Observing the evolution of technology usage

From 2004 to 2008 Researchers at Swisscom have asked more than 500 people, from all age groups, life stages, professional, linguistic, and regional backgrounds, to keep a record of all their communications, with the exclusion of professional exchanges and face-to-face conversations. Participants have been asked to keep a diary for four days, jotting down every mediated interaction. This includes dialogues that occurred via SMS, email, voice calls on the landline and mobile phone, and IM sessions or calls from the PC. For each exchange we asked participants to indicate whom they've communicated with, which channel they used, what topic they discussed, and other critical information about the call. We have then gone back to discuss the diary with the participants individually, in order to understand, line by line, why they chose one channel of communication over another.

One of the striking features of their results is the concentration of conversations and exchanges among very few partners. The diversity of channels, in most cases, does not include a diversity of interlocutors on a daily or weekly basis. Multiple channels are being used with the same partners for different situations and contents.

Over a period of four days, participants report an average of 35 to 40 private exchanges, all channels taken together. Some of these exchanges can be very short, like an SMS, and some can be an hour-long IM session, but all of these interactions are concentrated among a few people. Although on average the number of interlocutors mentioned in the diaries ranges between seven and 15, most of the contacts are concentrated among five people. This is particularly true when we look at voice calls from the mobile phone. The qualitative data and quantitative data indicated that 80 percent of the calls of any one phone were made to four people. Written channels such as SMS and email seem to be slightly more spread out in terms of the number of communication partners.

 But who are the 4 or 5 people being contacted with such frequency? Not surprisingly, the communication partners on which there is the strongest concentration represent the participants' closest ties. They are part of what we call the inner circles of respondents' personal networks. 

Similar figures are mentioned in other studies made in other Western countries. (Spencer and Pahl, 2006).When asked to draw a map of their personal social network, respondents of all ages tend to write the 20 names of the people they feel closest to, and these for the most part are also the people with whom they are in contact frequently.

The 2004 Social Ties survey in th USA asked about the size of respondents social networks, including "very close"(what we call their "core ties") or "somewhat close"( what we call their "significant ties"). Respondents reported that they have on average a mean of 23 core ties and 27significant ties.  The median number of core ties is 15. The median number of significant ties is 16.

As Spencer and Pahl discussed, these ties can include a mixture of family members, and friends in different proportions. They can also include people who live far away, friends that have not been seen for years or even  some who are deceased.  Around this core group are then mentioned other significant ties, friends that are less intimate or relatives, but can also include siblings to which one feels less close.

The relationship to these different people can also be of different nature, some friends or kin can be soul mates to whom everything is disclosed, others can be fun friends with whom having a good time is the basis of the relation. Some people in the close circle can be people on which you can count on for any event in life. In fact Spencer show that the more diverse is the typology of relations, the happier the individuals feel.

Spencer and Pahl argued that the size of the network is not very important but that the more diverse is the typology of relations, the happier the individuals feel. People who only have one or two family members in their core network are less happy not because their network is too small but because they lack a certain variety of interactions and emotions. More diverse networks are also more supportive as they offer individuals a greater range of experiences.

Fischer, C. (1982) To dwell among friends Berkeley, University of California press.

 Spencer, L., Pahl, R. (2006) Rethinking friendships. Hidden solidarities today,  Princeton University Press

 Wellman, B., Tindell, D. (1993) How Telephone networks connect social networks.  pp.63-94 in Progress in Research, volume 13 edited by George Barnett and William Richards Norwood, NJ: Ablex