2005
DOI: 10.1504/ijwbc.2005.008111
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Social interaction in virtual communities: the significance of technology

Abstract: In this paper, it is argued that supporting technology influences the way interaction occurs in a virtual community. The empirical part of the study comprises interviews with visitors at LunarStorm, the most popular online community among young people in Sweden. The study highlights a specific feature within the software environment of LunarStorm and the empirical data show that this feature strongly influences community life. Based on these findings it is argued that there is a need for further studies that a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
25
0
3

Year Published

2009
2009
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
25
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, forms of media consumption such as family or public viewing (Hartmann, 2008) are collective, not to forget the role that interpretative communities can play (Radway, 1988;Lindlof, 1988). Also, virtual communities (Skog, 2005) and social media (Page, 2011) off er forms of mediated social interaction that are more collective, partially because "just like a producer loses control over who watches a television show once it is aired" (Baym, 2002: 64), the size and nature of the audience is obscured, but partially also because dialogues are -not unlike interpersonal communication in small groups (Festinger & Th ibaut, 1951) -trans-individual. Online dialogues often address more than one person, but at the same time they target specifi c groups and still use a more individualized manner of address.…”
Section: Interactionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, forms of media consumption such as family or public viewing (Hartmann, 2008) are collective, not to forget the role that interpretative communities can play (Radway, 1988;Lindlof, 1988). Also, virtual communities (Skog, 2005) and social media (Page, 2011) off er forms of mediated social interaction that are more collective, partially because "just like a producer loses control over who watches a television show once it is aired" (Baym, 2002: 64), the size and nature of the audience is obscured, but partially also because dialogues are -not unlike interpersonal communication in small groups (Festinger & Th ibaut, 1951) -trans-individual. Online dialogues often address more than one person, but at the same time they target specifi c groups and still use a more individualized manner of address.…”
Section: Interactionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Skog (2005) argued that members of social networks are not passive but participate in the social evolution of the social network. Likewise, studies have been developed around the motivations for joining certain communities (Backstrom, Hottenlocher & al., 2006).…”
Section: Research Background On Social Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When people contribute online they enjoy 'enhanced social connectedness' (Rainie 2010, p.8) and increased social status which can be related to levels of participation (Skog 2005). By influencing friends of friends, SNSs help gain reputations, grow networks and exert social power.…”
Section: Specific Opportunities and Challenges Of Snss As Internationmentioning
confidence: 99%