8: Saving Marriages, Online

Group: Steven Matthews and Ben Finkle (of the yellow blog)

Source Thread:  
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.marriage/browse_thread/thread/625e9a6c38b75565/0b20232db627c227?q=troubled+marriage&lnk=nl&


Our Data:

%inter-rater reliability	0.9
	frequency	% of msgs	Braithewaite
Information	11	55	31.3
Tangible Assistance	0	0	2.7
Esteem Suppor	4	20	18.6
Network Support	6	30	7.1
Emotional Support	8	40	40
Humor	2	10

We chose to look at a marriage-support thread.  We did this because we assumed we would have the most luck with a support thread (naturally), and marriage was one of the active topics on google (says something about marriage).  The specific thread we chose was titled "Troubled Marriage" where people can post specific difficulties their marriages are having, and get support and advice from the community.

Braithwaite created a method for analyzing group messages. In his methods there are several characteristics that supportive messages can have. These are:
Information
These include advice, referrals, teachings, and, well, information
Intangible Assistance
These are offerings of actual assistance, ex: “I will come over and help you do _____”
Esteem Support
These comments work to support the author’s individual self-esteem. Ex: compliments
Network Support
These kinds of messages tie in others with similar circumstances.
Emotional Support
This one is pretty self-explanatory. Offering support through affection, understanding, and motivation.

We agreed on the vast majority of our coding, and when we talked it over, it was usually one of us had erred, and read over something too quickly, or missed a more subtle meaning in the text.  We didn't dispute over any of our codings.   

Our data matches the findings of Braithewaite pretty well.  Our only statistically significant deviation fell in the line of network support.  We found a lot more network support than Braithewaite.  We attributed this to the fact that many people are married, and its easy for people to relate their own experience, and the experience of their spouses to other peoples problems.  We also found more informational messages than Braithewaite and this is due to a similar reason.  On this thread, people were specifically asking for advice, not just support.  This lent itself to information based responses.  

Our emotional support was right on target with Braithewaite, and we tied emotional support into the SIDE model studied in class.  A lot of the contributors to the thread had a lot in common whether it was positive relationships, negative relationships, or a career as a custodian (for what ever reason there were a lot on this thread.) This certainly created in groups and out groups, but there remained a high degree of group salience within each faction.  This lead contributers to be even more empathetic of their group, and even more prone to flaming those who disagreed.  

Overall, we found there to be some contributers who were very sympathetic and supportive, and some contributors who were very callous and antagonizing.  There was very little or no middle ground, and this is reminiscent of the cycle of over-attribution -> reconfirmation behavior.  

One interesting thing of note is the fact that we chose to also look at humor. While Braithwaite doesn't look at humor, it is interesting to look at as humor is an important part of human interaction. In our thread we found that about 10% of the messages included humor in them. At first glance, this is surprising considering that the posts were responding to a call for help about a struggling marriage. After reevaluating first impressions, perhaps humor isn't that surprising after all. With such an intense topic, perhaps some thread members felt it necessary to lighten the mood a bit before contributing advice. With regards to theories, we weren't quite sure what to attribute this to, but perhaps humor emerges from difficult situations, especially in interactive group settings.

Assignment 8

Group Members:
Matt Rawding (Brown Group)
Emily Etinger (Blue Group)


In this assignment, we examined social support in online spaces. The space we examined was a thread in Google Groups, Eating - alt.support.depression, about a father who had a young daughter who wasn't eating. He was looking for advice on how to get his daughter to eat. This thread contained many messages from various people and each message contained some aspect of support as defined by Braithwaite et al. We found that the most common aspect of social support was "information" in the messages. We also didn't find any messages containing "tangible assistance" or "network support."


There were some similarities between our results and the results in the Braithwaite et al study. In the study, "tangible assistance" and "network support" were the least common traits in support messages, and our findings were similar. Because our sample size was so small, we didn't even have any examples of either trait. In the messages we examined, we found that 40% of them contained emotional support, which is the same amount that the study found. However, the main difference between our results and the results in the study was the percentage of messages that contained "information." Our study found that 90% of the messages had "information" whereas Braithwaite et al only found 31.3% of the messages to contain "information." One reason for this could be that the members of the thread that we examined didn't know each other very well. In a forum where members post often and develop online relationships, it is more likely that the messages there will have "emotional support" or "esteem support" and less "information." There was also one person in this thread who posted very short messages, each with only "information" on how to resolve the problem, but no support in other forms. All of the messages we read exhibited at least one of the social support traits.



The creator of the thread is sharing something very personal over the internet, and strangers are more than willing to respond and give advice. These actions align with social distance theory. People are more willing to open up and share details about themselves over the internet than they are face-to-face. The creator of this thread was able to get advice from strangers without having to leave their home (assuming they own a computer), advice they would not have received if they had spoken face-to-face with someone they knew. Another interesting thing we noticed about threads was that many of them are not very active. Wallace explains this with her theory of numbers on the internet. She says that someone reading a thread may not respond because that person will believe there are many other people willing to help so it is not important for them to respond.

Assignment 8: Coding Social Support

Group Members:
Brianne Gilbert (blue blog)
Jennifer Niesluchowski (red blog)

Rebecca Wilson-Flewelling (brown blog)


We decided to test Braithwaite et al’s theory regarding social support by selecting a site that was dedicated to people who have “experienced the loss of a loved one to cancer”. See group thread at http://members.boardhost.com/grief/ - specific messages from “Just really missing my friend this week”, “Mom, I miss you. Need you a lot right now”, and “What a week: a wake, a funeral, physio post surgery, an MRI, Herceptin”. There were many posts by an individuals who have lost a loved one to cancer, their friends supporting and/or praying for them. There were also people who seemed to frequent the site and comment on specific posts to offer their support/ understanding of that particular person’s situation (assuming they too have lost a loved one to cancer). Lastly, there were people who are currently diagnosed with cancer who have also added their grief to this site as well, in search for some support.

We based our analyses on Braithwaite et al’s coding scheme is based on five categories: Information, Tangible assistance, Esteem support, Network support, and Emotional support. Our results are as follows:

Our results vary greatly (aside from tangible assistance) from Braithwaite et al’s conclusion where the categories read as: 0.313, 0.027, 0.186, 0.071, and 0.040 respectively. The majority of our posts were unquestionably recognized for their emotional and network support. Many people would show their emotional support by offering their prayers, showing sympathy, empathy, understanding, even affection with posts sealed with “hugs and kisses” as a “signature line” or within the message itself. Network support was showed by people (friends of the posters) giving the poster a sense of their presence, and messages ensuring that they are easily assessable in these times, and, of course, companionship was shown as well. Our lowest frequency and percentage of messages came from Tangible assistance (similar to Braithwaite et al’s conclusion, but different amounts). There was no concrete evidence regarding any direct tasks to help anyone; however, there were some instances where people would express their willingness to help the person with their grief and letting them know they are there for them.

Overall, we found that we had a 40.83% inter-rater reliability amongst each other based on these messages which showed that there is low reliability involved. Braithwaite et al had declared that any percentage greater than 70% would prove a vast amount of reliability and, like in our case for instance, anything less that 70% would prove that there is a lot of room for discrepancy.

Grieving with Lost Ones

During the examination of support groups for grief, we learned of how people responded to tragedies. Google has set up a network for people grieving the loss of a loved one so that they can share the coping and express their feelings with people in the same position.

We examined 20 messages in total, deciding whether or not each message contained the following kinds of support: Information, Tangible assistance, Esteem support, Network support, Emotional support, and Humor. Each message was examined and evaluated by myself and Brendon. With this information, we were able to summarize our findings into the following data:


% inter-rater reliability 97.5

Frequency % of messages
Information 17 85
Tangible assistance 3 15
Esteem support 16 80
Network support 18 90
Emotional support 20 100
Humor 0 0

After finishing the examination of the support group, we found the inter-rate reliability to be remarkably higher than necessary in order to be reliable. Our results showed 97.5% of our responses were the same, while only 70% are necessary for a reliable study. After comparing our results with Braithwaite et al., the categories of information, and humor were exactly the same. We had slight difference of opinions regarding the esteem, network and emotional support. After reading the original post of where a son lost his mother, people began to validate his sorrows with similar situations and begin an outpour of grief. The subsequent posters replies were of the nature that they have gotten to know each other better because of previous postings. I believed that this reaction had to do with network support, rather than the opinion of Brendon which was esteem support.
Sympathetic signals were evident in every post that we examined. Most of the messages that people posted were offering their condolences and also explaining their own situations and how they have had to cope with their loss. This demonstrated strangers offering emotional support to one another in order to help deal with the tragedies they have encountered.
Since many of the posters have been through similar situations in their lives, they offer sympathy and support for each other. It is unclear whether or not their support goes beyond the message board but it seems evident that it helps these victims in dealing with their tragedies. The results of coding these messages reveal that they are interpreted similarly amongst viewers such as me and Brendon.

Note: Also posted by Brendon Nash (Purple)



Messages 1-4: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.grief/browse_thread/thread/d7e2643e134fdcd1/80bdf281940aa060#80bdf281940aa060
Messages 5-15: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.grief/browse_thread/thread/9a538c2985bc13f8/b177ce017f6127c2?lnk=raot#b177ce017f6127c2
Messages 16-20: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.grief/browse_thread/thread/37ea8da439b7a96b/ffc842cbdbe9947f?lnk=raot#ffc842cbdbe9947f

A8 – Coding Social Support

Joseph Kerekes – jck46 Blue blog Chris McNally – csm44 Blue blog

Sources for data:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.amputee/browse_thread/thread/3db7171292d75e0e/dbd657e16dc5b130#dbd657e16dc5b130

posts 2,3,4

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.arthritis/browse_thread/thread/e4e580a018e196e2/075586b2c045ce80#075586b2c045ce80

posts 2,3,4,5

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.ocd/browse_thread/thread/aef0a323f26ff6fd/ef3876b989bfd6c3#ef3876b989bfd6c3

posts 2,3,4

http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.support.cancer/browse_thread/thread/11082c983df18920/ac2da9d8a5d4c417

posts 2,5

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.cancer/browse_thread/thread/ab26bcf37c5dfd1b/f879d39d8d6206a8

posts 1,8

http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.support.cancer/browse_thread/thread/660d9471cf61f095/bb433910c4ae5838

post 2

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.cancer/browse_thread/thread/18613d66f863a182/74cb30645918169f

post 2

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.cancer/browse_thread/thread/16d90a621dbdf205/8e2bc44ddebba566?lnk=raot

post 2

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.stop-smoking/browse_thread/thread/2dc2c7cca1c09f71/a0eaf51f713c4db7?#a0eaf51f713c4db7

post 5

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.alzheimers/browse_thread/thread/d61eed53d1b32dc7/5f170165eccc7920

post 2

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.alzheimers/browse_thread/thread/198708fba412b3f8/379c1c9647966285

post 5

Our inter-rater reliability was around what Braithwaite’s study found, at 83.3%. The percent of messages for each supracategory were different, but the top three categories of our study were the same as Braithwaite’s. This was somewhat expected, as 20 posts is a rather small sample size compared to the 1100 or so posts Braithwaite’s study coded. The numbers were expected to be different. It was surprising to find no tangible or network support messages, as well as no humor in our post selections, but tangible and network had very low percentages in the main study, so with a small sample size it is not unreasonable to not see them surface. The humor was not numerically analyzed by the study, but the coders in the Braithwaite study indicated that humor was an important part of how the disability support group functioned. In our examination we found that humor was not present in any of the posts we chose. This may have been a function of the groups we chose to analyze, or the smaller sample size of our analysis.

Under examination through Walther and Boyd's four dimensions of attraction to online social support we find strong support for the theory in the comments and threads analysed. Many posters seemed very forthcoming and the responses to threads usually seemed to strength that candidness by the four dimensions.

Some people responded very analytically and professionally to certain posts, for example in post 12 of plasmacytomas. This lends weight to the social distance component of Walther's dimensions in that people believe that advice from strangers will be more objective. All posters seemed to us a pseudonym or simply a first name. This represents the anonymity component of Walther and Boyd's theory. People were forthcoming with there problems as thread starters and as responders trying to provide esteem support. As for interaction management, the third dimension, the forum provides for posters to post and read at the leisure, hours apart. There are a fair amount of posts that use relatively normal grammar and vocabulary with little internet jargon and short cuts hours or days apart. This shows a level of focus on the writing of the post that reflects a certain level of craftsmanship of the text. Finally, the last dimension, access, was reflected in the postings as people were posting in the early morning, afternoon, night, all the time. It is easy to see the convenience of being able to post whenever one has a problem.

Overall we can see a strong undercurrent of Walther and Boyd's four dimensions in the sample of posts that we reviewed for coding.

8 - Coding Dissociation Online

Mallory Biblo: Red Blog
Kristina Moore: Blue Blog
Brianne Winngate: Purple Blog

Braithwaite et al. (1999) coded messages found in an online support forum for those with disabilities in order to measure social support in online groups. Our group blog coded messages found in a Google support room for those individuals suffering from a dissociative disorder.

Google Groups – alt.support.dissociation
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.diabetes/topics?lnk=gschg

The six online group support factors we observed were:
1.) Information (support providing other individuals with advice, referrals, situation appraisal and teaching)
2.) tangible assistance (support in which one shows active participation either by performing a direct task or expressing willingness to assist others)
3.) esteem support (support in which others strengthen another individual’s importance, competence and rights through compliments)
4.) network support (support connecting similar others)
5.) emotional support (support for an individuals emotions by giving affection, encouragement, prayer, etc.)
6.) humor

Our findings are attached below:

% inter-rater reliability 0.608333333
frequency % of msgs
Information 16 0.8
Tangible assistance 4 0.2
Esteem support 15 0.75
Network support 16 0.8
Emotional support 19 0.95
Humor 3 0.15


Our results differ from Braithwaite et al’s. (1999) results in a number of ways. Braithwaite found information support to appear extremely frequently, accounting for 31.3% of social support providing in an online support group. We observed information support to appear much more frequently, for it was observed in 80% of all messages. Both Braithwaite and our group found that tangible and network support were not observed very frequently, each appeared in less than 10% of all messages. Our group coded a much higher rate of esteem support than Braithwaites’s online group (75% as compared with 18.6%). Additionally, emotional support was given much more frequently in our dissociation group (95%) as compared with Braithwaite’s disability group (40%). On the other hand, humor was observed much more frequently in Braithwaite’s messages and rarely observed in our messages. Braithewaite’s inter-rater reliability (80%) was 20% higher than our groups inter-rate reliability (60%). These percentages are expected because we had difficulty fully understanding the meaning of these new terms and the messages were extremely ambiguous.

Wallace’s numbers states that increased numbers reduce helping behavior. This happens because of a decrease in “noticeability,” the use of other people to interpret our environment, and the diffusion of responsibility. We can relate Wallace’s numbers to our findings in Google’s dissociation support group because even though there were only a few posters in each group, there were high levels of emotional and esteem support. These few posters felt more socially obligated to provide the other few individuals in their group with support because it is a smaller online community. The messages relate also to the four dimensions of attraction to online social support found by Walther and Boyd. These four dimesions are: social distance, anonymity, interaction management, and access. Social distances allows for the appreciation of the greater expertise available in the larger online social network. This was clearly seen in our messages, people asked for and respected advice of others in the online world. Anonymity allows for increased ability to avoid embarrassment and increased confidence in providing support. The posters of the messages wrote extremely personal things probably because the other individuals in the group didn’t really know who they really are. Interaction management allows users to appreciate the ability to craft messages carefully and to read at their own confidence. Posters were able to take the time to write what they wanted other to see and could read other posts at their own convenience. The forth dimension, access, allows people to get support online whenever they want or need it. Posters of the messages we read could post messages or read others’ messages 24/7.

8 Inter rater reliability

Group: Me (of course), Elliot P., Greg

I tried for 20 minutes to get this document to post as a tble and if its not working now, its not going to. I could do PDF, but my ratty old laptop is already slow enough.

As for the link: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.stop-smoking/browse_thread/thread/46389dc65d77ae2b/e4bbdb87e60c933c?hl=en#e4bbdb87e60c933c
It is a support post on google for quitting smoking. It had an overall 35 posts, but we did the first 20 after the initial one.



Results:
% inter-rater reliability
0.725
frequency
% of msgs
Information
6
0.3
Tangible assistance
0
0
Esteem support
10
0.5
Network support
0
0
Emotional support
10
0.5
Humor
7
0.35



We found that this was more an exercise in experimental design and less an aspect of social psychology. Although design is important to any scientific field, psychology has a special need for it because it is in such a delicate balance to have empirical evidence to support intangible theories (i.e. why Freud may lose a lot of support). The intercoder reliability for our team was relatively high, but could have been a little better. No one can expect perfection, but I personally would have been happier with closer to a .8. We all always strive for a little better, and the quality of our results, though statistically significant, may come into question in any criticism of our findings.



Our group viewed esteem and emotional support as closely tied and had a hard time distinguishing them since we rated the 9/10 of the same messages as having both, or the rest having none. This subjective aspect is supposed to be corrected by using more than one grader, but I personally am still a bit skeptical (possibly stemming from my own initial ambiguity).


We discovered, similar to Braithwaite, that tangible and network support were least offered (or not at all). This strikes me that in such various forms of support that the results seem to hold true. It also reinforces the findinggs of Braithwaite in a small way. I must also admit that I was surprised that our results concurred because I am always a skeptic of results, but our own group found them reliable and validated them.

We all agreed that Wallace's number theory has too many holes in it. None of us agree with it and have seen no empirical evidence to make us do so. We feel this theory is very weak and un thought out. Wallace overextends a small case (Kitty Genovese) and the subsequent theories and mistakenly applies it to CMC. This may be of value in some contexts, but proves drastically wrong here.

As for Walther's Social Distance, Anonymity, Acccess, and Impression Management: We feel that these are somewhat more in line with our findings than Wallace, though we almost completely agree with Braithwaite. We all liked this theory, and looking at individual posts we could find individual instances of each of these. It reminds us of one of the first studies we did with the Big 5 on breadth and intensity. With further research, possibly Braithwaite and Walther could find similar aspects in their theories and form a more cohesive one.

For now, our findings support Braithwaite mainly. With little else to go on, hi theory is most true based on our observations.