Session 4: Role/Capitol/Trust

Social Capitol
The main concept for the readings this week was social capitol. Ellison et al (2007) defines social capitol as "the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition" (3). The range of connections that can be made through online formats are frequently more beneficial to the user that many offline contacts. There are two types of social capitol, including bridging, "weak ties" that expand the breadth and worldview of the user, or bonding, "strong tied" connections that support the user emotionally (Williams, 4). The bridging effect increases in online environments primarily because of the low entry and exit boundaries. Users make connections with people they wouldn't otherwise in real life (Williams, 17). By expanding the connections made through online networks, the user has a wider scope of access to diverse information and opportunities.

Interesting to note, most users join social networks to maintain offline relationships, despite the benefits to networking with weak ties (Ellison, 12). Users also attempt to solidify offline relationships that would otherwise be temporal and superficial, which links them to further opportunities later on (Ellison, 14). It can also be a means for building social capitol with out the cost of interaction that takes place in offline formats. Social networks provide a security measure for those less likely to make connections or exert themselves into a crowd. (Does this also promote isolationism to an extent? Does it affect the abilities of young people to effectively interact and adapt to offline social situations?)

Williams (2006) states that by using social capitol, a user gets more of it (2). However, I suggest that the development of social capitol would not grow or succeed without social roles and trust.

Social Roles
Gleave et al. (2009) describes social roles as "recognized, accepted, and used to accomplish pragmatic interaction goals in a community" which "operate both sources of constraint and resources for action" (1). Learning the rules of interaction are developed primarily around the contributions of members. For instance,"social roles are often inherently defined in relational terms; a role only exists in relation to others who are likewise enacting social roles" (Gleave et al, 9). This leads me to question whether we create roles in order to facilitate control of our surroundings. Do roles help us assimilate to a new online culture?

Although Gleave et al. (2009) used the social structure of Usenet to describe different roles of interaction, it seems appropriate for several social networks. Usenet roles are broken into three separate characteristics: Answer People, Discussion Person, and Discussion Catalyst (Gleave et al, 6). Answer people respond to multiple questions, providing most of the content generated, while a Discussion Person contributes high content, but it is more focused on keeping a string of conversation going with multiple people. A Discussion Catalyst makes interesting and pointed comments that facilitate long threads of conversation. These three roles make up the environment to several question/answer formats of social networks.

It can be inferred that social roles can play into the development of trust as well. For instance, an expert is far more likely to be trusted than a laymen. Eryilmaz et al (2009) describe this element as the "authority" of a user, which stems from the desire for the most accurate and well informed responses.

Trust Mechanisms
A key component of developing trust within a social network is the presence of "trust statements," the declaration of one user's opinion concerning the worth and interest in another (Paolo, 53). There are different contexts to trust, which should be discovered and noted in the initial stages of interaction within a social network. For instance, some networks build trust through reliable product reviews, ability to be a good friend, or even interesting posts (Paolo, 55).

Timeliness can also be a factor in determining trust. If a social network is especially dependent on current proceedings, like an emergency or news environment, the user is more likely to trust (and search for) new information. Erylizmaz et al (2009) states "users trusted a piece of information more when it received more updates since there would be corroborative evidence" (8). Timeliness contributes to minimizing the risk of internalizing false information for the user.

It should be noted that the quality of a post or response can also be determined by the "number of edits (rigor) and the total number of unique editors (diversity)" (Erylizmaz et al, 4). Although this is primarily the way Wikipedia develops quality articles, I suggest that this is relevant for other social networks. Questions or post that get more attention are usually more trusted. For instance, in Goodreads.com, reviews of books that users uprate are sifted to the top of the page. This information becomes more and more trusted as it gains more attention.

Examples of Trust Mechanisms
In order to practically apply the concepts mentioned above, I joined a couple social networks that used different modes of trust. I should first mention that this proved to be somewhat difficult because most of the social networks I joined ended up having several of the same trust mechanisms. I will conclude this section with a specific example of site that has different means to develop trust, but that I did not join because of the cost of interaction.

Experience Project (http://www.experienceproject.com/index.php)
This social network is based on users sharing and connecting through experiences. The primary means of interaction is through joining groups that have similar interests, for instance "I love to cook" or "I can't believe I'm a grandmother," and then writing stories (like mini-blogs) about your experience.

Trust is developed through a couple different mechanisms. First, users interact based on their own preferences and opinions. They have no reason to interact with other users that have interests outside their own. This builds trust primarily because of the centralized themes of interaction. Users trust themselves the most, so why not trust others that have the same ideals (Allen et al, 1)? As a support to this concept, users can comment on whether the stories made them feel happy, sad, surprised, etc. to further develop groups with the same interests (see Figure).

Secondly, users are given point scales to both disseminate to peers as well as to gain social capitol. Experience Project is unique because it makes use of a "gift shop", where the user can gain points by interacting on the site and then use the point to buy gifts for other users. This is an interesting motivation for interaction. Gifts are also a status symbol, so the more gifts you have on your profile, the more likely you are to have built trust with other users. Roles are also built through interaction (much like Answerbag) because the EP team gives you trophies for each level of interaction you complete.

One interesting way of building trust is actually anonymity. As mentioned before, users interact based on experience. There is a section in Experience Project that allows you to make "confessions," which can be left completely anonymous. You are encouraged to let all your secrets out. People can leave comments and support. If you appreciate their comments, you can make an additional contact and add them to your "circle" of friends.

I'd also like to note one additional form of building trust. I submitted a story to the group "I want to lose weight" and titled it "Dark Sexy Jeans." This is actually a blog I wrote a couple years back, and it just describes my motivation for exercising. When I posted it, it came up with a "18+" adult rating (see Figure)! I was shocked. There is absolutely no adult content in the blog--but it has "sexy" in the title. This actually helps to build trust in the site because it filters content for those who do not want to be inundated with questionable content.


It would be helpful if users could see who uprated the posts, and who considers the post "happy" or "sad." This could develop friendships based on similar interests. To be honest, the use of trophies and gifting is not as well developed as it could be. For instance, giving gifts to others is not rewarded. If the user could gain status or additional access to some aspect of the site, it would motivate higher contributions and collaboration (Allen et al, 3). The incentive for use is not as concentrated as with Answerbag or other social networks. EP almost has too much going on at once, which lowers trust because the user cannot grasp full control of all of the elements of the network.

Goodreads (http://www.goodreads.com/)
Goodreads is a social network that is based on comparing, reviewing, and sharing books. Users can form book clubs and groups based on favorite readings as well as rate and review favorite books. The focus is on finding reading materials that may be of interest.

Trust is built on simple principles. While friends can be made based on reviewing profiles and finding similar tastes in books, it is not the primary focus. Users write reviews, make recommendations, and select ratings from 1 to 5. Other users can "make informed opinions about the product in order to decide about [reading] it or not" (Paolo, 60). This is an essential function of a social network based on opinions. User achieve trust based on giving points to reviews. Reviews that are appreciated by many users move to the top of the page. Users can either uprate or make comments (see Figure).

All contributions are tracked and displayed on the profile. The more contributions you make, the more trust is built. For instance, Graham is now considered the #24 best reviewer of books within Goodreads. This status builds trust because other users voted him into his position (see Figure). On a brief side note, trust is also built by adding friends as comparing books in their library. Other users can build trust based on friends of friends (Paolo, 61).


This trust mechanism would be especially helpful if users could follow a person's reviews. The only option for subscribing to a user's interaction is by adding them as a friend. I attempted to add a few people as friends, but they have to approve your friendship (much like Facebook), and if they don't have any connection to you, they can easily refuse. To find them, you have to keep track by searching for their profile. In other words, there is no easy way to subscribe superficially, which inhibits the spreading of trust.

Other Trust Mechanisms
Just really brief (because I know I'm running long), I wanted to point out another social network with a specific trust mechanisms. Meezoog.com is a dating/relationship social network that is exclusive in its membership. The only way to join is to be invited (much like Okurt), which builds trust because everyone you meet has some degree of connection. Meezoog actually has a social proximity meeter to indicate how closely connected you are (see Figure). It is based on the principle that you will not have to meet strangers and you are likely to have something in common. The trust statement is based on personal recommendation. Has anyone joined this site? Can you comment it's success?

Final Thoughts

I've had some trouble deciding on a final topic. However, because I work in Special Education, I've been considering researching the effect of social networking on families with disabilities.
The question came out of our Session 2 readings concerning motivation for interaction and social companionship.

Question: What are the possibilities for using social networks to enhance emotional support and access to resources for those who have disabilities as well as their families? Do social networks provide the emotional support for special needs that otherwise would not be provided offline?

Methods: Researching scholarly articles, such as "Families with disabled children: Stress and social networks in three samples", as well as other resources. Also, I will collect evidence from interaction based social networks geared toward special needs communities. I will likely start researching with a special needs network call "One Place" (http://www.oneplaceforspecialneeds.com/). Interviews are also a possibility.