How have digital developments impacted the way in which the Millennial generation network? by jordanmawhood

How have digital developments impacted the way in which the Millennial generation demographic network and communicate? What impact has this had on communities, percieved value of relationships and psychological health?

Jordan Mawhood

How have digital developments impacted the way in which the Millennial generation demographic

network and communicate? What impact has this had on communities, percieved value of relationships and psychological health?

Author Declaration I declare that this project is all my own work and the sources of information and the material I have used (including the internet) have been fully identified and properly acknowledged. I also declare that the hard copy and online submission of the project are identical to one another. A BA (Hons) Research Project Submitted by Jordan Mawhood In partial fulfilment of the requirements of award of BA (Hons) Fashion Branding and Communication Faculty of Architecture, Art and Design Arts University Bournemouth 2020/2021 Supervisor: Karen Ryan Submission Date: 8th January 2021 Word Count: 4525

Student signature:

abstract

The aim of this study is to ascertain how the development of digital networking has altered the ways in which Millennials network and build

acknowledgements

communities, both professionally and socially, and to research whether or not this has had any kind of significant impact on the perceived value of relationships, based on the digital origin rather than a more organic offline origin. Qualititive research for this paper takes the form of surveys sent out using Survey Monkey within the aforementioned generation group of Millennials for primary research as well as a close examination of Nicholas Negraponte’s 1995 book ‘Being Digital’ and a comparison of his theories on the post-information age, and existing studies of a similar nature to this one, against the reality we are now seeing. Findings in this research project demonstrated a significant difference in the value placed on online relationships as opposed to those built offline.

While many people are currently feeling a level of isolation induced by the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, this has had a notable impact on the way that Millennials are interacting. Due to social distancing regulations, many relationships which may have formed more organically and would usually have a more face to face element to them, have been forced to take to other means of communication, often resulting in these relationships becoming more digital. This research stands to influence policy makers in the industry as well as learning or teaching in the higher education sector. As well as this, it will have implications for app developers or technology based companies, leading in to journalists working for brands such as LSN, WGSN and Mintel, this will be significant to consumers. Through this research, we are able to ascertain whether there are social and psychological implications of digital networking and how Millennials perceive the value of relationships built purely through digital platforms, as opposed to more organically cultivated relationships. This is something that is critical in understanding the networks or communities created both socially and professionally for the younger generations of today. Paper Type - Research paper Key Words - Commitment, Communities, Consumer Relationship, Digital Networking, Millennials, Networking, Perceived Value, Psychological Health, Relationships, Trust.

Thank you to all the tutors, tech dems, visiting lecturers and my peers on BA (Hons) Fashion Branding and Communication. You have all inspired, encouraged and bought joy to the time I have been fortunate enough to spend at Arts University Bournemouth. Special thanks should go to Karen Ryan and Sarah James for their support and teachings in this project, and most importantly for answering even the most ridiculous of questions on Teams with clarity and without even a glimmer of resent at having to explain something so trivial. Thank you to my family for being so understanding of a considerable lack of social skills or patience on my part during this project, and one final thanks that can truly not be put into words, to my pug cross terrier, Jarvis, for being the best study buddy a girl could ask for.

table of contents Title Page ............. 2 Author Declaration ............. 3 Abstract .............4 Acknowledgements ............. 5 Contents ............. 6 List of Figures ............. 8 List of Abrieviations and Acronyms ............. 9 1. Introduction ............. 10 2. Literature Review ............. 11 2.1 What is an SNS and what are the history of them? ............. 11 2.2 The motivators behind using social media sites for different individuals. ............. 11 2.3 Are there similarities or differences between online and offline relationships? ............. 12 2.4 How SNSs have changed relationships and communities ............. 13 2.5 what are the psychological outcomes or ramifications from this? ............. 13

3. Research Methodology ............. 14 3.1 Introduction ............. 14 3.2 Research Design ............. 14 3.3 Research Ethics ............. 15 3.4 Data Analysis ............. 15 4. Results, Findings and Discussions ............. 16 4.1 Introduction ............. 16 4.2 Do SNS’s encourage narcissistic behaviour in the Millennial generation? ............. 16 4.3 Does the SNS platform impact Millennials ability to convey their point when communicating? ............. 16 4.4 Do SNS platforms allow for a level of anonymity that means the Millennial generation feel more able to express their true self through CMC communication than through face-to-face communication? ............. 16 4.5 Are Millennials using SNSs to establish new relationships, and if so, does the origin of the relationship have an impact on the perceived value of it? ............. 17 5.1 Research Conclusion ............. 18 5.2 Limitations and future research recommendations ............. 19 Appendices ............. 12 List of References ............. 24

list of fIgures

Fig 1 - Question 1 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Fig 2 - Question 2 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Fig 3 - Question 3 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Fig 4 - Question 4 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

list of abrieviations and acronyms CMC - Computer Mediated Communication MOO - MUD Object-Oriented MUD - Multi User Dungeon SNS - Social Network Site Fig 5 - Question 5 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Fig 7 - Question 7 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Fig 6 - Question 6 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Fig 8 - Question 8 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

introduction

2.1 What is a social network site and how and when did they originate?

literature review

Social Network Sites developed on from MUDs and MOOs, a term first used in 1979 as an abbreviation of Multi-User Dungeons and then later, MUD Object-Oriented (Negraponte, 1995), both of which Negraponte described as a ‘“third” place, not home and not work’ (1995). We now define SNSs as ‘web-based services’ (Boyd. D. M, Ellison. N. B, 2008) including the key features of allowing consumers to build their own profile, connect with other users on the platform, which are often referred to as ‘contacts’, ‘friends’ or ‘followers’, (ibid, 2008) as well as to be able to observe activity from their connections in what is most commonly referred to as a ‘news In a world increasingly dominated by the use of social networking. The

are communicating or expressing themselves, and whether or not their

aims of this research project will be to take a closer examination of the

chosen platforms allow them the opportunity to do this effectively.

10 altered the methods in which the Millennial generation demographic

ways that digital developments, in specific, social networking sites have

During the current Covid-19 pandemic, the majority of the world has, at some point, been in some kind of lockdown, a term that can refer to any-

now choose to network. With an increasing number of Millennials now

thing including, but not limited to, mandatory quarantines, localised tier

engaging heavily with platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok

systems, stay home recommendations, closure of non-essential business-

and professional networking platforms such as Linked In, it leads us to

es and bans on mass gatherings, (Kaplan, Frias, McFall-Johnsen, 2020)

question the impact this is having on social interaction, both on and

thus meaning for most people, communication has become, by default,

offline, as well as how it is altering the process of making connections

primarily through the use of computer-mediated communication, rather

and whether relationships of any nature, when initiated online, have a

than face-to-face interactions due to the government enforced guidelines.

lesser perceived value than those which begin face-to-face. This research

This increased usage of CMC could pose potential threats for face-to-face

paper will use qualitative research methods to explore and establish the

communities post-pandemic when social interaction becomes safer

psychological impact that the increased usage of SNS’s is having on the

without the risk of the virus spreading.

Millennial generation and changes in the ways in which they feel they

feed’, a term coined by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in 2006. (Mohan. P, 2016) As explained by Danah M Boyd and Nicole B Ellison in Social Networking Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship, ‘While networking is possible on these sites, it is not the primary practice on many of them,’. Instead ‘Most sites support the maintenance of pre-existing social networks’. For this reason, I will be opting to use their terminology of ‘social network sites’, over the also commonly used ‘social networking sites’ in support of their point. Boyd and Ellison define Sixdegrees.com as the first platform that has the characteristics we would now describe as an SNS, launched in 1997. Taking features made popular by other platforms, it enabled users to create their own profiles, display a list of their connections, and later, from 1998, they were then able to look at the ‘friends’ lists of their connections. Following on from Six Degrees, Friendster, a similar platform, came later. While it was initially popular with the early adopters, once it became mainstream, many of the long term users chose to leave the site due to overpopulation damaging the community they had created. (2008)

2.2. What are the motivators for different individuals to use SNSs? According to Bargh and McKenna, ‘The main reason people use the internet is to communicate with other people…to maintain interpersonal relationships (Hampton & Wellman. 2001, Howard et. Al. 2001, McKenna and Bargh 2000, Stafford et. al. 1999) Similarly, for many users of SNSs, their motivation comes from the intricate sense of a community which has developed on these online platforms. Negraponte explained that

‘The true value of a network is less about information and more about community. The information

of the individuals involved, have an impact on the outcome of any

there are many other ways that a user could announce their change in

superhighway is… creating a totally new, global social fabric’ (1995) Studies have, for the most part,

exchange, however, the effects of both factors can vary substantially

relationship status on other platforms, for example by posting a picture

found that relationships and communities developed on an SNS, are comparable to face-to-face

depending on the social context. In contrast to these points, McKenna et.

of them and their partner to their grid on Instagram, (Lorenz, 2017) this

communities. (Bargh, McKenna, 2004) One place this can be seen is in Nancy Baym’s article, The new

al. (2002) found that in a survey of 600 participants using SNS’s, many

does not signify the level of commitment or stage of the relationship

shape of online community: The example of Swedish independent music fandom. Baym argues that

of them had reported building a close relationship with someone they

development in terms of being what is now commonly referred to as

contrary to popular belief, we are not operating as one mass community online, there are however

had met online, often stating that they were better able to express their

‘official’ (ibid, 2017). The risks related to choosing whether or not to

much smaller communities, often operating much like subcultures, where individuals involved in these

“true selves” to individuals they met online with more ease than they

make a relationship ‘Facebook official’ (ibid, 2017) are often now viewed

communities will ‘interlink at multiple levels’ across a range of sites. (Baym, 2007) In addition to the

would have been able to in a face-to-face environment. For many, this is

as a complicated minefield that must be navigated as part of modern

sense of community which can be derived from SNSs, in Self-presentation and Belonging on Facebook:

due to the sense of anonymity that exists online. In a virtual space where

dating practices. A user of SNS platforms risks ‘leaving … [their]other half

How personality influences social media use and motivation, Gwendolyn Seidman (2012)outlines the

you can be anyone, it is also possible to remain unidentifiable to your

feeling dejected’ (Scott, 2017) if they opt not to progress the relationship

two key motivations for consumers to engage in using Facebook as an SNS, these being; belonging (or

online counterpart. This lack of ability to be identified allows for easier

in terms of this social norm.

social interactions) and self-presentation. The belonging element of this is believed to be a key driver in

self-disclosure without risk, an act which in itself promotes a sense of

what makes consumers use these platforms as it enables peer acceptance and relationship development

intimacy. (Bargh, McKenna, 2004)

(Yu, Tian, Vogel, & Kwok, 2010) and boosts self-esteem. (Gonzalez, Hancock, 2011; Steinfeld, Ellison,

Manago and Vaughn (2015) suggest that Facebook in particular is

Lampe, 2008) Alongside this, Facebook activities that accomplish self-presentation goals include posting

responsible for encouraging acquaintanceships rather than friendships.

photographs, profile information, and wall content (Zhao, Grasmuck, Martin, 2008) whereas those

The fact that on SNS platforms, it is often impossible to differentiate

which are typically related to a sense of belonging are ‘communicating with and learning about others’

varying levels of closeness with individuals who are categorised under

(Seidman, 2012)

the same umbrella term of ‘friends’, means that people are left with a

2.3 Are there similarities or differences between online and offline relationships? Many studies have suggested that CMC is ‘an impoverished … form of social exchange’, (Bargh,

large network of acquaintances whom they may know well enough to

2.5 What are the psychological outcomes or ramifications from the increased usage of SNS’s as one of the main routes of communication in the Millennial generation?

hold a short conversation with, however, very few true friends.

2.4 How SNSs have changed relationships and communities.

McKenna, 2004) which often leads to miscommunication of the points trying to be conveyed. One

Buss (2002) has suggested that the move we have made from living in tight-knit communities with daily face-to-face interaction, to a digital network of people we interact with has created a radical shift in our lifestyles, and that these types of shifts can have a negative impact on human happiness. (Buss, 2002, Manago and Vaughn, 2015) This being

such study that exemplified this was carried out by Thompson and Nadler. (2002) When conducting

The word community holds different meaning depending on its

said, however, the communities that Reich (2010) examined showed

out ‘e-negotiation[s]’ (Bargh, McKenna, 2004) research has shown that as soon as one party has sent

application, however, for the most part, it is used to define a group who

that for those struggling with physical or mental health problems,

communication, they assume that the opposing party has read and understood the content of said email,

are tied by place, shared interest or emotional commitment. (Reich,

these communities proved to be beneficial for improving their health.

thus any delay in responding to this must be purely with the intention of causing conflict or offence.

2010) Research into online communities have found similar qualities

Postmes and Spears (2002) argued that the CMC nature of SNS’s

(Bargh, McKenna, 2004, Thompson, Nadler, 2002) While this study pertained to a workplace interaction,

to those which can be observed offline, however, according to Reich

leads to depersonalisation rather than deindividuation. The large

the same theory can still be related to social interactions through the use of SNS. Prior to the development

(2010) adolescents’ use of SNS’s ‘represents networked individualism

groups developed to have their own group-level identities, meaning

of today’s SNS’s, Kiesler and colleagues (Kiesler et. al. 1984) carried out research into the anticipated

rather than online communities.’ Similar to Nancy Baym’s ideas which

individuals lost their own identity, instead assuming that of the group

effects of e-mail communication within a professional environment. This research initially suggested that

were previously mentioned, (Baym, 2007) While many argue that the

they subscribed to. In their study on friendship and happiness in the

individuals were more prone to ‘aggressive and hostile exchanges’ when using CMC, (Bargh, McKenna,

increased role that SNS’s play in our lives has developed the ‘lonely

Millennial generation in relation to social media sites, Manago and

2004) caused by a lack of consideration for normal social rules of conduct when conversing over email.

crowd’, (Nie, Erbing, 2000) Kavanaugh and Patterson deduced from a

Vaugh (2015) found that SNS’s encourage behavior of a narcissistic and

However, later research from Walther et. al. (1994) and Postmes and Spears (1998) contradicted the initial

2001 study that ‘the longer people are on the Internet, the more likely

self-focused nature due to being so consumer centered and allowing

research, stating that the use of aggressive behavior was “over-reported” in Kiesler’s studies (ibid, 2004).

they are to use the Internet to engage in social-capital-building activities’.

them to curate their self-presentation. Social scientist, Carol Craig,

Three groups of thought on the matter suggest differing impacts of CMC and SNS’s on social interaction.

As well as these developments, the increased relevance of SNS’s in the

has stated that ‘young people in Britain are becoming increasingly

The first, Sproull and Kiesler (1985) stated that CMC was an impoverished form of communication that

day to day lives of Millennials has seen a change in linguistics used when

narcissistic and Facebook provided a platform for the disorder.’ (Pearse,

left people feeling deindividuated. The second, Spears et. al. (2002) focused on demonstrating how the

talking about romantic relationships. There is now often the question in

2002) This leads us to think that it is less so the SNS’s at the cause of the

goals of the individuals involved in the communication have more power in determining the outcome

the initial stages of a relationship of whether it has become ‘Facebook

issues, and more that they give a voice or platform to those who already

than the method of communication itself. Finally, Bargh (2002), Bargh and McKenna (2002) and Spears

official’, (Moran, 2016) as one of the only platforms that allows users to

have disorders.

et. al. (2002) all suggest that both the method of communication, in this case, CMC, as well as the goals

include their relationship status as a key feature of their profile bio. While

research methodology 3.1 Intro Primary research is an invaluable tool in ascertaining whether or not there have been developments in the ways in which the Millennial generation demographic choose to communicate since the first emergence of social network sites. The primary research within this paper analyses the ways in which Millennials now communicate through the use of SNS’s, who they are communicating with, be that friends they have met organically, or friends they have met through the use of digital platforms, how they are using these platforms, whether to maintain social relationships with individuals they already know, networking in order to build better business connections or social networking to create new relationships. The goal is also to ascertain whether or not there is a difference in the perceived value of relationships created online rather than offline.

3.2 Research Design While many methods of collection of primary research would be applicable for this paper, data will be collected through the use of surveys distributed with surveymonkey.com, from which the results will be collated and analysed. The main reason for this, being that it will allow participants to submit data anonymously. Whereas in a focus group, participants would be organised and put together by the author, meaning said author would naturally have some understanding of who they are. By collecting this data through a Survey Monkey survey, a link can be sent out to potential participants, as well as posted on SNS platforms, however, there will be no definitive way to know which potential participants responded to the survey or what their responses were. Allowing individuals to anonymously submit data for research gives a more accurate reading of their feelings on SNS platforms, due to the fact that many of the questions I will be asking are on subjects some participants may feel uncomfortable talking about, were their name to be associated with the research. For this reason, while the research must be carried out in a way that ensures all participants fall into the Millennial generation demographic and use SNS’s, these are the only factors that have been ensured to be consistent throughout. Research using a survey was put to 20 participants, meaning that once this number of responses were submitted, the survey was closed, as this is a sufficient number of individuals to base findings on in terms of qualitative research. This paper focuses on the Millennial generation as this is the generation demographic who grew up with SNS’s as a crucial part in much of their formative years. (Moran, 2016) Often referred to as ‘Digital

Natives’ (ibid, 2016) these are the young people who were ‘raised in a digital, media-saturated world’. (ibid, 2016) While there are conflicting arguments as to who exactly is categorised within this generation, for the sake of this study ‘Millennial’ will follow the birth year bracket defined by Harriet Posner in Marketing Fashion : Strategy, Branding, and Promotion. (2015) This classification puts those born between 1982 and 2002 within the category of the Millennial generation. Participants will naturally be from a relatively broad cross-section of society within the selected age bracket by linking the survey on both personal and study based Instagram profile bios and stories of the author. This will also ensure that the survey is responded to by Millennials who are actively engaging with SNS platforms as it will be advertised on one.

3.3 Research Ethics To ensure that research for this paper took into account ethical practices, the survey was conducted in a way that ensures the rights of others were respected, the law, and the correct storage of research. Privacy has been protected through retaining anonymity for all participants of the research survey, as well as ensuring that the responses are collated and released for this paper only. Due to the total anonymity of the participants of the survey, it would have been difficult to obtain consent forms for all participants, however, in opting into the survey, we can assume that they were consenting to the data they supply being used for the outlined purposes. In order to ensure that participants were not lead by the answers of fellow participants, the survey was carried out remotely, meaning they were not able to confer on answers, nor did they know who else was taking part, thus further ensuring no conferring could take place. The data showing other participants’ answers was visible to all who had submitted responses, however, it was only after they had finished the survey, to which they could not edit the answers they had given, meaning they could not be influenced by this data in their answers.

3.4 Data analysis Data collected is analysed to link with the themes that each question in the survey covers from the literature review in this paper. Questions were written to explore key points from the research which has been discussed as well as the research question of this paper, in order to best form a conclusion. These questions are then bundled into themes which are broken down as sections in part four of this paper.

results, fIndings and discussions 4.1 Introduction Research carried out using a survey with Surveymonkey.com linked cohesively with existing data that has been discussed earlier in the paper.

4.3 Do SNS’s impact on Millennials ability to convey their point when communicating?

Data gathered for the purpose of this paper has reinforced many of the existing points which have been made in prior research, confirming

Based on the research conducted for this paper, the results illustrated that

much of the anticipated outcomes, while also illuminating some

seventy-five percent of the Millennials asked, felt that the platform which

developments or unexpected outcomes of the research.

they were using to communicate, be this Instagram direct messages,

4.2 Do SNS’s encourage narcissistic behavior in the Millennial generation?

Facebook Messenger, Twitter Direct Messages, or many more of the platforms used by this generation, had a negative impact on their ability to communicate the point they were making, (fig 4) when conversing digitally. While research for this paper does not delve into why this is the case, or how much it is impacting the relationships which are built or

While a great deal of existing research suggests that SNS platforms

developed further through the use of SNS platforms, it is crucial to note

encourage narcissistic behavioral patterns in the Millennial and Gen

that this is having an impact on communication, in particular, that it is

Z generations, (Bergman, Fearrington, et. al., 2011) the responses

causing miscommunications. This contradicts existing research by Bargh

submitted to the survey show evidence of a greater proportion

and McKenna, (2004) which as stated in section 2.3 of this paper, the use

of Millennials using SNS’s to ‘communicate with friends/family/

of SNS’s gave a feeling of anonymity to individuals using the platforms

acquaintances through messages or directly sharing posts with them

which meant they felt more comfortable to express themselves.

(creating a sense of community or belonging).’ This behavior has previously been linked to the ‘drive to form and maintain relationships’ in order to ‘enable peer acceptance and relationship development’ as a fundamental part of the ‘need to belong’. (Seidman, 2012) Only ten percent of the participants of the survey stated that they used SNS platforms in order to ‘Post pictures/upload about your own life, share posts on your own feed or stories (self-presentation).’ This factor would be linked to narcissistic behavior as ‘Research has shown that popularityseeking users tend to disclose information on Facebook (Christofides, Muise, & Desmarais, 2009; Utz, Tanis, & Vermeulen, 2012), engage

4.4 Do SNS’s allow for a level of anonymity that means the Millennial generation feel more able to express their true self through CMC communication than through face-to-face communication?

in strategic self-presentation, and enhance their profile (Utz et. al., 2012).’ (Seidman, 2012) Furthering this point, a study published in

In line with the existing studies which were examined in the literature

the journal Personality and Individual Differences, (Caprenter, 2012)

review of this paper, research carried out for this study showed that there

stated that those who score high on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory

is an increased feeling of anonymity when communicating through

questionnaire ‘had more friends on Facebook, tagged themselves more

SNS’s when compared to face-to-face communication, (fig 5) and that

often and updated their newsfeeds more regularly.’ (Pearse, 2012)

this allows users to feel safer in disclosing information pertaining to their

Further to this research, as mentioned in section 2.4 of this paper,

‘true selves’. (McKenna et. al., 2002) Further to this, participants of the

Manago and Vaughn (2015) linked SNS’s to narcissistic behavior due to

survey were asked if they felt that they were more comfortable disclosing

the consumer-focused nature of the platforms.

something on an SNS that they might not say to someone’s face. The results of this question (fig 6) showed that this too was something that was impacted in communicating through the use of CMC as fifty-five percent of Millennials asked (fig 6) felt that they could discuss matters over CMC that they would feel unable to do in a face-to-face setting.

4.5 Are Millennials using SNSs to establish new relationships, and if so, does the origin of the relationship have an impact on the perceived value of it? While the research for this paper showed that some Millennials are using SNS platforms to build new friendships or network for business purposes, it largely highlighted that they are using them to support and reinforce existing relationships that have been created in the offline world. (Fig 7) Expanding upon this point, the Millennial participants of the survey openly stated that of the relationships that were built through SNS platforms, 66.67% (fig 8) of them felt that these relationships had a lesser value than ones that had an offline origin. This contradicts much of the existing research which was examined in the literature review, with Reich (2010) having stated that there was little difference to be observed between online and offline relationships.

research conclusion Limitations

limitations and future research recommendations

Limitations within this research project were due to a number of reasons; firstly, the small number of participants when conducting the survey. While the paper focuses on using qualitative research collection to establish data, only twenty participants were questioned for the survey, all of whom were people known to the author. This meant that many of the participants were from a similar background and within roughly the same age, rather than across the whole range of the Millennial age bracket. For future research and to better establish if the points raised in the research for this paper are a true reflection of the ways in which digital developments have changed the ways in which the whole of the Millennial generation now communicate, a larger cross-section should be taken of the demographic from a wider range of segmentation variables such as race, ethnicity, level of affluence or poverty, and religion.

Future Research Recommendations Further research should be carried out into how the platforms used are affecting the Millennial generation’s ability to communicate over CMC and convey their point when conversing and how much this causes This research project expanded on existing research that had been carried

to existing research, according to the participants of this paper’s survey,

out in the area, both affirming some prior research while providing

relationships created online have a lesser perceived value to those

contrasting results to other studies. While SNS’s can be seen to be a

involved in them than those which are created offline in face-to-face

platform that not only allows, but in some cases, encourages narcissistic

contexts. (Fig 8) In terms of the psychological ramifications of using SNS

behavior in users, it appears from data collected that the majority of

platforms for communication, this does not appear to have had the same

the Millennial participants of the survey carried out for this report were

negative impact on many Millennial’s mental health that a vast amount

using platforms for tasks that do not align with those which are deemed

of previous research would have us believe. Evidence of this comes in

to be encouraging said narcissistic behavior. Instead, they are looking

how infrequently users of the demographic are engaging in activities on

to build communities online, (fig 3) more often than not, comprising of

SNS platforms which have been linked to narcissistic personality traits

individuals with which they have preexisting offline relationships. (Fig

(Bergman, Fearrington, et. al., 2011) as well as their own admission of

7) Having analyzed the data collected, it can conclusively be stated that

feeling they are better able to express their ‘true selves’ (McKenna et.

communicating through CMC does have an impact on how Millennials

al., 2002) when communicating online due to the anonymity it offers

feel they are able to convey a point in the conversation (fig 5) and that

them. While it cannot be firmly stated that SNS’s have not had negative

this can sometimes be lost due to the nature of digital communication

ramifications for the Millenial generation, due to the changes they have

rather than face-to-face, (fig 4) however, it does allow them a better ability

made in the aforementioned groups networking techniques, it can be

to reveal their ‘true selves’ (McKenna et. al., 2002) due to the anonymity

conclusively said that it is not in the same ways much previous research

which comes as a part of communicating using an SNS. (Fig 5) Contrary

had defined.

miscommunications that alter or have a negative impact on relationships. As well as this, an extension into the research carried out for this paper on the perceived value of online relationships as opposed to offline relationships should be pursued. While it is now clear from the survey that a greater value is given to organically created bonds, it is not yet clear as to why this is, and the repercussions this will have for the future in a world where CMC hosted on SNS platforms is becoming evermore the social norm. Due to the current pandemic, we are experiencing globally, CMC looks to be the go-to for much of social interaction for the near future. This has the potential to impact communities worldwide, should the differences in digital networking as opposed to face-to-face networking, have longterm consequences even post-pandemic when we are able to communicate more freely, and without current social distancing and lockdown regulations which are being enforced by the government. Thought should be given to investing time into studies that could predict circumstances in which CMC rather than physical networking, has long-term ramifications for communities globally as well as the impact this would likely have on long-term psychological health.

Appendices

Participant 1 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Participant 4 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Participant 2 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Participant 5 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Participant 3 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Participant 7 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Participant 8 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Participant 6 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Participant 10 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Participant 11 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Participant 9 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Participant 12 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Participant 13 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Participant 14 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Participant 15 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Participant 16 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Participant 19 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Participant 20 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Participant 17 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

Participant 18 Mawhood, J. H., 2020

list of references

Amichai-Hamburger, Y. and Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social network use and personality. Computers in Human Behavior. Vol. 26 No. 6. pp. 1289–1295 [online]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.018. Bargh, J.A. and McKenna, K.Y.A. (2004). The Internet and Social Life. Annual Review of Psychology. Vol. 55 No. 1. pp. 573–590 [online]. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141922. Baym, N.K. (2007). The new shape of online community: The example of Swedish independent music fandom. First Monday [online]. https://doi. org/10.5210/fm.v12i8.1978 [Accessed 29 November 2020]. Bergman, S.M., Fearrington, M.E., Davenport, S.W. and Bergman, J.Z. (2011). Millennials, narcissism, and social networking: What narcissists do on social networking sites and why. Personality and Individual Differences. Vol. 50 No. 5. pp. 706–711 [online]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.022. boyd, danah m. and Ellison, N.B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Vol. 13 No. 1. pp. 210–230 [online]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x. Carpenter, C.J. (2012). Narcissism on Facebook: Self-promotional and anti-social behavior. Personality and Individual Differences. Vol. 52 No. 4. pp. 482–486 [online]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.011. Greetham, B. (2014). How to Write Your Undergraduate Dissertation. Basingstoke, UNITED KINGDOM: Palgrave Macmillan [online]. Available from: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aib/detail.action?docID=4762988 [Accessed 20 November 2020]. the Guardian (2012). Facebook’s ‘dark side’: study finds link to socially aggressive narcissism [online]. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/ technology/2012/mar/17/facebook-dark-side-study-aggressive-narcissism [Accessed 22 November 2020].

Nie, N.H. and Erbring, L. (2002). INTERNET AND SOCIETY: A PRELIMINARY REPORT. Vol. 1 No. 1. p. 9. Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society. SAGE Publications. Vol. 11 No. 1–2. pp. 199–220 [online]. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444808099577. Posner, H. (2015). Marketing Fashion : Strategy, Branding and Promotion. London: Laurence King Publishing, 2015. v. Second edition [online]. Available from: http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzEwNzc2MTBfX0FO0?sid=784dda69-8fe7-42ce-9619-402a64322aa3@ sessionmgr103&vid=0&format=EB&rid=1 [Accessed 16 December 2020]. Postmes, T., Spears, R. (1998) Deindividuation and Antinormative Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. [online] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232560381_Deindividuation_and_Antinormative_Behavior_A_Meta-Analysis Reich, S.M. (2010). Adolescents’ sense of community on myspace and facebook: a mixed-methods approach. Journal of Community Psychology. Vol. 38 No. 6. pp. 688–705 [online]. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20389. Scott, E. (2017). The steps of revealing your relationship on social media, ranked. Metro [online]. Available from: https://metro.co.uk/2017/05/13/thesteps-of-revealing-the-person-youre-dating-on-social-media-ranked-from-least-to-most-serious-6619820/ [Accessed 18 December 2020]. Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences. Vol. 54 No. 3. pp. 402–407 [online]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.009. Valdez, J., Datu, J. and Datu, N. (2012). Does Facebooking make us sad? Hunting relationship between Facebook use and depression among Filipino adolescents. International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology. Vol. 1. pp. 83–91 [online]. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrset.2012.202.

135–40 [online]. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0389.

Walter, J. B., Anderson, J. F., Park, D. W. (1994) Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction. A Meta-Analysis of Social and Antisocial Communication [online] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243774914_Interpersonal_Effects_in_Computer-Mediated_InteractionA_Meta-Analysis_of_Social_and_Antisocial_Communication

Hampton, K., Wellman, B. (2001) Long Distance Community in the Network Society. [online] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2377463_ Long_Distance_Community_in_the_Network_Society

Yu, A.Y., Tian, S.W., Vogel, D. and Chi-Wai Kwok, R. (2010). Can learning be virtually boosted? An investigation of online social networking impacts. Computers & Education. Vol. 55 No. 4. pp. 1494–1503 [online]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.015.

24Guillory, J. and Hancock, J. (2012). The Effect of Linkedin on Deception in Resumes. Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking. Vol. 15. pp.

Kaplan, J., McFall-Johnsen, M., Frias, L., (2020). Our ongoing list of how countries are reopening, and which ones remain under lockdown [online]. Available from: https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-on-lockdown-coronavirus-italy-2020-3 [Accessed 3 January 2021]. Kavanaugh, A.L. and Patterson, S.J. (2001). The Impact of Community Computer Networks on Social Capital and Community Involvement. American Behavioral Scientist. Vol. 45 No. 3. pp. 496–509 [online]. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027640121957312. Kiesler, S. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist. p. 12. https://pdfs.semanticscholar. org/53c1/e1983ed064d73a8fc86adedb79ccce7793f2.pdf?_ga=2.199269166.1279666113.1608049129-707971348.1606432602 Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A. and Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social Media & Mobile Internet Use among Teens and Young Adults. Millennials. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Pew Internet & American Life Project [online]. Available from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED525056 [Accessed 26 November 2020]. Lorenz, T. (2017). Going “Instagram official” is the new way to declare your relationship status [online]. Available from: https://medium.com/@taylorlorenz/going-instagram-official-is-the-new-way-to-declare-your-relationship-status-a64f89f7fadc [Accessed 18 December 2020]. Manago, A. and Vaughn, L. (2015). Social Media, Friendship, and Happiness in the Millennial Generation. Friendship and Happiness: Across The LifeSpan and Cultures. pp. 187–206 [online]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9603-3_11. Mawhood, J. H., (2020) Available from: https://www.surveymonkey.com/analyze/gv6QBLB4paeF1PNjBdU8O6NCl8i13IM2_2BVPLBlv_2BPXg_3D?show_dashboard_tour=true&source=dashboard_list. SurveyMonkey Analyze - How have digital developments impacted the way the millennial generation network? [online]. [Accessed 6 January 2021]. Mohan, P. (2016). Facebook’s News Feed just turned 10 [online]. Available from: https://www.fastcompany.com/4018352/facebooks-news-feed-justturned-10 [Accessed 29 November 2020]. Moran, K. (2016). Social Media Natives: Growing Up with Social Networking [online]. Available from: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/social-media-natives/ [Accessed 17 December 2020]. Moran, K. (2016). Millennials as Digital Natives: Myths & Realities [online]. Available from: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/millennials-digital-natives/ [Accessed 17 December 2020]. Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. London: Hodder & Stoughton.