Tolerance on Facebook: Exploring Network Diversity and Social Distance

This study examines Facebook usage, network composition, and desired social distance from groups often perceived as the “other”. Specifically, we examine attitudes toward Atheists, Muslims, and Gays. Findings indicate that social network composition (ie network diversity, number of unique groups, number of Facebook friends) plays a significant role in participants’ desired social distance from said groups. Generally, these findings suggest that increasing diversity in a Facebook network may lead to a decrease in prejudice. Facebook Tolerance 3 Facebook’s number of users has grown to over 1.39 billion users as of December 2014 (Facebook newsroom). Certainly, it is a worldwide company, allowing one’s social network to experience potential expansion that has never before been possible with such ease. With very few degrees of separation, and with the relative ease of a few mouseclicks, a Facebooker could potentially become Facebook friends with strangers from other lands, from unfamiliar cultures, and who speak different languages. Facebook’s social world is now filled with a broad range of demographics. With all of this potential diversity in one’s social network, we seek to examine the impact of Facebook on the Facebooker’s general tolerance and acceptance levels. Essentially, is Facebook making us more tolerant of difference? Facebook’s meteoric rise in popularity has brought with it a slew of studies. Many have focused on audience, identity, and the tensions that come with Facebook activity (Binder, Howes, & Sutcliffe, 2009; boyd, 2010; Hogan, 2010; Lampinen et al, 2011; Lampinen et al, 2009; Marwick & boyd, 2011; Ozenc & Farnham, 2011; Stutzman et al, 2012). However, most of these studies focus on privacy, disclosure levels and other boundary regulation, and tensions that arise from family and friends co-mingling on the site. Generally, they emphasize what the individual can do to manage their experiences. The present study, however, is focused on what the Facebook experience does to the user. A gap in the literature is present with regard to social distance, contact theory, and the diversity in one’s social network. Most examinations of diversity in a social network have leaned toward positive outcomes, particularly regarding social capital (Binder et al, 2009; Ellison, Steinfield, Lampe, 2007; Steinfield, Ellison, Lampe, 2008; Valenzuela, Park, and Kee, 2009). Facebook Tolerance 4 Generally, the discussion on this side stems from Granovetter’s (1977, 1983) canonic strength of weak ties argument. Having more individuals with unique backgrounds and assets raises one’s social capital. On the other side of the coin, there are some (though few) dystopianists that argue Facebook – and other aspects of digital life – are pulling society into social isolation. Concepts such as the interpersonal divide (Bugeja, 2005), alone together (Turkle, 2011) and the daily me (Negroponte, 1996, explained in a 2009 NY Times op-ed piece) suggest that individuals might have unprecedented access to others and information, but we are losing personal and physical contact, are demanding more of others but not willing to give of ourselves, and are becoming engrossed in our own solipsistic worlds. Further, we are becoming unsympathetic to others, viewing them merely as resources at our disposal (Wellman studies). Clearly, this debate is larger than what can be settled by a single study. However, the present research seeks to explore further the role of network diversity with regard to a Facebooker’s tolerance of others, and several other identity-management concepts. Conceptual Framework Facebook Intensity and number of unique groups To begin the examination of social distance and network diversity, we are first including some baseline measurements that speak to one’s Facebook usage and network makeup. Research on online communities now reaches back decades (boyd and Ellison, 2007), and Facebook specifically has garnered much scholarly attention. Further, the sizeable set of research on Facebook, in particular, has resulted in a consistent measure to Facebook Tolerance 5 examine Facebook usage and involvement level (Binder et al, 2009; Ellison, Steinfield, Lampe, 2007; Steinfield, Ellison, Lampe, 2008; Valenzuela, Park, and Kee, 2009). The Facebook Intensity Scale focuses on how important Facebook is to an individual by combining number of Facebook friends, time spent on the site, and with a series of Likert statements such as “Facebook has become a part of my daily routine. ” In sum, having a bigger network of Facebook friends, lengthier sessions spent on the site, and deeper personal involvement on Facebook leads to higher Facebook Intensity scores. For this study, given the importance of connections with individuals, we will also examine the number of Facebook friends as a standalone variable. Past research has typically associated higher Facebook Intensity with social benefits, particularly in terms of bridging and bonding social capital (see especially Ellison, et al, 2007), and, generally, we anticipated the benefit of increased network diversity in the present study (along with other, related variables). Network Diversity Network diversity requires the inclusion of multiple sub-groups within a network. It is quite logical, then, that a larger social network on Facebook would contain more subgroups as well as more members of each subgroup. To examine the number of unique social subgroups present within one’s Facebook network, we rely on a measure used by McCarty et al (2001) to determine network size. The measure effectively asks a participant to identify the number of unique groups present in their network. In addition to Number of Unique Groups, we include Network Diversity as a standalone variable. For the purposes of this study, we separate diversity into four potential categories of “others” (these include sexual orientation, social class, religion, and race). For each of Facebook Tolerance 6 these areas we asked participations to assess how much of their Facebook network was similar to them. For example, a question about racial diversity read, “About how many of the people in your Facebook network do you feel are the same race as you? ” This produced both a measure of perceived diversity based on the single item (race, in the example) and, when combined with the other categories, an overall diversity score. Using the same categories that were applied in the Network Diversity metric, we assessed change in network diversity over the past five years. Participants were asked how their current network compares to five years ago on each of the four diversity measures. Five years was selected as the period of change because our sample is made up of college students who have, in that time, made the transition from high school to college. Ten years seemed too large of a span and less than five years would result in an examination of college-years-only for a portion of our sample. This measure was intended to assess the perceived change in diversity over time. Given their similarities, it is very likely that the number of unique groups and Facebook Intensity will have a strong correlation. Additionally, it is expected that Network Diversity and change would also be positively associated with Facebook Intensity and the Number of Unique Groups within a given network. Lastly, we anticipated that Diversity Change and Network Diversity would be positively associated. H1: Facebook intensity, the number of Facebook Friends, and the Time Spent on Facebook are positively associated with Number of Unique Groups H2: Facebook intensity, the number of Facebook Friends, and the Time Spent on Facebook are positively associated with Network Diversity H3: Facebook intensity, the number of Facebook Friends, and the Time Spent on Facebook are positively associated with Diversity Change Facebook Tolerance 7 H4: Number of Unique Groups is positively associated with Network Diversity H5: Number of Unique Groups is positively associated with Diversity Change H6: Diversity Change is positively associated with Network Diversity Social Distance and Contact Theory Social distance is defined as “the degree of sympathetic understanding that exists between two persons or between a person and a group (personal distance or personalgroup distance)” (Bogardus, 1933). The social distance measure, originally developed by Emory Bogardus (1933), has been used in various forms as a way to capture negative sentiment toward members of different racial or ethnic groups (Durrheim, 2011; Brocket et al., 2010; Lee et al., 1996; Odell et al., 2005). The measure is designed to capture the amount of physical or social distance desired from someone who possesses a group membership different from one’s own. Social distance measures should represent an underlying bias in favor of one’s own group, thus, a bias against those perceived to be members of an out-group. Indeed, the Bogardus scale has been used consistently since its development and has been useful in tracking the decrease in prejudice against various ethnic groups over time in the U.S. (Owen, Eisner, & McFaul, 1977; Parillo & Donaghue, 2005). The Bogardus scale has also been used to assess attitudes toward other perceived out-groups. Social distance has gauged desired distance from religious groups (Brinkerhoff et al., 1991; Brockett et al., 2009), those with mental illness or some type of disability (Adewuya & Makanjuola, 2008; Ouellette-Kuntz et al., 2010; Pescosolido et al., 2013), and homosexuals (Maurer, 2013). As one measure of prejudice, the Bogardus Facebook Tolerance 8 Scale has demonstrated its usefulness in delineating the contours of negative sentiment toward key groups in society. This concept further implies that individuals who desire more social distance from those they define as different, subsequently construct their social spheres to be comprised predominantly of people like themselves. Indeed, research has