Members: Lina Lee (Blue), Jennifer Yao (Purple)
Description
The study conducted by Braithwaite, Waldron, and Finn documented types and the extent of social support messages exchanged by people with disabilities in a computer-based support group. To determine whether the patterns that were found are generalizable to other groups, we coded 20 postings from a thread that discussed a male who is concerned with dating someone who practices polygamy by focusing on the following six forms of supportive behaviors.
Messages that convey instructions such as a) advice, b) referrals to experts, c) situational appraisal and d) teaching.
Tangible Assistance
Offers that lend physical action such as a) performing a direct task, b) active participation and c) expressing willingness.
Network Support
Messages that appear to broaden the recipient’s social network, by “connecting him or her to others with similar interests or situations.”
Esteem Support
Messages that validate the recipient’s “self-concept, importance, competence, and rights as a person.”
Emotional Support
Messages that include attempts by the sender to express sympathy, support and emotional expressions.
*Humor (not included in Braithwaite et. study)
Messages that are intended to amuse including jokes, sarcasm, and irony.
| | | | | | |
| % inter-rater reliability | 0.825 | | | ||
| | | | frequency | % of msgs | |
| Information | | 16 | 70% | | |
| Tangible assistance | 0 | 0% | | ||
| Esteem support | | 6 | 30% | | |
| Network support | | 0 | 0% | | |
| Emotional support | 18 | 50% | | ||
| Humor | | | 5 | 25% | |
| | | | | | |
Results and Analysis
Based on the analysis of the coding data, inter-rater reliability came out to .825, which is above the chance agreement (.70). This means that agreement on the six forms of supportive behaviors was not by chance and therefore, statistically significant.
The results of our study indicate that in general certain types of mediated social support are more often exchanged than others but the differences between Braithwaite et al. and ours imply that some forms of support used in discussions about relationships compared to messages concerning disabilities are relatively unique.
Unlike Braithwaite et al., information messages were the most frequently found, constituting 70% of total support messages, whereas Braithwaite et al. noted emotional support to be the most prominent. This may be because emotional support is more likely given when the recipient is experiencing distressful circumstances that are not controllable while informational support will be more useful to the male who can choose whether or not to date one who practices polygamy.
Network support was more prominent in messages concerning disabilities (7.1%) than in our study (0%). Network support was high for people with disabilities because due to their physical limitations they cannot find network support ftf as they would online and so it is a highly valued support. The reason why we found 0% is because sexual orientation is less visible and not really talked about and so it may be difficult to even know someone who is polygamous.
Similar to Braithwaite et al, that found a small frequency percentage for tangible assistance (0%). Similar to Braithwaite et al., tangible assistance was least commonly used. Given the lack of physical proximity, offering tangible support is difficult
Unlike Braithwaite et al., we included humor, which came in fourth constituting 25% of the messages. Humor may have been found because people perceive relationship issues as less serious and sensitive and therefore are more likely to include jokes.
Connecting to Theories
According to Wallace, an increased number of people result in reduced helping behavior due to individuals having decreased "noticeability" as well as diffusion of responsibility. This theory contrasts with Walther and Boyd which states that individuals are more prone to social support online. Based on the social support thread based on polygamy, Walther and Boyd were correct. Walther and Boyd's four dimensions were identifiable in the thread; the relevancy is as follows:
1. social distance: The creator of the thread stated that he had never talked to anyone about his own concerns in being with someone who practices polygamy. The social distance of the Google groups mostly likely served as a comfort because it does not require physical interaction.
2. anonymity: Anonymity allowed him to divulge his concerns while those who supported him divulged personal situations as well without fear of embarrassment.
3. interaction management. Users were able to edit their responses and take more time responding, which allows for users to have more control over what they say.
4. access: The thread is available 24/7, which allows the user able read support and advice whenever desired.
Thread:
No comments:
Post a Comment