeopletoincorporateinternetuseinto
51

theireverydayexperiencesinpublicspaces.Internetaccessinparks,cafs,and
restaurantshasbeenmadepossiblethroughtheproliferationofbroadbandwireless
internetintheformofmunicipalandcommunitywifi(e.g.,NYCWireless)andadvanced
mobilephonenetworks(e.g.,3G).Wefoundthatasignificantproportionofpeoplewho
visitpublicandsemipublicspacesareonlinewhileinthosespacesusingacomputer,
mobilephone,orotherdevices:

36%oflibrarypatrons
18%ofthoseincafsorcoffeeshops
14%ofthosewhovisitedacommunitycenter
11%ofpeoplewhofrequentedabar
8%ofvisitorstopublicparksandplazas
7%ofcustomersatotherrestaurants
6%ofcustomersatfastfoodrestaurants
5%ofpeoplewhovisitedchurch,synagogue,mosqueortemple.

Areinternetandmobilephoneusersnetworksmorediverse?
ScholarshaveshownthattheaverageAmericanssocialnetworkconsistsofhundredsof
people[30].Althoughitisrelativelysimpletoenumerateapersonscorenetworks
(whichbydefinitionconsistofasmallsetofrelativelystrongties)ortoaskabout
participationindifferentsocialsettings(suchasneighborhoods,voluntarygroups,and
publicspaces),itisnearlyimpossibletoasksomeonetoaccuratelylisteveryonethey
know.However,togetapictureofthediversityofapersonssocialnetworks,itisnot
necessarytoaskabouteveryoneintheirlife.Instead,wecanaskthemiftheyknow
peoplewithavarietyofbackgroundsandexperiences.Thecurrentsurveyuseda
methodologycalledapositiongeneratorthathasbeenusedextensivelybythosewho
studysocialnetworks[31,32].
Thepositiongeneratorisbasedontheunderstandingthatpeopleindifferentsocial
locationsinsocietycanprovidedifferenttypesofresources,information,andsupport.
Occupationisagoodmeasureofdifference.Occupationsvaryinprestige,andpeoplein
highprestigeoccupationstendtohavespecialresourcestiedtoincome,education,and
authority.However,evenpeopleinmiddleandlowerprestigeoccupationshavespecial
skillsandcanofferuniqueopportunities.Themorepeoplesomeoneknowsofin
differentoccupations,particularlyarangeofoccupations,themorelikelyheistohave
accesstoarangeofinformationandresources.Anumberofstudieshaveshownthat
thepositiongeneratorisavalidandreliablemeasureofnetworkdiversity[31].Usinga
52

listof22occupationsthatrangedfromverylowprestige(suchasabellboy)tohigh
prestige(suchasaCEOofalargecompany),peoplewereaskediftheyhadarelative,
friend,oranacquaintanceworkingineachoccupation. 3
Networkdiversitywasmeasuredasthenumberofdifferentoccupationsinwhicha
personhasasocialtie.Wefoundthatthemeanpersonknowssomeonein9.25ofthe
22occupationsthatweresampled.

Figure3d:Diversityoffullpersonalnetwork

Internetusers,particularlythosewhoarefrequentusersatwork,andthose
whousesocialnetworkingservices,havebroadersocialnetworks.
Aregressionanalysis,Table18inAppendixD,confirmsthatcomparedtothosewhodo
notusetheinternet,thosewhousetheinternethavemorediversesocialnetworks.
Higherlevelsofdiversityassociatedwithinternetuseareindependentofparticipation
inneighborhoodsocialnetworks,voluntaryassociations,andpublicandsemipublic
spaces.

Comparedtononusers,thosewhousetheinternettendtoknowatleastone
additionalpersonintheoccupationalspectrum(0.71).
Thosewhousedtheinternetatworkatleastafewtimesperdayknowpeople,
onaverage,inoneandahalfadditionaloccupations(1.46).

ThelistofoccupationsusedisbasedontheworkofNanLin,YangchihFu,andChihjouJayChen,conductedby
theInstituteofSociology,AcademiaSinica.

53

Inaddition,thosewhouseasocialnetworkingservicescoreonaverage.60
higheronthediversityscale.

AlthoughnoevidencewasfoundthattheuseofICTsreducestheoveralldiversityof
socialnetworks,theassociationbetweeninternetuseandnetworkdiversitywas
relativelylowcomparedtootherdemographicfactors.
Thesinglestrongestpredictorofdiversitywasage.Acurvilinearrelationshipexists
betweenageandnetworkdiversity,suchthatdiversityincreasessteadilywithage,
althoughnotassteadilyfortheelderly.Afterage,whichaccountsfortimetobuilda
diversenetwork,participationindiversesocialsettings(suchasvisitingpublicand
semipublicspaces),participationinvoluntarygroups,andneighborhoodinvolvement
weremostinfluentialinpredictingadiversenetwork.Thesizeofcorenetworks,
presumablyameanstoaccessothernetworks,wasalsohighlyinfluentialonnetwork
diversity.Althoughbeingafrequentinternetuseratworkwasalsoamongthemost
influentialvariablesinpredictingdiversity,thisvariablecapturesmoreabout
socioeconomicstatusandtheparticipantsoccupationalprestigethanacausal
relationshipbetweeninternetuseatworkandtheextentofapersonsoverallsocial
network.Heavyinternetusersatworkhavemorediversenetworksbecauseofthetype
ofworktheydo,notbecauseoftheinternet.
Example:Awhite(nonHispanic),married,30yearoldmale,whohasafouryearuniversitydegree,an
averagecorenetwork(3ties),visitsanaveragenumberofpublic/semipublicspaceseachmonth(12),
knowsatleastsomeofhisneighbors,andbelongstoonevoluntarygroup,onaverageknowspeoplein
sevenofthetwentytwooccupationsonthescale(6.95).Ifheisaninternetuser,andusesasocial
networkingservice,onaverageheknowspeoplein8.26occupations:anetworkthatis19%morediverse
thansomeonewhodoesnotusetheinternetorownamobilephone.

54

Part4
Conclusion

OurfindingssuggestthattheextentofsocialisolationinAmericaisnotashighashasbeen
reportedthroughpriorresearch.Today,thenumberofAmericanswhoaretrulyisolatedisno
different,oratmostisonlyslightlyhigherthanwhatitwas30yearsago.Fewpeoplehaveno
onewithwhomtheycandiscussimportantmatters,andevenfewerhavenoonewhois
especiallysignificantintheirlives.Themorepronouncedsocialchange,since1985,has
occurredinthesizeanddiversityofAmericanscorenetworks.
Comparedtotherelativelyrecentpast,mostAmericansnowhavefewerpeoplewithwhom
theydiscussimportantmatters,andthediversityofpeoplewithwhomtheydiscussthese
issueshasdeclined.Thereisawealthofscholarshiptosuggestthattheimplicationsofthis
trendforindividualsandforAmericansocietyarestarklynegative.Smallerandlessdiversecore
networksdiminishpersonalwellbeingbylimitingaccesstosocialsupport.Therearesimply
fewerpeoplewecanrelyoninatimeofneedwhetheritisashouldertocryon,toborrowa
cupofsugar,ortohelpduringacrisis.Smallandnarrowcorenetworksalsoimpedetrustand
socialtolerance;theylimitexposuretothediverseopinions,issues,andideasofothers.Ifwe
increasinglyrelyandtrustonlyasmallinnercircleoflikemindedothers,itbecomesincreasingly
difficulttorecognize,acceptorunderstandopposingpointsofview.Agreatdealofresearch
hasshownthatdiversitywithinourclosestrelationshipsevenintheageoftheinternetis
vitalfortheflowofinformation,forinformeddeliberation,andtomaintaintheparticipatory
idealsofademocracy.
Whatisthesourceofthischange?Wedontknow.But,webelievewehaveruledoutonelikely
source:newinformationandcommunicationtechnologiessuchastheinternetandmobile
phone.Oursurveyfindstheoppositetrendamongstinternetandmobilephoneusers;they
havelargerandmorediversecorenetworks.True,oursurveyisbasedononepointintime,we
cannotcompletelyexcludethepossibilitythatthosetechnologiesthatweassociatewithlarger
andmorediversenetworkswere,atsomepointintherecentpast,responsibleforasharp
decline.But,itisnotthecasetoday,andgiventheevidenceitseemsunlikelytherewassome
recentswitch.Wedonotknowifuseofnewtechnologiescontributesdirectlytolargerand
morediversecorenetworks,orifthosewhousetechnologyinacertainwayarelikelytohave
betternetworksfromthebeginning.Wesuspectbothtobetrue,butwealsoofferathird
explanation.Webelievethatatleastsomeofourfindingsareexplainedbychangesinhow
technologyallowspeopletoshareinformationwithintheirnetwork.Mostpeoplemistakenly
55

thinktheysharemuchmoreincommonwiththeircoretiesthantheyreallydo.Thefinding,for
example,thatthosewhodocertaininternetactivitieslikesharedigitalphotosaremorelikely
tohavecrosspoliticalpartydiscussionpartners,suggeststhatnewtechnologiesmayprovide
bettersurveillanceofournetworkmembersthanwehadinthepast.Thepervasive
awarenessthatcomeswiththeuseofmanynewsocialmediamaynotchangethe
compositionofoursocialnetworksasmuchasitincreaseourunderstandingofthosewhoare
alreadyinoursocialcircle.
Ourfindingsalsosuggestthatthereislittletotheargumentthatnewinformationand
communicationtechnologiesdecreaseparticipationintraditional,localsocialsettings
associatedwithhavingadiversesocialnetwork.Whenwelookbeyondpeoplescorenetwork,
totheirfullnetworkofrelations,wefindthatmostusesoftheinternetandmobilephonehave
apositiverelationshiptoneighborhoodnetworks,voluntaryassociations,anduseofpublic
spaces.Thereissomeevidencethatveryspecificinternetactivities,suchasuseofsocial
networkingservices(e.g,Facebook,MySpace,LinkedIn),substitutesforsomeneighborhood
involvementtheinternetallowspeopletoobtaintraditionalformsofneighborhoodsupport
fromasocialcirclethatextendsoutsideoftheirneighborhood.Yet,internetuserscontinueto
givesupporttotheirneighbors,andtheleveloffacetofacecontactwithneighborsisthesame
forinternetusersasitisfornonusers.Inaddition,manyinternetuserstakeadvantageofthe
additionalcommunicationchannelthatemailaffordsforlocalcontact.Whileonlyasmall
numberofneighborhoodshaveanorganizedchannelofcommunicationonline,suchasa
neighborhooddiscussionforum(e.g.,www.iNeighbors.org),thosethatbelongtothese
discussionforumsarefarmoreinvolvedlocallythanareotherAmericans.Inaddition,while
participationintraditionalsocialsettingsneighborhoods,voluntaryassociations,andpublic
spacesremainthestrongestpredictorsofadiversesocialnetwork,internetuse,andin
particularuseofsocialnetworkingservices,hasemergedasanewsocialsettingthatisdirectly
linkedwithhavingamorediversepersonalnetwork.Peoplewhoparticipateinthesetraditional
settings,aswellasnewonesaffordedbytheinternet,arelikelytobenefitfromthenovel
informationstreamstowhichtheyareexposed.
Althoughthereasonsforahistoricalshifttowardsmaller,lessdiversecorenetworksdonot
seemtorestwithinternetandmobilephoneuse,thesolutionsmay.Wedonotespouse
technologicaldeterminism.Itisclearthatpeopleshapetechnologyfarmorethantheother
wayaround.Forthisreason,oursurveyresultssuggestthatpeopleslivesarelikelytobe
enhancedbyparticipationwithnewcommunicationtechnologies,ratherthanbyfearingthat
theiruseofnewtechnologywillsendthemintoaspiralofisolation.

56

AppendixA
ExtendedLiteratureReview

Whatrolemightnewtechnologiesplayinhowcorenetworkshavechangedin
thepast20years?
McPherson,SmithLovin,andBrashearssuggestedthatwidespreadadoptionoftheinternet
andmobilephonemaycontributetotheconstrictionofcorediscussionnetworksobservedin
the2004GSS.Inparticular,theysuggestthatthereisevidencethattheseinformationand
communicationtechnologies(ICTs)encouragedistant,relativelyweaksocialtiesovermore
locallybased,strongties.Theimplicationisthatinternetandmobilephoneuseencouragea
withdrawalfromlocalsocialsettingsthathavetraditionallybeenassociatedwithnetwork
diversity:neighborhoodsandvoluntaryassociations[7].McPhersonetal.suggestthatthecell
phonemightenhancesomecontactsoutsidethehome(e.g.,arrangingmeetingsinrestaurants
orbars),buttheyarguethattheseencountersdonotcontributetothenumberofconfidants.
Theexchangeofweaktiesforstrongties,andthewithdrawfromlocalsocialcontact,arethe
reasonstheysuggestforwhytheinternetandmobilephonecouldberesponsibleforsmaller
andlessdiversecorenetworks(ourstrongestsocialties).
Otherscholarshipprovidessomesupportforthenotionthatmobilephoneusemayplayarole
inatrendtowardsmaller,lessdiversecorenetworks.
Themobilephonehasdramaticallychangedhowpeopleaccesssocialsupport.Inthediscussion
ofimportantmatters,mobilephonesmakethosewithwhomweareclosestandmost
comfortableeasilyaccessibleanytime,anywhere[33].Studiesofmobilephoneusersconfirm
thatmostinteractionsoverthephonearewithstrongsocialties[34,35].Asaresult,critics
worrythatmobilephoneusemayleadtointenseparticipationinclosednetworksatthe
expenseofbroadersocialparticipation[36];apatternthatmightresemblethesmall,low
diversitynetworkswhatwereobservedbyMcPherson,SmithLovin,andBrashears.
Atthesametime,thereislessevidencetosuggestthatinternetusenarrowsandconstrains
socialnetworks.
Theinternethasbecomeadeeplyintegratedcomponentoftheeverydaylivesofthemajority
ofAmericans.SomeearlystudiesofonlineAmericansfoundthatsometypesofinternetuse
e.g.,homeinternetuse,butnotuseatworkhadanegativeimpactoninteractionwithstrong
socialtiesaswellastimespentonbroaderpublicactivities[37].However,thesefindingshave
notbeenreplicatedinmorerecentstudies[38,39].
Mostresentresearchprovideslittleindicationthatinternetuseisdetrimentaltosocialties[40,
41].Someinternetactivities,suchasemail,blogging,andtheuseofsocialnetworkingwebsites
haveevenbeenassociatedwithlargerandmorediversepersonalnetworks[4244].Thereis
57

evidencethatasubstantialnumberofinternetusersformnewsocialtiesasaresultoftheir
onlineactivities[4547].
Thereisalsolittleevidencetosuggestthatinternetuseencouragespeopletowithdrawfrom
neighborhoodnetworks,localinstitutions,orpublicsettings.
Studiesofinternetuseandgeographiccommunitiesneighborhoodsfindthatinternetuse
increasesthenumberoflocalsocialties[16,48]aswellasparticipationinlocalcivicactivities
[49,50].Studiesofwirelessinternetuseinpublicspacesfindevidencethatthepresenceofa
wirelessinfrastructuremayattractnewpeopleandmorefrequentuseofpublicspaces,and
thatthisisassociatedwithlargeanddiversediscussionnetworks[28,29].And,arecentmeta
analysissuggeststhatthereisapositiverelationshipbetweeninternetuseandpolitical
engagement[51].
Insum,whiletheriseoftheinternetandmobileconnectivitycoincideswiththereported
declineofcorediscussionnetworks,themixedevidenceonmobilephoneuseandinternet
activitiesdoesnotprovideaclearlinkbetweenthesetrends.However,untilnow,nostudyhas
focuseddirectlyonthecompositionofcorenetworksandtheroleofinternetandmobile
phoneuse.

58

AppendixB
TheGSSControversy

Arethingsreallyasbadaswethought?
Thefindingsofthe2004GSSrelyonakeyquestionthataskssurveyparticipantstolistby
name,thosepeoplewithwhomyoudiscussedmattersthatareimportanttoyou.Theauthors
oftheoriginalstudypointtoanumberofpossibletechnicalproblemswiththisquestionthat
mayhavecreatedorinflatedthetrendthattheyobserved[13,52,53].ClaudeFischer,the
authorofanumberofseminalworksonsocialnetworks[14,54],hasalsoemphasizedthatthe
2004GSScontradictsotherrelevantdataonsocialisolation,andsuggestthatthedatacontain
seriousanomalies[55].Althoughthereisnosmokinggunthatclearlydemonstratesa
technicalproblemwiththeGSSdata,theseauthorssuggestthefollowing:

Problemswiththesurveyinstrument.Surveyscanintroduceunexpectedbiasintohow
participantsrespondtoquestions.Contexteffects,asaresultofhavingplaced
particularlyonerousquestionsaheadoftheGSSmoduleoncorediscussionnetworksor
questionsthattrainedrespondentstoanswerwithfewernames(knowingthatmore
nameswouldleadtoevenmorequestions)mayhaveintroducedanunknownbias.

Arandomtechnicalerror.TheunexpectedincreaseinthenumberofAmericanswho
saidthattheyhavenoonewithwhomtheydiscussimportantmattersmaybearesult
ofanunknownartifactinhowthesurveydatawerecoded.Itwouldbeunusualfora
surveyaslargeandreputableastheGSStohavesuchaproblem.However,in
September2008,theNationalOpinionResearchCenter,theorganizationthatrunsthe
GSS,discoveredthatfortyoneofthosewhodeclinedtoanswerthequestionon
discussionpartnersweremisclassifiedinawaythatlumpedtheminwiththosethatsaid
thattheydonothaveanyonewithwhomtheydiscussimportantmatters[11].These
casesshouldhavebeenexcludedfromtheanalysis.Othererrorsmayexistthatcannot
bedetected.

Problemwiththequestionwording.Theremayhavebeenachangesince1985inhow
somepeopleinterpretedthemeaningoftheworddiscuss.Theymayhaveinterpreted
thewordinawaythatexcludesimportantconversationthatdoesnottakeplacein
person.Onepossiblereasonforsuchachangebetween1985and2004isthat
communicationincreasinglyoccursonline,ontheinternetandthroughother
communicationdevices.Ifpeoplewerenotconsideringthoseconversationsintheir
answertothequestionwithwhomdoyoudiscussimportantmatters?thena
potentiallysignificantamountofcommunicationwasexcludedfromtheanalysisof
whatishappeningtoAmericansdiscussionnetworks.

59

AppendixC
Methodology1
ThePersonalNetworksandCommunitySurvey,sponsoredbythePewInternet&AmericanLife
Project,obtainedtelephoneinterviewswithanationallyrepresentativesampleof2,512adults
livinginhouseholdsinthecontinentalUnitedStates.ThesurveywasconductedbyPrinceton
SurveyResearchInternational.TheinterviewswereconductedinEnglishbyPrincetonData
Source,LLCbetweenJuly9,2008andAugust10,2008.Statisticalresultswereweightedto
correctknowndemographicdiscrepancies.Themarginofsamplingerrorforthecompleteset
ofweighteddatais2.1%.

SampleDesign
Acombinationoflandlineandcellularrandomdigitdial(RDD)sampleswasusedtorepresent
alladultsinthecontinentalUnitedStateswhohaveaccesstoeitheralandlineorcellular
telephone.BothsampleswereprovidedbySurveySamplingInternational,LLC(SSI)accordingto
PSRAIspecifications.
Numbersforthelandlinesamplewereselectedwithprobabilitiesinproportiontotheirshareof
listedtelephonehouseholdsfromactiveblocks(areacode+exchange+twodigitblock
number)thatcontainedthreeormoreresidentialdirectorylistings.Thecellularsamplewasnot
listassisted,butwasdrawnthroughasystematicsamplingfrom1,000blocksdedicatedto
cellularserviceaccordingtotheTelcordiadatabase.

QuestionnaireDevelopmentandTesting
AquestionnairewasdevelopedbyPSRAIincollaborationwithKeithN.Hamptonandstaffof
thePewInternet&AmericanLifeProject.Toimprovethequalityofthedata,thequestionnaire
waspretestedwithasmallnumberofrespondentsusingRDDtelephonenumbersamples.The
pretestinterviewswereconductedusingexperiencedinterviewerswhojudgedthequalityof
theanswersandthedegreetowhichrespondentsunderstoodthequestions.Usingrecordings,
PSRAIstaffreviewedthepretestinterviews.Somefinalchangesweremadetothe
questionnaire,basedonthereviewedpretestinterviews.

ContactProcedures
InterviewswereconductedbetweenJuly9,2008andAugust10,2008.Asmanyastenattempts
weremadetocontacteverysampledtelephonenumber.Sampleswerereleasedfor
interviewinginreplicates,whicharerepresentativesubsamplesofthelargersample.Using

ProvidedbyPrincetonSurveyResearchInternational.

60

replicatestocontrolthereleaseofthesampleensuredthatcompletecallprocedureswere
followedfortheentiresample.
Forthelandlinesample,interviewersaskedtospeakwiththeyoungestadultmalecurrentlyat
home.Ifnomalewereavailable,interviewersaskedtospeakwiththeyoungestfemaleat
home.Thissystematicrespondentselectiontechniquehasbeenshowntoproducesamples
thatcloselymirrorthepopulationintermsofageandgender.Forthecellularsample,
interviewswereconductedwiththepersonwhoansweredthephone.Interviewersverified
thatthepersonwasanadultandinasafeplacebeforeadministeringthesurvey.Cellular
samplerespondentswereofferedapostpaid,cashincentivefortheirparticipation.

WeightingandAnalysis
Weightingisgenerallyusedinsurveyanalysistocompensateforsampledesignsandpatterns
ofnonresponsethatmightbiasresults.Atwostage,weightingprocedurewasusedtoweight
thisdualframesample.Afirststageweightof0.5wasappliedtoalldualuserstoaccountfor
thefactthattheywereincludedinbothsampleframes. 2 Allothercasesweregivenafirststage
weightof1.Thesecondstageofweightingbalancedsampledemographicstopopulation
parameters.Thesamplewasbalancedtomatchnationalpopulationparametersforsex,age,
education,race,Hispanicorigin,region(U.S.Censusdefinitions),populationdensity,and
telephoneusage.ThebasicweightingparameterscamefromaspecialanalysisoftheCensus
Bureaus2007AnnualSocialandEconomicSupplement(ASEC)thatincludedallhouseholdsin
thecontinentalUnitedStatesthathadatelephone.Thecellphoneusageparametercamefrom
ananalysisoftheJulyDecember2006NationalHealthInterviewSurvey.
WeightingwasaccomplishedusingSampleBalancing,aspecialiterativesampleweighting
programthatsimultaneouslybalancesthedistributionsofallvariablesusingastatistical
techniquecalledtheDemingAlgorithm.Weightsweretrimmedtopreventindividualinterviews
fromhavingtoomuchinfluenceonthefinalresults.Theuseoftheseweightsinstatistical
analysisensuresthatthedemographiccharacteristicsofthesamplecloselyapproximatethe
demographiccharacteristicsofthenationalpopulation.

ResponseRate
Theresponserateestimatedthefractionofalleligiblerespondentsinthesamplewhowere
ultimatelyinterviewed.AtPSRAI,responserateiscalculatedbytakingtheproductofthree
componentrates: 3

contactratetheproportionofworkingnumberswherearequestforinterviewwas
made; 4

Dualusersaredefinedas[a]landlinerespondentswhohaveaworkingcellphone,or[b]cellphonerespondents
whohavearegularlandlinephonewheretheycurrentlylive.
3
PSRAIsdispositioncodesandreportingareconsistentwiththeAmericanAssociationforPublicOpinionResearch
standards.
4
PSRAIassumesthat75%ofcasesthatresultinaconstantdispositionofnoanswerorbusyareactuallynot
workingnumbers.

61

cooperationratetheproportionofcontactednumberswhereaconsentforinterview
wasatleastinitiallyobtained,versusthoserefused;
completionratetheproportionofinitiallycooperatingandeligibleinterviewsthat
werecompleted.

Theresponserateforthelandlinesamplewas21%.Theresponserateforthecellularsample
was22%.

62

AppendixD
RegressionTables

Table1:CorediscussionnetworksizePoissonregression(N=2061)3
IndependentVariables
Coefficient(B)
Constant
0.271
Demographics

Female
0.119***
Age
0.009

Exp(B)
0.763

1.127***
1.009

AgeSquared
0.000
1.000
Education
0.033***
1.033***
Marriedorlivingwithapartner
0.006
1.006
Childrenunder18liveathome
0.028
0.972
Black/AfricanAmerican(comparedtoWhite)
0.085
0.919
Otherrace(comparedtoWhite)
0.155**
0.856**
Hispanic
0.056
1.057
MediaUse

Internetuser
0.085
1.088
Cellphoneuser
0.116**
1.123**
1
Frequentinternetuserathome
0.010
0.990
2
Frequentinternetuseratwork
0.015
1.015
InternetActivities

Socialnetworkingservices
0.075
1.078
Blogging
0.063
1.065
Sharingdigitalphotosonline
0.086*
1.090*
Instantmessaging
0.087*
1.091*
1
Useinternetathomemorethanonceperday
2
Useinternetatworkmorethanonceperday
3
Nissmallerthan2512(totalsamplesize)becausesomerespondentsdidnotanswer
questionsabouttheirdiscussionnetwork,demographics,ormediause.
*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001

63

Table2:SizeofkincorediscussionnetworkPoissonregression(N=2061)3
IndependentVariables
Coefficient(B)
Exp(B)
Constant
0.836***
0.433***
Demographics

Female
0.192***
1.212***
Age
0.010
1.010
AgeSquared
0.000
1.000
Education
0.028***
1.028***
Marriedorlivingwithapartner
0.243***
1.275***
Childrenunder18liveathome
0.003
0.997
Black/AfricanAmerican(comparedtoWhite)
0.100
0.905
Otherrace(comparedtoWhite)
0.141
0.869
Hispanic
0.059
1.061
MediaUse

Internetuser
0.004
1.004
Cellphoneuser
0.140*
1.150*
1
Frequentinternetuserathome
0.061
0.941
Frequentinternetuseratwork2
0.017
0.983
InternetActivities

Socialnetworkingservices
0.113*
1.120*
Blogging
0.024
1.024
Sharingdigitalphotosonline
0.063
1.065
Instantmessaging
0.035
1.036
1
Useinternetathomemorethanonceperday
2
Useinternetatworkmorethanonceperday
3
Nissmallerthan2512(totalsamplesize)becausesomerespondentsdidnotanswer
questionsabouttheirdiscussionnetwork,demographics,ormediause.
*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001

64


Table3:Likelihoodofhavingaspouse/partnerasonlyconfidantlogisticregressions
(N=1443).3
IndependentVariables
Coefficient OddsRatio
Constant
0.212
0.809
Demographics

Female
0.566***
0.568***
Age
0.007
1.007
AgeSquared
0.000
1.000
Education
0.007
0.993
Childrenunder18liveathome
0.416*
1.515*
Black/AfricanAmerican(comparedtoWhite)
0.777*
0.460*
Otherrace(comparedtoWhite)
0.521
1.683
Hispanic
0.779*
0.459*
MediaUse

Internetuser
0.460*
0.631*
Cellphoneuser
0.388
0.679
1
Frequentinternetuserathome
0.015
1.015
Frequentinternetuseratwork2
0.025
1.025
InternetActivities

Socialnetworkingservices
0.130
0.878
Blogging
0.037
0.964
Sharingdigitalphotosonline
0.315
0.730
Instantmessaging
0.438*
0.645*
Rsquared(Nagelkerke)
0.092***
1
Useinternetathomemorethanonceperday
2
Useinternetatworkmorethanonceperday
3
Nissmallerthan2512(totalsamplesize)becausethisanalysisislimitedtothosewho
aremarriedorcohabitating,andsomerespondentsdidnotanswerthequestionabout
theirdiscussionnetwork,demographics,ormediause.
*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001

65


Table4:Likelihoodofhavinganonkincorediscussiontielogisticregression
(N=2061)3
IndependentVariables
Coefficient
OddsRatio
Constant
1.243**
0.288**
Demographics

Female
0.083
1.087
Age
0.023
1.024
AgeSquared
0.000*
1.000*
Education
0.049**
1.051**
Marriedorlivingwithapartner
0.687***
0.503***
Childrenunder18liveathome
0.149
0.862
Black/AfricanAmerican(comparedtoWhite)
0.148
0.863
Otherrace(comparedtoWhite)
0.202
0.817
Hispanic
0.008
1.008
MediaUse

Internetuser
0.441**
1.554**
Cellphoneuser
0.047
0.954
Frequentinternetuserathome1
0.114
0.893
2
Frequentinternetuseratwork
0.048
1.049
InternetActivities

Socialnetworkingservices
0.135
1.145
Blogging
0.110
1.117
Sharingdigitalphotosonline
0.163
1.177
Instantmessaging
0.191
1.211
RSquared(Nagelkerke)
0.084***
1
Useinternetathomemorethanonceperday
2
Useinternetatworkmorethanonceperday
3
Nissmallerthan2512(totalsamplesize)becausesomerespondentsdidnotanswer
questionsabouttheirdiscussionnetwork,demographics,ormediause.
*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001

66

Table5:Likelihoodofhavingacrossrace/ethnicitycorediscussiontielogistic
regression(N=1827)3
IndependentVariables
Coefficient
OddsRatio
Constant
1.507**
0.222**
Demographics

Female
0.318**
0.728**
Age
0.019
1.019
AgeSquared
0.000
1.000
Education
0.008
1.008
Marriedorlivingwithapartner
0.328**
0.720**
Childrenunder18liveathome
0.001
0.999
Black/AfricanAmerican(comparedtoWhite)
0.755***
2.129***
Otherrace(comparedtoWhite)
1.508***
4.516***
Hispanic
1.483***
4.405***
MediaUse

Internetuser
0.054
1.056
Cellphoneuser
0.306
0.736
1
Frequentinternetuserathome
0.424**
1.528**
2
Frequentinternetuseratwork
0.178
0.837
InternetActivities

Socialnetworkingservices
0.184
1.202
Blogging
0.661***
1.936***
Sharingdigitalphotosonline
0.276
1.318
Instantmessaging
0.280
0.756
RSquared(Nagelkerke)
0.254***
1
Useinternetathomemorethanonceperday
2
Useinternetatworkmorethanonceperday
3
Nissmallerthan2512(totalsamplesize)becausesomerespondentsdidnotanswer
questionsabouttheirdiscussionnetwork,demographics,ormediause.
*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001

67


Table6:Likelihoodofhavingacrosspartycorediscussiontielogisticregression
(N=1156)3
IndependentVariables
Coefficient
OddsRatio
Constant
4.058***
0.017***
Demographics

Female
0.025
0.975
Age
0.113***
1.120***
AgeSquared
0.001***
0.999***
Education
0.036
1.037
Marriedorlivingwithapartner
0.101
1.107
Childrenunder18liveathome
0.285
0.752
Black/AfricanAmerican(comparedtoWhite)
1.066***
0.344***
Otherrace(comparedtoWhite)
0.921**
0.398**
Hispanic
0.026
0.974
MediaUse

Internetuser
0.134
0.874
Cellphoneuser
0.069
0.934
Frequentinternetuserathome1
0.098
0.907
2
Frequentinternetuseratwork
0.092
1.096
InternetActivities

Socialnetworkingservices
0.195
0.823
Blogging
0.348
1.417
Sharingdigitalphotosonline
0.473**
1.605**
Instantmessaging
0.023
0.977
RSquared(Nagelkerke)
0.087***
1
Useinternetathomemorethanonceperday
2
Useinternetatworkmorethanonceperday
3
Nissmallerthan2512(totalsamplesize)becausethisanalysisislimitedtothosewho
selfidentifiedthemselvesandtheirtiesasRepublicansorDemocrats,andsome
respondentsdidnotanswerthequestionabouttheirdiscussionnetwork,
demographics,ormediause.
*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001

68


Table7:Likelihoodofhavingatleastoneuniquesignificantcoretielogistic
regression(N=2107)
IndependentVariables
Coefficient
OddsRatio
Constant
1.143**
3.136**
Demographics

Female
0.163
1.177
Age
0.021
0.979
AgeSquared
0.000
1.000
Education
0.030
0.970
Marriedorlivingwithapartner
0.193*
1.213*
Childrenunder18liveathome
0.165
0.848
Black/AfricanAmerican(comparedtoWhite)
0.024
1.025
Otherrace(comparedtoWhite)
0.246
0.782
Hispanic
0.048
1.049
MediaUse

Internetuser
0.065
0.937
Cellphoneuser
0.050
1.052
Frequentinternetuserathome1
0.001
1.001
2
Frequentinternetuseratwork
0.023
0.977
InternetActivities

Socialnetworkingservices
0.132
0.876
Blogging
0.025
1.025
Sharingdigitalphotosonline
0.061
0.941
Instantmessaging
0.169
1.184
RSquared(Nagelkerke)
0.015
1
Useinternetathomemorethanonceperday
2
Useinternetatworkmorethanonceperday
3
Nissmallerthan2512(totalsamplesize)becausesomerespondentsdidnotanswer
questionsabouttheirdiscussionnetwork,demographics,ormediause.
*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001

69


Table8:CorenetworksizePoissonregression(N=2148)3
IndependentVariables
Coefficient(B)
Constant
0.447***
Demographics

Female
0.125***
Age
0.009*

Exp(B)
1.563***

1.133***
1.009*

AgeSquared
0.000*
1.000*
Education
0.015***
1.015***
Marriedorlivingwithapartner
0.017
1.017
Childrenunder18liveathome
0.008
0.992
Black/AfricanAmerican(comparedtoWhite)
0.050
0.951
Otherrace(comparedtoWhite)
0.130**
0.878**
Hispanic
0.002
1.002
MediaUse

Internetuser
0.031
1.032
Cellphoneuser
0.112**
1.118**
Frequentinternetuserathome1
0.053
1.055
2
Frequentinternetuseratwork
0.016
0.984
InternetActivities

Socialnetworkingservices
0.024
1.024
Blogging
0.008
0.992
Sharingdigitalphotosonline
0.050
1.051
Instantmessaging
0.100***
1.106***
1
Useinternetathomemorethanonceperday
2
Useinternetatworkmorethanonceperday
3
Nissmallerthan2512(totalsamplesize)becausesomerespondentsdidnotanswer
questionsabouttheirdiscussionnetwork,demographics,ormediause.
*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001

70


Table9:NumberofnonkintiesPoissonregression(N=2148)
IndependentVariables
Coefficient(B)
Constant
0.836***
Demographics

Female
0.034
Age
0.006

Exp(B)
0.434***

1.035
1.006

Agesquared
0.000
1.000
Education
0.033***
1.034***
Marriedorlivingwithapartner
0.374***
0.688***
Childrenunder18liveathome
0.101*
0.904*
Black/AfricanAmerican(comparedtoWhite)
0.009
0.991
Otherrace(comparedtoWhite)
0.101
0.904
Hispanic
0.047
1.048
MediaUse

Internetuser
0.139*
1.149*
Cellphoneuser
0.222***
1.249***
Frequentinternetuserathome1
0.156**
1.169**
2
Frequentinternetuseratwork
0.043
1.044
InternetActivities

Socialnetworkingservices
0.044
1.045
Blogging
0.075
1.077
Sharingdigitalphotosonline
0.113*
1.120*
Instantmessaging
0.170***
1.185***
1
Useinternetathomemorethanonceperday
2
Useinternetatworkmorethanonceperday
3
N is smaller than 2512(total sample size) because some respondents did not answer
questionsabouttheirdiscussionnetwork,demographics,ormediause.
*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001

71


Table10:OLSRegressiononyearsknownnonkincorenetworkmembers(N=1123)
IndependentVariables
Coefficient
Standardized
Constant
1.646

Demographics

Female
0.242
0.015
Age
0.395***
0.872***
AgeSquared
0.002***
0.450***
Education
0.025
0.009
Marriedorlivingwithapartner
0.611
0.039
Childrenunder18liveathome
0.202
0.012
Black/AfricanAmerican(comparedtoWhite)
0.739
0.032
Otherrace(comparedtoWhite)
0.858
0.033
Hispanic
0.299
0.012
MediaUse

Internetuser
0.845
0.041
Cellphoneuser
0.255
0.012
Frequentinternetuserathome1
0.695
0.038
2
Frequentinternetuseratwork
0.467
0.026
InternetActivities

Socialnetworkingservices
0.200
0.012
Blogging
0.849
0.035
Sharingdigitalphotosonline
0.220
0.014
Instantmessaging
0.034
0.002
Rsquared
0.210***
1
Useinternetathomemorethanonceperday
2
Useinternetatworkmorethanonceperday
3
Nissmallerthan2512(totalsamplesize)becausethisanalysisislimitedtoonlynonkin,and
somerespondentsdidnotanswerthequestionabouttheircorenetworkorquestionsabout
demographicsormediause.
*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001

72


Table11:Likelihoodofknowingatleastsomeneighborslogisticregression(N=2130)3
IndependentVariables
Coefficient
OddsRatio
3.009***
Constant
0.049***

Demographics

0.340**
Female
1.405**
0.033*
Age
1.033*
0.000
AgeSquared
1.000
0.140***
Education
1.150***
0.271*
Marriedorlivingwithapartner
1.312*
0.098
Childrenunder18liveathome
1.102
0.693***
Black/AfricanAmerican(comparedtoWhite)
0.500***
0.559***
Otherrace(comparedtoWhite)
0.572***
0.309
Hispanic
0.734
0.914***
Livinginanapartment
0.401***
0.057***
Yearsofresidency
1.059***
0.170***
Sizeofcorenetwork
1.186***

MediaUse

0.253
Internetuser
1.288
0.137
Cellphoneuser
0.872
1
0.096
Frequentinternetuserathome
1.100
0.077
Frequentinternetuseratwork2
1.080

InternetActivities

0.363*
Socialnetworkingservices
0.696*
0.161
Blogging
1.174
0.144
Sharingdigitalphotosonline
1.155
0.101
Instantmessaging
1.106
.268***
RSquared(Nagelkerke)
1
2
Useinternetathomemorethanonceperday Useinternetatworkmorethanonceperday
3
Nissmallerthan2512(totalsamplesize)becausesomerespondentsdidnotanswerquestionsabout
theirdiscussionnetwork,demographics,ormediause.
*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001

73


Table12:Likelihoodoffacetofacecontactatleastoncepermonthwithneighborslogistic
regression(N=2130)3
IndependentVariables
Coefficient
OddsRatio
Constant
2.961***
0.052***
Demographics

Female
0.128
1.137
Age
0.034*
1.035*
AgeSquared
0.000
1.000
Education
0.091***
1.095***
Marriedorlivingwithapartner
0.395***
1.484***
Childrenunder18liveathome
0.133
1.143
Black/AfricanAmerican(comparedtoWhite)
0.557***
0.573***
Otherrace(comparedtoWhite)
0.445**
0.641**
Hispanic
0.222
0.801
Livinginanapartment
0.710***
0.492***
Yearsofresidency
0.040***
1.041***
Sizeofcorenetwork
0.126***
1.134***
MediaUse

Internetuser
0.263
1.301
Cellphoneuser
0.061
1.063
1
Frequentinternetuserathome
0.064
0.938
Frequentinternetuseratwork2
0.138
1.148
InternetActivities

Socialnetworkingservices
0.210
0.811
Blogging
0.136
1.146
Sharingdigitalphotosonline
0.165
1.179
Instantmessaging
0.151
1.163
RSquared(Nagelkerke)
0.205***
Note:NumberinbracketsisBeta(b).
1
Useinternetathomemorethanonceperday
2
Useinternetatworkmorethanonceperday
3
Nissmallerthan2512(totalsamplesize)becausesomerespondentsdidnotanswerquestions
abouttheirdiscussionnetwork,demographics,ormediause.
*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001

74


Table13:Likelihoodofsupportreceivedfromneighborsinthepast6monthslogisticregression(N=2130).3
IndependentVariables
Companionship
SmallServices
FamilyCare
Money
1.586***
2.084***
2.048***
3.353**
Constant
(0.205)
(0.124)
(0.129)
(0.035)
Demographics

0.345***
0.116
0.068
0.716**
Female
(1.413)
(0.890)
(1.071)
(0.491)
0.006
0.009
0.029
0.036
Age
(1.006)
(1.009)
(0.972)
(1.036)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
AgeSquared
(1.000)
(1.000)
(1.000)
(0.999)
0.018
0.073***
0.038
0.067
Education
(1.019)
(1.076)
(1.038)
(0.935)
0.061
0.046
0.148
0.636*
Marriedorlivingwithapartner
(1.063)
(1.047)
(1.160)
(0.530)
0.188
0.263*
1.251***
0.611*
Childrenunder18liveathome
(1.207)
(1.301)
(3.494)
(1.841)
0.445**
0.340*
0.103
0.599*
Black/AfricanAmerican(comparedtoWhite)
(0.641)
(0.711)
(0.902)
(1.820)
0.148
0.119
0.378
0.180
Otherrace(comparedtoWhite)
(0.863)
(0.888)
(0.686)
(1.197)
0.745***
0.395*
0.451*
0.705
Hispanic
(0.475)
(0.673)
(0.637)
(0.494)
0.359**
0.511***
0.128
0.925**
Livinginanapartment
(0.698)
(0.600)
(0.880)
(2.521)
0.017**
0.010
0.026***
0.057***
Yearsofresidency
(1.017)
(1.010)
(1.027)
(1.059)
0.103***
0.107***
0.043
0.028
Sizeofcorenetwork
(1.108)
(1.113)
(1.044)
(1.028)
MediaUse

0.078
0.300*
0.512**
0.665
Internetuser
(0.925)
(0.741)
(0.599)
(0.514)
0.001
0.004
0.177
0.279
Cellphoneuser
(1.001)
(1.004)
(1.193)
(1.322)
0.043
0.163
0.158
0.015
1
Frequentinternetuserathome
(1.044)
(1.177)
(1.171)
(0.985)
0.168
0.021
0.225
0.845*
2
Frequentinternetuseratwork
(1.182)
(1.021)
(1.253)
(0.429)
InternetActivities

0.299*
0.213
0.498**
0.215
Socialnetworkingservices
(0.742)
(0.808)
(0.608)
(1.240)
0.338*
0.230
0.300
0.159
Blogging
(1.403)
(1.258)
(1.350)
(0.853)
0.420***
0.127
0.264
0.533
Sharingdigitalphotosonline
(1.522)
(1.135)
(1.302)
(1.705)
0.024
0.281*
0.075
0.507
Instantmessaging
(0.977)
(1.324)
(0.928)
(1.661)
RSquared(Nagelkerke)
0.085***
0.070***
0.131***
0.145***
Note:Numberinbracketsistheoddsratio.*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001
1
Useinternetathomemorethanonceperday2Useinternetatworkmorethanonceperday
3
N is smaller than 2512 (total sample size) because some respondents did not answer questions about their discussion
network,demographics,ormediause.

75


Table14:Likelihoodofsupportgiventoneighborsinthepast6monthslogisticregression(N=2130)3.
IndependentVariables
Companionship
SmallServices
FamilyCare
Money
2.741***
1.608***
2.054***
1.739**
Constant
(0.064)
(0.200)
(0.128)
(0.176)
Demographics

0.335***
0.513***
0.008
0.082
Female
(1.399)
(0.599)
(1.008)
(0.921)
0.056***
0.033*
0.028
0.011
Age
(1.058)
(1.034)
(1.028)
(1.011)
0.000***
0.000**
0.000*
0.000
AgeSquared
(1.000)
(1.000)
(1.000)
(1.000)
0.045**
0.001
0.008
0.064*
Education
(1.046)
(1.001)
(0.992)
(0.938)
0.148
0.313**
0.049
0.224
Marriedorlivingwithapartner
(1.160)
(1.368)
(1.050)
(0.800)
0.136
0.342**
0.982***
0.096
Childrenunder18liveathome
(1.146)
(1.408)
(2.671)
(1.101)
0.138
0.277
0.108
0.757***
Black/AfricanAmerican(comparedtoWhite)
(0.871)
(0.758)
(0.898)
(2.132)
0.433**
0.239
0.173
0.253
Otherrace(comparedtoWhite)
(0.649)
(0.787)
(0.841)
(1.288)
0.472**
0.098
0.176
0.105
Hispanic
(0.623)
(0.907)
(0.839)
(0.901)
0.206
0.418**
0.174
0.405*
Livinginanapartment
(0.814)
(0.658)
(0.840)
(1.499)
0.010
0.016**
0.030***
0.030***
Yearsofresidencyincurrenthouse
(1.010)
(1.017)
(1.030)
(1.030)
0.104***
0.118***
0.001
0.056
Sizeofcorenetwork
(1.109)
(1.125)
(1.001)
(1.058)
MediaUse

0.007
0.227
0.504**
0.646**
Internetuser
(0.993)
(0.797)
(0.604)
(0.524)
0.019
0.198
0.404
0.353
Cellphoneuser
(0.981)
(1.219)
(0.961)
(1.423)
0.121
0.140
0.381**
0.035
1
Frequentinternetuserathome
(1.128)
(1.150)
(1.464)
(0.965)
0.040
0.200
0.026
0.184
Frequentinternetuseratwork2
(1.041)
(1.221)
(1.026)
(0.832)
InternetActivities

0.242
0.222
0.180
0.011
Socialnetworkingservices
(0.785)
(0.801)
(0.836)
(0.989)
0.272
0.580***
0.611***
0.656**
Blogging
(1.312)
(1.786)
(1.842)
(1.926)
0.363**
0.335**
0.039
0.061
Sharingdigitalphotosonline
(1.437)
(1.397)
(0.962)
(1.063)
0.037
0.201
0.287*
0.116
Instantmessaging
(1.038)
(1.223)
(1.332)
(0.891)
RSquared(Nagelkerke)
0.098***
0.116***
0.102***
0.078***
Note:Numberinbracketsistheoddsratio.*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001
1
Useinternetathomemorethanonceperday2Useinternetatworkmorethanonceperday
3
N is smaller than 2512(total sample size) because some respondents did not answer questions about their discussion
network,demographics,ormediause.

76

Table15:Likelihoodofbelongtoalocalvoluntarygrouplogisticregression(N=2130)3
IndependentVariables
Coefficient
OddsRatio
Constant
2.714***
0.066***
Demographics

Female
0.172
1.187
Age
0.019
0.981
AgeSquared
0.000**
1.000**
Education
0.135***
1.144***
Marriedorlivingwithapartner
0.408***
1.503***
Childrenunder18liveathome
0.394***
1.484***
Black/AfricanAmerican(comparedtoWhite)
0.027
0.973
Otherrace(comparedtoWhite)
0.481**
0.618**
Hispanic
0.146
0.864
Livinginanapartment
0.113
0.893
Yearsofresidency
0.019**
1.019**
Sizeofcorenetwork
0.117***
1.124***
MediaUse

Internetuser
0.043
0.958
Cellphoneuser
0.543***
1.721***
Frequentinternetuserathome1
0.045
1.047
2
Frequentinternetuseratwork
0.378**
1.459**
InternetActivities

Socialnetworkingservices
0.212
0.809
Blogging
0.544**
1.724**
Sharingdigitalphotosonline
0.054
1.055
Instantmessaging
0.034
0.966
RSquared(Nagelkerke)
0.175***
1
Useinternetathomemorethanonceperday
2
Useinternetatworkmorethanonceperday
3
N is smaller than 2512(total sample size) because some respondents did not answer
questionsabouttheirdiscussionnetwork,demographics,ormediause.
*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001

77


Table16:Likelihoodofvisitingaspaceinthepastmonthlogisticregression(N=2130)3
IndependentVariables
Coffeeshop
Church
Library
Fastfood
2.985***
2.252***
3.145***
0.972*
Constant
(0.051)
(0.105)
(0.043)
(2.644)
Demographics

0.229**
0.269**
0.279**
0.261**
Female
(0.795)
(1.309)
(1.322)
(0.770)
0.020
0.006
0.038*
0.027
Age
(1.020)
(1.006)
(0.963)
(0.973)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
AgeSquared
(1.000)
(1.000)
(1.000)
(1.000)
0.124***
0.043**
0.181***
0.006
Education
(1.132)
(1.044)
(1.198)
(0.994)
0.154
0.290**
0.246*
0.191
Marriedorlivingwithapartner
(0.857)
(1.337)
(1.279)
(1.211)
0.347***
0.414***
0.260*
0.294**
Childrenunder18liveathome
(0.707)
(1.513)
(1.296)
(1.342)
0.232
0.515***
0.549***
0.075
Black/AfricanAmerican(comparedtoWhite)
(0.793)
(1.673)
(1.731)
(0.928)
0.163
0.149
0.235
0.181
Otherrace(comparedtoWhite)
(1.177)
(1.161)
(1.265)
(0.834)
0.046
0.022
0.125
0.068
Hispanic
(0.955)
(1.022)
(0.882)
(1.071)
0.167
0.093
0.360**
0.078
Livinginanapartment
(1.181)
(0.911)
(1.433)
(1.081)
0.000
0.005
0.002
0.008
Yearsofresidency
(1.000)
(1.005)
(0.998)
(1.008)
0.100***
0.055*
0.104***
0.003
Sizeofcorenetwork
(0.051)
(0.105)
(1.110)
(1.003)
MediaUse

0.370**
0.041
0.420**
0.291*
Internetuser
(1.447)
(1.042)
(1.522)
(1.338)
0.237
0.596***
0.031
0.592***
Cellphoneuser
(1.268)
(1.815)
(0.970)
(1.808)
0.008
0.135
0.024
0.103
1
Frequentinternetuserathome
(1.008)
(0.874)
(1.024)
(1.108)
0.152
0.179
0.304**
0.191
2
Frequentinternetuseratwork
(1.165)
(1.196)
(0.738)
(0.826)
InternetActivities

0.235
0.447***
0.047
0.159
SocialNetworkingServices
(1.265)
(0.640)
(1.048)
(0.853)
0.262
0.211
0.231
0.195
Blogging
(1.300)
(1.235)
(1.260)
(1.216)
0.018
0.138
0.104
0.019
Sharingdigitalphotosonline
(1.018)
(1.148)
(1.110)
(1.019)
0.022
0.066
0.239*
0.016
InstantMessaging
(0.979)
(0.936)
(0.787)
(0.984)
RSquared(Nagelkerke)
0.112***
0.099***
0.145***
0.067***
Note:Numberinbracketsistheoddsratio.*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001
1
Useinternetathomemorethanonceperday2Useinternetatworkmorethanonceperday
3
N is smaller than 2512(total sample size) because some respondents did not answer questions about their discussion
network,demographics,ormediause.

78

Table17:Likelihoodofvisitingaspaceinthepastmonthlogisticregression(N=2130)3
Community
IndependentVariables
OtherRestaurant
Park
Bar
Center
1.868***
3.002***
2.073***
3.068***
Constant
(0.154)
(0.050)
(0.126)
(0.047)
Demographics

0.155
0.103
0.211*
0.438***
Female
(0.856)
(0.902)
(0.810)
(0.646)
0.015
0.033
0.033*
0.058**
Age
(0.985)
(0.968)
(1.034)
(1.060)
0.000
0.000*
0.001***
0.001***
AgeSquared
(1.000)
(1.000)
(0.999)
(0.999)
0.120***
0.077***
0.099***
0.091***
Education
(1.128)
(1.080)
(1.104)
(1.096)
0.328**
0.048
0.372***
0.225*
Marriedorlivingwithapartner
(1.389)
(1.049)
(1.451)
(0.799)
0.337**
0.236
0.176
0.339**
Childrenunder18liveathome
(0.714)
(1.266)
(1.193)
(0.712)
0.752***
0.574***
0.135
0.008
Black/AfricanAmerican(comparedtoWhite)
(0.471)
(1.776)
(0.873)
(0.992)
0.112
0.568**
0.101
0.511**
Otherrace(comparedtoWhite)
(0.894)
(1.764)
(0.904)
(0.600)
0.055
0.262
0.071
0.139
Hispanic
(0.946)
(0.769)
(0.931)
(0.870)
0.264
0.126
0.028
0.204
Livinginanapartment
(1.302)
(0.882)
(0.972)
(1.226)
0.005
0.003
0.000
0.008
Yearsofresidency
(1.005)
(1.003)
(1.000)
(1.008)
0.180***
0.061*
0.143***
0.050
Sizeofcorenetwork
(1.197)
(1.063)
(1.154)
(1.051)
MediaUse

0.527***
0.346
0.352**
0.184
Internetuser
(1.694)
(1.413)
(1.422)
(1.202)
0.489***
0.021
0.043
0.443**
Cellphoneuser
(1.630)
(0.979)
(1.044)
(1.558)
0.136
0.286
0.151
0.219
1
Frequentinternetuserathome
(1.146)
(0.751)
(0.860)
(0.804)
0.399**
0.301*
0.188*
0.534***
2
Frequentinternetuseratwork
(1.491)
(1.351)
(1.207)
(1.705)
InternetActivities

0.233
0.217
0.267
0.334*
SocialNetworkingServices
(1.262)
(1.242)
(1.305)
(1.396)
0.349
0.240
0.476**
0.187
Blogging
(0.706)
(1.272)
(1.610)
(0.830)
0.106
0.068
0.057
0.108
Sharingdigitalphotosonline
(1.111)
(1.070)
(1.059)
(1.114)
0.069
0.099
0.074
0.026
InstantMessaging
(1.071)
(1.104)
(1.077)
(1.026)
RSquared(Nagelkerke)
0.199***
0.057***
0.190***
0.181***
Note:Numberinbracketsistheoddsratio.*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001
1
Useinternetathomemorethanonceperday2Useinternetatworkmorethanonceperday
3
N is smaller than 2512(total sample size) because some respondents did not answer questions about their discussion
network,demographics,ormediause.

79

Table18:NetworkdiversityOLSregression(N=2148)3
IndependentVariables
Constant
Demographics
Female
Age

Coefficient
3.415***

0.245
0.231***

Standardized

0.023
0.768***

AgeSquared
0.002***
0.708***
Education
0.053
0.029
Marriedorlivingwithapartner
0.587**
0.056**
Childrenunder18liveathome
0.028
0.003
Black/AfricanAmerican(comparedtoWhite)
1.028***
0.066***
Otherrace(comparedtoWhite)
0.890**
0.050**
Hispanic
0.952**
0.057**
Sizeofcorenetwork
0.188***
0.069***
MediaUse

Internetuser
0.714**
0.058**
Cellphoneuser
0.355
0.026
1
Frequentinternetuserathome
0.379
0.030
2
Frequentinternetuseratwork
1.456***
0.117***
InternetActivities

Socialnetworkingservices
0.595*
0.050*
Blogging
0.347
0.020
Sharingdigitalphotosonline
0.043
0.004
Instantmessaging
0.091
0.008
Participationinlocalsociety

Numberofvisittopublic/semipublicspaces
0.169***
0.260***
Memberofalocalvoluntaryorganization
0.960***
0.247***
Knowatleastsomeneighbors
1.094***
0.096***
Rsquared
0.357***
1
Useinternetathomemorethanonceperday
2
Useinternetatworkmorethanonceperday
3
N is smaller than 2512(total sample size) because some respondents did not answer
questionsabouttheirdiscussionnetwork,demographics,ormediause.
*p<.05**p<.01***p<.001

80

References

1.

Oldenburg,R.,TheGreatGoodPlace.1989,NewYork:ParagonHouse.

2.

Wellman,B.andS.Wortley,DifferentStrokesFromDifferentFolks.AmericanJournalof
Sociology,1990.96(3):p.55888.

3.

Erickson,B.,TheRelationalBasisofAttitudes,inSocialStructures:ANetworkApproach,
B.WellmanandS.D.Berkowitz,Editors.1997,JAIpress:Greenwich,CT.p.99122.

4.

Katz,E.andP.Lazarsfeld,PersonalInfluence:ThePartPlayedbyPeopleintheFlowof
MassCommunications.1955,Glencoe,IL:FreePress.

5.

Mutz,D.,HearingtheOtherSide.2006,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

6.

Wyatt,R.O.,E.Katz,andJ.Kim,BridgingtheSpheres:PoliticalandPersonalConversation
inPublicandPrivateSpaces.JournalofCommunication,2000.50(1):p.7192.

7.

Putnam,R.,BowlingAlone.2000,NewYork:Simon&Schuster.

8.

Cohen,S.,SocialRelationshipsandHealth.AmericanPsychologist,2004.59(8):p.676
684.

9.

Straits,B.,Ego'simportantdiscussantsorsignificantpeople.SocialNetworks,2000.
22(2):p.123140.

10.

Abraham,K.,S.Helms,andS.Presser,HowSocialProcessesDistortMeasurement:The
ImpactofSurveyNonresponseonEstimatesofVolunteerWorkintheUnitedStates.
AmericanJournalofSociology,2009.114(4):p.11291165.

11.

Smith,T.,2004SocialNetworkModule,Draft9/08.2008,Memorandum,National
OpinionResearchCenter.

12.

Marsden,P.,CoreDiscussionsNetworksofAmericans.AmericanSociologicalReview,
1987.52(1):p.12231.

13.

McPherson,M.,L.SmithLovin,andM.E.Brashears,SocialIsolationinAmerica:Changes
inCoreDiscussionNetworksOverTwoDecades.AmericanSociologicalReview,2006.
71(3):p.353375.

14.

Fischer,C.,AmericaCalling.1992,Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

81

15.

Marvin,C.,WhenOldTechnologiesWereNew:ThinkingaboutElectricCommunicationin
theLateNineteenthCentury.1988,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.269.

16.

Hampton,K.N.andB.Wellman,NeighboringinNetville:HowtheInternetSupports
CommunityandSocialCapitalinaWiredSuburb.CityandCommunity,2003.2(3):p.
277311.

17.

Gilbert,E.andK.Karahalios,Predictingtiestrengthwithsocialmedia,inProceedingsof
the27thinternationalconferenceonHumanfactorsincomputingsystems.2009,ACM:
Boston,MA,USA.

18.

McPherson,M.,L.SmithLovin,andJ.M.Cook,BirdsofaFeather:HomophilyinSocial
Networks.AnnualReviewofSociology,2001.27:p.415444.

19.

Cross,R.,R.E.Rice,andA.Parker,Informationseekinginsocialcontext:structural
influencesandreceiptofinformationbenefits.Systems,Man,andCybernetics,PartC:
ApplicationsandReviews,IEEETransactionson,2001.31(4):p.438448.

20.

Burt,R.,StructuralHoles.1992,Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

21.

Granovetter,M.,TheStrengthofWeakTies.AmericanJournalofSociology,1973.78(6):
p.136080.

22.

Cohen,S.,etal.,SocialIntegrationandHealth:TheCaseoftheCommonCold.Journalof
SocialStructure,2000.1(3):p.17.

23.

Michelson,W.,EnvironmentalChoice,HumanBehaviorandResidentialSatisfaction.
1977,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

24.

Bellair,P.E.,SocialInteractionandCommunityCrime.Criminology,1997.35:p.677703.

25.

Sampson,R.,CollectiveEfficacyTheory,inTakingStock,F.T.Cullen,J.P.Wright,andK.R.
Blevins,Editors.2006,Transaction:NewBrunswick,NJ.p.149168.

26.

Lofland,L.,ThePublicRealm.1998,NewYork:AldinedeGruyter.305.

27.

Sennett,R.,TheFallofPublicMan.1977,NewYork:Knopf.

28.

Hampton,K.N.,O.Livio,andL.F.Sessions,TheSocialLifeofWirelessUrban
Spaces:InternetUse,SocialNetworks,andthePublicRealm.JournalofCommunication,
inpress.

29.

Hampton,K.N.andN.Gupta,CommunityandSocialInteractionintheWirelessCity.New
Media&Society,2008.10(6):p.831850.

82

30.

Killworth,P.,etal.,EstimatingtheSizeofPersonalNetworks.SocialNetworks,1990.12:
p.289312.

31.

Lin,N.andB.H.Erickson,SocialCapital.2008,NewYork,NY:Oxford.

32.

Lin,N.andM.Dumin,AccesstoOccupationsthroughSocialTies.SocialNetworks,1986.
8:p.365383.

33.

Wellman,B.,PhysicalPlaceandCyberPlace:ChangingPortalsandtheRiseof
NetworkedIndividualism.InternationalJournalforUrbanandRegionalResearch,2001.
25(2):p.22752.

34.

Ishii,K.,ImplicationsofMobility.JournalofCommunication,2006.56(2):p.346365.

35.

Ling,R.S.,Newtech,newties:howmobilecommunicationisreshapingsocialcohesion.
2008,Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

36.

Gergen,K.J.,MobileCommunicationandtheTransformationoftheDemocraticProcess,
inHandbookofMobileCommunicationStudies,J.E.Katz,Editor.2008,MITPress:
Cambridge,MA.p.297310.

37.

Nie,N.,D.S.Hillygus,andL.Erbring,InternetUse,InterpersonalRelationsandSociability:
ATimeDiaryStudy,inTheInternetinEverydayLife,B.WellmanandC.Haythornthwaite,
Editors.2002,Oxford:Blackwell.

38.

Robinson,J.andJ.D.Haan,InformationTechnologyandFamilyTimeDisplacement,in
Computers,Phones,andtheInternet:DomesticatingInformationTechnology,R.Kraut,
M.Brynin,andS.Keisler,Editors.2006,OxfordUniversitypress:NewYork.p.5169.

39.

Kraut,R.,etal.,InternetParadoxRevisited.JournalofSocialIssues,2002.58(1):p.49
74.

40.

Boase,J.,etal.,TheStrengthofInternetTies.2006,PewInternet&AmericanLife
Project:Washington,DC.p.52.

41.

Boase,J.,PersonalNetworksandthePersonalCommunicationSystem.Information,
Communication&Society,2008.11(4):p.490508.

42.

Marlow,C.,TheStructuralDeterminantsofMediaContagion,inMediaLab.2005,MIT:
Cambridge,MA.

43.

Zhao,S.,DoInternetUsersHaveMoreSocialTies?ACallforDifferentiatedAnalysesof
InternetUse.JournalofComputerMediatedCommunication,2006.11(3):p.article8.

83

44.

Steinfield,C.,N.B.Ellison,andC.Lampe,Socialcapital,selfesteem,anduseofonline
socialnetworksites.JournalofAppliedDevelopmentalPsychology,2008.29:p.434
445.

45.

Gennaro,C.D.andW.H.Dutton,ReconfiguringFriendships:Socialrelationshipsandthe
Internet.Information,Communication&Society,2007.10(5):p.591618.

46.

Rice,R.E.,etal.,SocialinteractionandtheInternet:Acomparativeanalysisofsurveysin
theUSandBritain,inOxfordHandbookofInternetPsychology,A.Joinson,etal.,Editors.
2007,OxfordUniversityPress:Oxford.p.730.

47.

Wang,H.andB.Wellman,SocialConnectivityinAmerica.AmericanBehavioralScientist,
inpress.

48.

Mesch,G.S.andY.Levanon,CommunityNetworkingandLocallyBasedSocialTiesin
TwoSuburbanLocalities.City&Community,2003.2(4):p.335351.

49.

Kavanaugh,A.,etal.,CommunityNetworks.JournalofComputerMediated
Communication,2005.10(4):p.article3.

50.

Kavanaugh,A.,D.D.Reese,andJ.M.Carroll,WeakTiesinNetworkedCommunities,in
CommunitiesandTechnologies,M.Huysman,E.Wenger,andV.Wulf,Editors.2003,
KluwerAcademic:Dordrecht,Netherlands.p.265286.

51.

Boulianne,S.,DoesInternetUseAffectEngagement?AMetaAnalysisofReseatch.
PoliticalCommunication,2009.26(2):p.193211.

52.

McPherson,M.,L.SmithLovin,andM.E.Brashears,SocialIsolationinAmerica:Changes
inCoreDiscussionNetworksoverTwoDecades.AmericanSociologicalReview,2008.73:
p.10221022.

53.

McPherson,M.,L.SmithLovin,andM.E.Brashears,ModelsandMarginals:UsingSurvey
EvidencetoStudySocialNetworks.AmericanSociologicalReview,2009.

54.

Fischer,C.,ToDwellAmongFriends.1982,Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

55.

Fischer,C.,The2004GSSFindingofShrunkenSocialNetworks:AnArtifact?American
SociologicalReview,2009.74(4).

84

Final Topline

Personal Networks and

Community Survey

8/22/08

Data for July 9 August 10, 2008

Princeton Survey Research Associates International
for the Pew Internet & American Life Project
Sample: n = 2,512 adults, age 18 and older (includes 505 cell phone interviews)
Interviewing dates: 07.09.08 08.10.08
Margin of error is plus or minus 2 percentage points for results based on total sample [n=2,512]
Margin of error is plus or minus 2 percentage points for results based on internet users [n=1,922]

Q1

Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in your life today?
JANUARY 2008 i

CURRENT

Q2a
Q2b

81
16
3

Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Dont know/Refused

83
14
3

Do you use the internet, at least occasionally?

Do you send or receive email, at least occasionally?1
DOES NOT USE
INTERNET

USES INTERNET

Current

Q3

77

23

Did you happen to use the internet YESTERDAY?2

Based on internet users [N=1,922]
YES, USED INTERNET
YESTERDAY

Current

71

NO, DID NOT USE

INTERNET YESTERDAY

28

DONT KNOW/
REFUSED

Prior to January 2005, question wording was Do you ever go online to access the Internet or World Wide Web or to send
and receive email?
2
Prior to January 2005, question wording was Did you happen to go online or check your email yesterday?

Princeton Survey Research Associates International

2
Q4

Counting all of your online sessions, how much time did you spend using the internet
yesterday? (DO NOT READ)
Based on those who used the internet yesterday [N=1,378]

LESS THAN
15 MIN

Current

Q5

HALF HR OR
MORE BUT
LESS THAN 1
HR

15 MIN TO
LESS
THAN
HALF HR

16

MORE THAN
1 HR BUT
LESS THAN
2 HRS

ABOUT
AN HR

22

2 HRS OR
MORE BUT
LESS THAN
3 HRS

3 HRS OR
MORE BUT
LESS THAN
4 HRS

16

4 HRS OR
MORE

DONT KNOW/
REFUSED

15

About how often do you use the internet or email from[INSERT IN ORDER] several
times a day, about once a day, 3-5 days a week, 1-2 days a week, every few weeks,
less often or never?
Based on internet users [N=1,922]
SEVERAL
TIMES A DAY

a. Home

Current3

29

ABOUT
ONCE A DAY

3-5 DAYS
A WEEK

1-2 DAYS
A WEEK

EVERY FEW
WEEKS

LESS
OFTEN

NEVER

DONT KNOW/
REFUSED

25

17

14

8
10

4
5

3
6

1
2

2
4

48
44

2
*

18

57

b. Work
Current
32
March 2004
28
c. Someplace other than home or work
Current
4

Beginning in August 2008, Never is offered as an explicitly read category. Prior to August 2008, it was a
volunteered category.

Princeton Survey Research Associates International

3
MODEM

Does the computer you use at home connect to the internet through a dial-up telephone
line, or do you have some other type of connection, such as a DSL-enabled phone line, a
cable TV modem, a wireless connection, a fiber optic connection such as FIOS or a T-1?
Based on those who use the internet from home
CURRENT

DECEMBER
2007

SEPTEMBER
2007 4

14

Dial-up telephone line

15

18

20

81

High-speed

79

77

73

35

DSL-enabled phone line

36

34

34

30

Cable modem

31

31

30

13

Wireless connection (either landbased or satellite)

10

Fiber optic connection

T-1 connection

n/a

1
4
[n=1,797]

Q6

MAY 2008

Other
Dont know/Refused

5
[n=1,463]

3
[n=1,483]

6
[n=1,575]

Thinking about your high-speed internet service at home, do you subscribe to a basic
broadband service, or do you pay extra for a premium service that promises faster
speed?
Based on those who have high-speed internet at home
CURRENT

MAY 2008

50

Subscribe to basic service

54

34

Subscribe to premium service at higher price

29

14

Dont know

16

Refused

[n=1,439]

*
[n=1,119]

In Aug/Sept. 2007, Fiber optic connection and T-1 connection were collapsed into one category. Percentage for Fiber
optic connection reflects the combined Fiber-optic/T-1 group.

Princeton Survey Research Associates International

4
WEB-A

Next...Please tell me if you ever use the internet to do any of the following things. Do
you ever [ROTATE ITEMS]?5
Based on internet users [N=1,922]
TOTAL HAVE
EVER DONE
THIS

---------DID
YESTERDAY

HAVE NOT
DONE THIS

DONT KNOW/
REFUSED

Send instant messages to someone

whos online at the same time
Current

40

n/a

59

*
WEB-A continued

Prior to January 2005, question wording was Please tell me if you ever do any of the following when you go online. Do
you ever?

Princeton Survey Research Associates International

WEB-A continued
TOTAL HAVE
EVER DONE
THIS

---------DID
YESTERDAY

HAVE NOT
DONE THIS

DONT KNOW/
REFUSED

Create or work on your own online

journal or blog6
Current

13

n/a

86

34

n/a

66

46

n/a

54

Use a social networking site like

MySpace, Facebook or LinkedIn.com7
Current

Upload photos to a website so you

can share them with others online
Current

Q7a

Do you have a cell phoneor a Blackberry or other device that is also a cell phone?
CURRENT

Q7b

82
18
*

JANUARY 2008

Yes
No
Dont know/Refused

77
22
*

Do you ever use your cell phone, Blackberry or other device to send or receive text
messages?
Based on those who have a cell phone [N=1,924]
CURRENT

55
44
*
0

Yes
No
Dont know
Refused

In Sept 2005 and before, item wording was "Create a web log or 'blog' that others can read on the web."
In August 2006, item wording was Use an online social networking site like MySpace, Facebook or Friendster. Prior
to August 2006, item wording was Use online social or professional networking sites like Friendster or LinkedIn
7

Princeton Survey Research Associates International

6
Q8

From time to time, most people discuss important matters with other people. Looking
back over the last six months who are the people with whom you discussed matters
that are important to you? If you could, just tell me their first name or even the initials
of their first AND last names. [RECORD UP TO 5 NAMES] [PROBE: Anyone Else?]
CURRENT

Q9

30
20
13
7
6
23

Gave 1 name
Gave 2 names
Gave 3 names
Gave 4 names
Gave 5 names
No names given/Dont know/Refused

Now lets think about people you know in another way. Looking back over the last six
months, who are the people especially significant in your life? [IF NECESSARY: By
significant, I mean just those who are MOST important to you.] If you could, just tell
me their first name or even the initials of their first AND last names. These may be
some of the same people you just mentioned or it may be other people. [RECORD UP
TO 5 NEW NAMES] [PROBE: Anyone Else?]
CURRENT

35
18
19
28

Gave at least one new name & did NOT reference any Q8 name
Gave at least one new name & did reference a Q8 name
Only gave the same names as those in Q8
No names given/Dont know/Refused

Princeton Survey Research Associates International

7
Q8
Q9

Looking back over the last six months who are the people with whom you discussed
matters that are important to you?
Looking back over the last six months, who are the people especially significant in your
life?
CURRENT

Q10

16
19
17
14
10
5
2
1
*
1
14

1 name
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 names
No names given

Now thinking about [INSERT NAME FROM Q10Q17LIST in ORDER], is this person male
or female?8
Based on total alters named by respondents [N=7,058]
CURRENT

43
57
*
1

Male
Female
Dont know
Refused

Respondents were asked Q10 thru Q17 for each name that is, alter they listed in Q8 or Q9. Percentages for
Q10 thru Q17 are calculated based on the total number of responses for a given question, rather than calculated based
on total respondents.

Princeton Survey Research Associates International

8
Q11

People can have many different connections to others. For example, a woman can be
your co-worker and also be your neighbor. Or a man could be your brother and also a
member of your church. Now, I would like to go through the names you just gave me.
Please list all the ways that person is connected to you. How is [INSERT NAME FROM
Q10Q17LIST in ORDER] connected to you? [PROBE: What other ways?] [PRECODED
OPEN-END; DO NOT READ CATEGORIES; RECORD UP TO FIVE RESPONSES]9
Based on total alters named by respondents and who may have multiple connections to those respondents
[N=8,722]
CURRENT

Q12

27
15
12
10
9
9
7
5
2
1
*
3
*
*

Friend
Child
Spouse/Partner
Other Family member/Family relationship
Brother/Sister/Sibling
Parent
Co-worker
Member of Group: Church, community association, volunteer group
Neighbor
Advisor
Internet/Online Friend/Acquaintance
Other
Dont know
Refused

About how long have you known [INSERT ANSWER FROM Q10Q17LIST in ORDER]?
Based on total alters named by respondents [N=7,058]
CURRENT

3
5
5
5
12
16
54
*
1

Less than 1 year

1 to 2 years
3-4 years
4-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
More than 20 years/All Rs life
Dont know
Refused

Respondents were allowed to list multiple connections for each alter, but percentages are based on the total number
of responses given for all alters named. As a result, the percentages should total approximately 100% due to
rounding.

Princeton Survey Research Associates International

9
Q13

Still thinking about [INSERT ANSWER FROM Q10Q17LIST] About how often do you
usually [INSERT ITEM IN ORDER] several times a day, once a day, several times a
week, once a week, once a month, less often or never?
SEVERAL
TIMES A
DAY

ONCE A
DAY

SEVERAL
TIMES A
WEEK

ONCE A
WEEK

ONCE A
MONTH

LESS
OFTEN

NEVER

DONT
KNOW

REFUSED

15

10

12

12

Item A: Based on total alters named by respondents [N=7,058]

a. Talk to (him/her) in-person

34

18

Item B: Based on total alters named by cell phone owners [N=5,619]

b. Talk to (him/her) using your
cell phone

24

14

22

14

Item C: Based on total alters named by respondents who have a landline [N=6,428]
c.

Talk to (him/her) on your

landline phone at home

10

11

19

16

26

32

57

12

11

43

Item D: Based on total alters named by respondents [N=7,058]

d. Send (him/her) a card or letter
via the mail

Item E: Based on alters named by internet users [N=5,547]

e. Send (him/her) an email

14

Item F: Based on alters named by respondents who text message [N=3,009]

f.

Send (him/her) a text message

17

14

42

67

66

Item G: Based on alters named by IM users [N=2,253]

g. Send (him/her) an instant
message

Item H: Based on alters named by SNS users [N=1,654]

h. Send (him/her) a message thru
a Social Networking site

Q14

Have you made [INSERT ANSWER FROM Q10Q17LIST in ORDER] a friend or contact on
a social networking web site like MySpace, Facebook or LinkedIn?
Based on alters named by SNS users [N=1,654]
CURRENT

43
57
*
*

Yes
No
Dont know
Refused

Princeton Survey Research Associates International

10
Q15

How far away does this person live from you? (Just your best guess in MILES is fine.)
[PRECODED OPEN-END; DO NOT READ CATEGORIES]
Based on total alters named by respondents [N=7,058]
CURRENT

Q16

23
3
4
12
31
5
9
8
3
2
*

Lives in the same house as R

Lives on same block/street
Less than 1 mile (includes same neighborhood)
1 mile to less than 5 miles
5 to less than 50 miles
50 to less than 100 miles
100 to less than 500 miles
500 to less than 3,000 miles
3,000 miles or more
Dont know
Refused

Would you say [INSERT ANSWER FROM Q10Q17LIST] is white, African-American,

Hispanic or Latino, Asian, Native American or something else?
Based on total alters named by respondents [N=7,058]
CURRENT

Q17

71
12
8
2
1
4
*
1

White
African-American
Hispanic or Latino
Asian
Native American
Something else
Dont know
Refused

In politics TODAY, would you say [INSERT ANSWER FROM Q10Q17LIST] considers
(himself/herself) a Republican, Democrat, or Independent or do you not know enough
to say?
Based on total alters named by respondents [N=7,058]
CURRENT

22
27
13
3
*
33
1

Republican
Democrat
Independent
No preference/Do not care (VOL)
Other party (VOL)
Dont know
Refused (VOL)

Princeton Survey Research Associates International

11
Q18

About how long have you lived in the neighborhood where you live now? Have you
lived there...(READ)?
CURRENT

Q19

11
30
18
16
25
*
1

Less than one year

One to five years
Six to ten years
11 to 20 years
More than 20 years
Dont know
Refused

What best describes where you live in a detached single-family house a townhouse
or semi-detached house an apartment, condominium or co-op or something else?
CURRENT

68
7
16
8
*
1

Q20

A detached single-family house

A townhouse or semi-detached house (includes
townhouses & duplexes)
An apartment, condominium or co-op
Something else
Dont know
Refused

Do you know the names of your neighbors who live close to you, or not? [IF YES: Do
you know all of them, most of them or only some of them?]
CURRENT

18
21
30
29
1
1
1

Yes, know all of them

Yes, know most of them
Yes, know only some of them
No, do not know any
Do not have neighbors close by (VOL)
Dont know
Refused

Princeton Survey Research Associates International

12
Q21

Now thinking about your neighbors that you know by name How often would you say
[INSERT IN ORDER] over the last six months every day, several times a week, once a
week, once a month, less often or never?
Based on those who know their neighbors names [N=1,853]
EVERY
DAY

SEVERAL
TIMES/
WEEK

ONCE/
WEEK

ONCE/
MONTH

LESS
OFTEN

NEVER

DONT
KNOW

REFUSED

a. You had a face-to-face

conversation with one of your
neighbors

16

29

27

17

10

b. You talked with one of your

neighbors on the telephone

12

13

16

46

84

c.

Q22

You sent or received an email from

one of your neighbors

Do you belong to an email list, list-serv or discussion forum for your neighborhood?
CURRENT

Q23

4
95
1
*

Yes
No
Dont know
Refused

In the past 6 months, have you helped any of your neighbors in any of the following
ways? Have you [INSERT ITEM IN ORDER] in the past six months?
YES

NO

DONT
KNOW

REFUSED

a. Listened to their problems

49

50

b. Helped them with household chores, shopping,

repairs, house-sat, or lent them tools or supplies

41

59

22

78

91

c.

Cared for a member of their family, either a child

or an adult

d. Lent them money

Q24

In the past 6 months, have any of your neighbors helped you in any of the following
ways? Have your neighbors [INSERT ITEM IN ORDER] in the past six months?
YES

NO

DONT
KNOW

REFUSED

a. Listened to your problems

36

64

b. Helped you with household chores, shopping,

repairs, house-sat, or lent you tools or supplies

31

69

15

84

97

c.

Cared for you or a member of your family, either

a child or an adult

d. Lent you money

Princeton Survey Research Associates International

13
Q25

Do you belong to or ever work with[INSERT; ROTATE]?

YES

NO

DONT
KNOW

REFUSED

a. A community group or neighborhood association

that focuses on issues or problems in your
community

16

83

b. A local sports league

16

84

c.

16

84

d. A local church, synagogue, mosque or temple

46

54

e. A local social club or charitable organization

24

75

11

88

A local youth group, such as scouts or the YMCA

Item F asked last

f.

Q26

Some other local group I haven't already

mentioned (SPECIFY)

Please tell how much, if at all, the internet has helped you do each of the following
things. How about[INSERT; ROTATE]? Has the internet helped a lot, some, only a
little, or not at all?
Based on internet users [N=1,922]
A LOT

SOME

ONLY A
LITTLE

NOT AT
ALL

DONT
KNOW

REFUSED

a. Becoming more involved with groups and

organizations you already belong to

14

17

12

56

b. Finding people or groups who share your

interests

18

18

14

50

12

15

11

61

d. Connecting with people of different ages or

generations

16

17

14

52

e. Connecting with people from different racial or

ethnic backgrounds

15

15

13

55

13

15

14

55

11

17

13

58

c.

f.

Finding people or groups who share your

beliefs

Connecting with people from different

economic backgrounds

g. Connecting with groups and organizations that

are based in your local community

Princeton Survey Research Associates International

14
Q27

Next, I am going to ask about types of jobs and whether people you know hold such
jobs. These people include your relatives, friends and acquaintances. Do you happen to
know someone who is[INSERT ITEM; RANDOMIZE]?
YES

NO

DONT
KNOW

REFUSED

a. A nurse

74

26

b. A farmer

48

52

c.

59

41

d. A middle school teacher

54

45

e. A full-time babysitter

34

66

f.

40

60

g. A personnel manager

39

60

h. A hair dresser

67

33

i.

A bookkeeper

46

54

j.

A production manager

28

71

k.

An operator in a factory

37

62

l.

A computer programmer

58

42

m. A taxi driver

13

87

n. A professor

43

56

o. A policeman

62

37

p. A Chief Executive Officer (C-E-O) of a large

company

30

69

q. A writer

29

71

r.

An administrative assistant in a large company

43

56

s.

A security guard

38

62

t.

A receptionist

57

42

u. A Congressman

19

81

v.

94

A lawyer

A janitor

A hotel bell boy

Princeton Survey Research Associates International

15
Q28

Q29

In the past month, how many times did you go to any of the following places and stay
for more than 15 minutes? How many times in the past month did you go to [INSERT;
RANDOMIZE; ASK d & e AS A PAIR IN ORDER] and stay for more than 15 minutes?
1
TIME

2-3
TIMES

4+
TIMES

HAVENT BEEN
HERE IN PAST
MONTH

DONT
KNOW

REFUSED

a. A caf or coffee shop

15

22

54

b. A church, synagogue, mosque or temple

11

35

45

c.

12

13

10

65

d. A fast-food restaurant

13

22

33

31

e. Any other type of restaurant

21

40

28

f.

82

g. A public park or plaza

14

22

25

38

h. A bar

10

11

72

A public library

A community center

While you were at [INSERT Q28 ITEM], did you access the internet whether on a
computer, cell phone, P-D-A or other device?
Based on those who went to this place in the past month & stayed for more than 15 minutes
YES

NO

DONT
KNOW

REFUSED

18

82

95

36

64

94

93

14

86

92

11

89

a. A caf or coffee shop

Current [n=1,185]

b. A church, synagogue, mosque or temple

Current [n=1,404]

c.

A public library
Current [n=891]

d. A fast-food restaurant
Current [n=1,677]

e. Any other type of restaurant

Current [n=1,798]

f.

A community center
Current [n=451]

g. A public park or plaza

Current [n=1,500]

h. A bar
Current [n=652]

Princeton Survey Research Associates International

16
Q30

To make sure our survey includes all types of households, I have a few questions about
your household. First, how many adults are there now living in your home who are age
18 or older, INCLUDING YOURSELF?
CURRENT

Q31

24
52
23
*
1

One
Two
Three or more
Dont know
Refused

And how many children are now living in your home who are under age 18?
CURRENT

15
14
9
61
0
1

One
Two
Three or more
None
Dont know
Refused

THANK RESPONDENT: That concludes our interview. The results of this survey are going to
be used by a non-profit research organization called the Pew Internet & American Life Project,
which is looking at the impact of the internet on people's lives. A report on this survey will be
issued by the project in a few months and you can find the results at its web site, which is
www.pewinternet.org [w-w-w dot pew internet dot org]. Thanks again for your time. Have a
nice day/evening.

Princeton Survey Research Associates International

17

Endnotes

January 2008 trends based on the Networked Families survey, conducted December 13, 2007-January 13, 2008
[N=2,252].

Princeton Survey Research Associates International