Ubiquitous local community experiences: unravelling the social added value of neighborhood-related social media

Author/s Flora Gatti, Fortuna Procentese
Publishing Year 2022 Issue 2022/2
Language English Pages 24 P. 56-79 File size 251 KB
DOI 10.3280/PSC2022-002004
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Neighborhood-related social media uses are rapidly spreading, with citizens using already existing social media with community-related aims too. This has deeply modified how citizens can experience their neighborhoods and cities, making them more complex - and ubiquitous - social ecosystems. The present study aims at deepening the impact of such social media uses in terms of non-material, relational and community goods - that is, their social added value (SAV) for individuals and communities. The results show two main categories of such SAV: the enrichment in terms of local social relationships, and the promotion of citizens’ active in-volvement in and engagement for their community and its members. The theoretical and practical implications stemming from these results will be deepened.

Keywords: local community experiences, ubiquitous social media, ubiquitous communities, social added value (SAV), social capital, civic engagement, volunteering, neighboring behaviors

  1. Batiste, D. P. (2013). “0 Feet Away”: The Queer Cartography of French Gay Men’s Geo-social Media Use. Anthropological Journal of European Cultures, 22(2), 111-132.
  2. Boyd, D. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A Networked Self (pp. 39-58). London, UK: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203876527-
  3. Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2003). A trajectory for community networks special issue: ICTs and community networking. The Information Society, 19(5), 381-393. DOI: 10.1080/71404468
  4. Chavis, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (2002). Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst for participation and community development. In T. A. Revenson, A. R. D’Augelli, S. E. French, D. Hughes, D. E. Livert, E. Seidman, M. Shinn, & H. Yoshikawa (eds), A Quarter Century of Community Psychology (pp. 265-292). Berlin: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-8646-7_14
  5. Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company: How social capital makes organizations work. Brighton, UK: Harvard Business School Press.
  6. Conroy, M. M., & Evans-Cowley, J. (2006). E-participation in planning: an analysis of cities adopting on-line citizen participation tools. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24(3), 371-384.
  7. Conroy, M. M., & Gordon, S. I. (2004). Utility of interactive computer-based materials for enhancing public participation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(1), 19-33. DOI: 10.1080/0964056042000189781
  8. Cousineau, D., & Chartier, S. (2010). Outliers detection and treatment: a review. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 58-67. DOI: 10.21500/20112084.844
  9. de Souza e Silva, A. (2013). Location-aware mobile technologies: Historical, social and spatial approaches. Mobile Media & Communication, 1(1), DOI: 10.1177/2050157912459492
  10. Dixon, N. (2018). Stranger-ness and belonging in a neighbourhood WhatsApp group. Open Cultural Studies, 1(1), 493-503.
  11. Donati, P. (2014). Social capital and the added value of social relations. International Review of Sociology, 24(2), 291-308. DOI: 10.1080/03906701.2014.933028
  12. Doolittle, A., & Faul, A. C. (2013). Civic engagement scale: A validation study. Sage Open, 3(3). DOI: 10.1177/2158244013495542
  13. Druck, A. (2021). As a hyperlocal form of social media, Nextdoor helps neighbours connect–but not always for the better. Debating Communities & Networks XII Conference, 1-9.
  14. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.
  15. Evans-Cowley, J., & Hollander, J. (2010). The new generation of public participation: Internet-based participation tools. Planning Practice & Research, 25(3), 397-408. DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2010.503432
  16. Evans-Cowley, J., & Manta Conroy, M. (2006). The growth of e-government in municipal planning. Journal of Urban Technology, 13(1), 81-107. DOI: 10.1080/10630730600752892
  17. Gatti, F., & Procentese, F. (2019). Dai bar alle app di dating online: un nuovo “luogo” di incontro e relazione? In C. Albanesi, D. Boniforti & C. Novara (eds.), Comunità Imperfette: dalle dinamiche disgregative al decision making comunitario (pp. 79-84). Bologna, Italy: Alma Mater Studiorum.
  18. Gatti, F., & Procentese, F. (2020a). Being Involved in the Neighborhood through People-Nearby Applications: A Study Deepening Their Social and Community-Related Uses, Face-to-Face Meetings among Users, and Local Community Experience. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2730, paper 5. -- http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2730/paper5.pdf
  19. Gatti, F., & Procentese, F. (2020b). Open Neighborhoods, Sense of Community, and Instagram Use: Disentangling Modern Local Community Experience through a Multilevel Path Analysis with a Multiple Informant Approach. TPM–- Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 27(3), 313-329. DOI: 10.4473/TPM27.3.2
  20. Gatti, F., & Procentese, F. (2021). Experiencing Urban Spaces and Social Meanings through social media: Unravelling the Relationships between Instagram City-Related Use, Sense of Place, and Sense of Community. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 78, 101691.
  21. Gatti, F., Procentese, F., & Mitchell, R. (2021). Prospettive di Connessioni Urbane*: a case study about using Instagram to keep in touch with urban places in Naples (Italy) during COVID-19 pandemic. In Mindtrek 2021: Academic Mindtrek 2021 (pp. 41-48). NY: ACM. DOI: 10.1145/3464327.3464346
  22. Gatti, F., Procentese, F., & Schouten, A. P. (2022). People-Nearby Applications Use and Local Community Experiences: Disentangling Their Interplay Through a Multilevel, Multiple Informant Approach. Media Psychology, in press.
  23. Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
  24. Gordon, E., & de Souza e Silva, A. (2011). Net Locality. Why Location Matters in a Networked World. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
  25. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. DOI: 10.1086/225469
  26. Granovetter, M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. V. Mardsen, & N. Lin (eds.), Social Structure and Network Analysis (pp. 105-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  27. Hampton, K. N. (2003). Grieving for a lost network: collective action in a wired sub-urb. Special issue: ICTs and community networking. The Information Society, 19(5), 417-428. DOI: 10.1080/71404468
  28. Hampton, K. N. (2007). Neighborhoods in the Network Society the e-Neighbors study. Information, Communication & Society, 10(5), 714-748. DOI: 10.1080/13691180701658061
  29. Hampton, K. N. (2016). Persistent and pervasive community: New communication technologies and the future of community. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(1), 101-124. DOI: 10.1177/0002764215601714
  30. Hampton, K. N., & Wellman, B. (2003). Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet supports community and social capital in a wired suburb. City & Community, 2(4), 277-311.
  31. Hampton, K. N., & Wellman, B. (2018). Lost and saved... again: The moral panic about the loss of community takes hold of social media. Contemporary Sociology, 47(6), 643-651. DOI: 10.1177/0094306118805415
  32. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based perspective. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  33. Hsiao, J. C. Y., & Dillahunt, T. R. (2017). People-nearby applications: How newcomers move their relationships offline and develop social and cultural capital. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, 26-40. DOI: 10.1145/2998181.2998280
  34. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. DOI: 10.1080/10705519909540118
  35. Ife, J. W., & Smith, M. (1995). Community development: Creating community alternatives ‒ Vision, analysis and practice (Vol. 182). Harlow, UK: Longman.
  36. Istat [Istituto Nazionale di Statistica] (2018). Rapporto Annuale 2018. La situazione del Paese. Loreto, Italy: Streetlib.
  37. Jarusriboonchai, P., Olsson, T., & Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. (2013). Roles, scenarios and challenges of social devices. Proceedings of the 2013 ACM conference on Pervasive and ubiquitous computing adjunct publication (pp. 1575-1578). DOI: 10.1145/2494091.2497364
  38. Jarusriboonchai, P., Olsson, T., Ojala, J., & Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. (2014). Opportunities and challenges of mobile applications as “tickets-to-tall” a scenario-based user study. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (MUM), 89-97. DOI: 10.1145/2677972.2677993
  39. Kavanaugh, A., Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., Reese, D. D., & Zin, T. T. (2005a). Participating in civil society: the case of networked communities. Interacting with Computers, 17(1), 9-33.
  40. Kavanaugh, A., Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., Zin, T. T., & Reese, D. D. (2005b). Community networks: Where offline communities meet online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4), JCMC10417.
  41. Long, D. A., & Perkins, D. D. (2007). Community social and place predictors of sense of community: A multilevel and longitudinal analysis. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(5), 563-581.
  42. López, C., & Farzan, R. (2015). From community networks to hyper-local social media. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference Companion on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 239-242). DOI: 10.1145/2685553.2699016
  43. Ludvigsen, M. (2006). Designing for social interaction. Spatial, Co-located Social Computing. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus School of Architecture.
  44. MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 201-226.
  45. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. NY: Simon and Schuster.
  46. Mäkitalo, N., Pääkkö, J., Raatikainen, M., Myllärniemi, V., Aaltonen, T., Leppänen, T., Männistö, M., & Mikkonen, T. (2012). Social devices: collaborative co-located interactions in a mobile cloud. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (MUM), Article 10, 1-10. DOI: 10.1145/2406367.2406380
  47. Mannarini, T., Talo, C., D’Aprile, G., & Ingusci, E. (2018). A psychosocial measure of social added value in non-profit and voluntary organizations: Findings from a study in the south of Italy. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(6), 1315-1329.
  48. Mayer, J. M., Hiltz, S. R., & Jones, Q. (2015). Making social matching context-aware: Design concepts and open challenges. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 545-554. DOI: 10.1145/2702123.2702343
  49. McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23.
  50. Mesch, G. S., & Levanon, Y. (2003). Community networking and locally based social ties in two suburban communities. City & Community, 2(4), 335-351.
  51. Nitsche, M. (2008). Video game spaces: image, play, and structure in 3D worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  52. Norris, P. (2002). The bridging and bonding role of online communities. The Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics, 7(3), 3-13. DOI: 10.1177/1081180X020070030
  53. O’Hara, K. P., Massimi, M., Harper, R., Rubens, S., & Morris, J. (2014). Everyday dwelling with WhatsApp. Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 1131-1143. DOI: 10.1145/2531602.253167
  54. Paasovaara, S., Lucero, A., & Olsson, T. (2016). Outlining the design space of playful interactions between nearby strangers. Proceedings of the 20th International Academic Mindtrek Conference, 216-225. DOI: 10.1145/2994310.2994344
  55. Paulos, E., & Goodman, E. (2004). The familiar stranger: anxiety, comfort, and play in public places. Proceedings of the CHI ‘04 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 223-230. DOI: 10.1145/985692.98572
  56. Procentese, F., & Gatti, F. (2019a). People-Nearby Applications and local communities: questioning about individuals’ loneliness and social motivations towards People-Nearby Applications. Journal of Community Psychology, 47(5), 1282-1294.
  57. Procentese, F., & Gatti, F. (2019b). Senso di Convivenza Responsabile: Quale Ruolo nella Relazione tra Partecipazione e Benessere Sociale? [Sense of responsible togetherness: Which role within the relationship between social participation and well-being?]. Psicologia Sociale, 14(3), 405-426. DOI: 10.1482/94942
  58. Procentese, F., & Gatti, F. (2020). From Gayborhoods to People-Nearby Applications: Sexual Minorities and Social Relationships. Psicologia Sociale, 15(1), 129-147. DOI: 10.1482/96298
  59. Procentese, F., & Gatti, F. (2022). Sense of Responsible Togetherness, Sense of Community, and Civic Engagement Behaviors: Disentangling an Active and Engaged Citizenship. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 32(2), 186-197.
  60. Procentese, F., De Carlo, F., & Gatti, F. (2019a). Civic Engagement within the Local Community and Sense of Responsible Togetherness. TPM ‒ Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 26(4), 513-525. DOI: 10.4473/TPM26.4.2
  61. Procentese, F., Gatti, F., & Falanga, A. (2019b). Sense of responsible togetherness, sense of community and participation: Looking at the relationships in a university campus. Human Affairs, 29(2), 247-263.
  62. Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  63. Quan-Haase, A., Wellman, B., Witte, J. C., & Hampton, K. N. (2008). Capitalizing on the net: Social contact, civic engagement, and sense of community. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life (pp. 291-324). ‎ Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  64. Raymond, C. M., Kyttä, M., & Stedman, R. (2017). Sense of place, fast and slow: The potential contributions of affordance theory to sense of place. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1674.
  65. Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community psychology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  66. Sutko, D. M., & de Souza e Silva, A. (2011). Location‐aware mobile media and urban sociability. New Media & Society, 13(5), 807–823. DOI: 10.1177/1461444810385202
  67. Toch, E., & Levi, I. (2012). What can “people-nearby” applications teach us about meeting new people? Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp ‘12), 802-803.
  68. Tonkiss, F. (2014). Cities by design: the social life of urban form. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  69. Tonn, B. E., Zambrano, P., & Moore, S. (2001). Community networks or networked communities? Social Science Computer Review, 19(2), 201-212.
  70. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. NY: Basic Books.
  71. Uhlaner, C. J. (1989). “Relational goods” and participation: Incorporating sociability into a theory of rational action. Public Choice, 62(3), 253-285. DOI: 10.1007/BF02337745
  72. Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1982). Neighboring in an urban environment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10(5), 493-509. DOI: 10.1007/BF00894140
  73. Van De Wiele, C., & Tong, S. T. (2014). Breaking boundaries: The uses & gratifications of Grindr. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp ‘14), 619-630. DOI: 10.1145/2632048.2636070
  74. Weber, L. M., Loumakis, A., & Bergman, J. (2003). Who participates and why? An analysis of citizens on the Internet and the mass public. Social Science Computer Review, 21(1), 26-42. DOI: 10.1177/0894439302238969
  75. Williams, D. (2006). On and off the Net: Scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 593-628.

  • The power of connection: Resource and responsibility in the virtual community experience of Italian trans and gender‐diverse activists Christian Compare, Maric Martin Lorusso, Cinzia Albanesi, in Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology e2859/2024
    DOI: 10.1002/casp.2859
  • Suicide on Italian Instagram: Insights and implications for prevention and support Martina Olcese, Lorenzo Antichi, Francesco Madera, Paola Cardinali, Davide Prestia, Gianluca Serafini, Davide Dettore, Silvia Casale, Marco Giannini, Giovanni Martinotti, Laura Migliorini, in Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology e2844/2024
    DOI: 10.1002/casp.2844

Flora Gatti, Fortuna Procentese, Ubiquitous local community experiences: unravelling the social added value of neighborhood-related social media in "PSICOLOGIA DI COMUNITA’" 2/2022, pp 56-79, DOI: 10.3280/PSC2022-002004