The document discusses how social networks have changed with the rise of the internet. Some key differences between traditional and online social networks include speed of information spread being faster online, the possibility of anonymity online, degrees of separation being smaller, and the non-restrictive nature of geography online. The author hypothesizes that these changes may lead people to select friends more based on shared interests rather than proximity. Experimental results also suggest people find strangers more likeable when sharing traits rather than just being geographically close. In general, the internet may free social networks from physical limits and proximity as the main factor in relationships.

1. Jacques Launay
SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ON
THE INTERNET: THE
DECLINE OF PROPINQUITY

2. HUMAN SOCIALITY
 Social networks have always been important to humans
 They are important for social support and health, and spreading
important information
 So it is perhaps unsurprising that some of the major
developments on the internet are about this (Facebook!)

3. HUMAN SOCIALITY AND THE INTERNET
 Humans have some specific adaptations for social interaction
(without the Internet)
 So we might use the Internet to enhance the things that we
enjoy, and delegate the tasks that distract us from most
pleasurable parts of social behaviour (e.g. Cyborgs)
 By studying Internet based social behaviour we can understand
the limitations of human sociality, and the most relevant aspects

4. HUMAN SOCIALITY AND THE INTERNET
 The internet has changed some features of social networks,
while other features persist
 I will outline a few of the changes and the influence these
changes might have…

5. Feature Traditional Social
Networks
Online Social
Networks
Speed of
information spread
Relatively slow Fast
Anonymity Not anonymous Anonymity is
possible
Degrees of
separation
6? 4?

6. Feature Traditional Social
Networks
Online Social
Networks
Memory Limited… (although
written records?)
Unlimited…
Transient
relationships
Transience is easy Transience is
harder…
Geography Restrictive Non-restrictive

7. CONSEQUENCES?
 While we can be more anonymous on the Internet, reputation
within a network can spread fast and get round to people
quicker…
 Also, relationships can persist longer (more memory), so we
should be more careful within our network
 So we can be less well behaved in an anonymous situation but
have to behave much better in non-anonymous
 We are no longer restricted by physical (geographical) limitations
on our social network

8. SO…
 As our relationships will last longer we should carefully select
those we like most
 AND we don’t have to be restricted by geography but can
befriend those we share interests with
 Friendship should be more based on common interests…

9. PROPINQUITY
 Propinquity is the tendency to like people that we are
geographically close to…
 But this is surely a consequence of induced homophily?
 So what happens now we have a choice?

10. EXPERIMENTAL WORK
 What traits most attract us to strangers [online]?
 Comparison of people we share many traits and few traits with,
and of different types of trait.
 How does sharing different traits influence ratings of likeability
of a partner?

11. RESULTS
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
No shared 5 inc Area 5 inc Mus
Partner likeability
Number and type of shared traits

12. SO…
 The internet can free us from the geographical limits that have
previously been a restriction on who we can interact with?
 Needs some further exploration
 No physical space at all on the internet, so maybe other things
can become important…

13. AND…
 A useful approach to understanding human behaviour on the
internet is to identify features of social networks
 Have these changed or stayed the same?
 What does this suggest about human nature, and tendencies
regarding social networks