From Earth to Solaria
and Back
The evolution of social interactions in the Internet era
Fabio Sabatini
Sapienza University of Rome
Department of Economics and Law
Congresso Iberoamericano de Sistemas de Conhecimento
Vale dos Vinhedos - Bento Gonçalves, Brasil
October 27, 2011
Social Capital Gateway
http://www.socialcapitalgateway.org/
you can download my papers from:
http://www.socialcapitalgateway.org/editor
This presentation will be largely devoted to the role of the Internet
in the accumulation of social capital.
All references can be retrieved (and freely downloaded) at the url:
http://www.socialcapitalgateway.org/internet
Solaria
• Solaria is a fictional planet Isaac Asimov
described in the Foundation and Robot
series.
• It was the last of the fifty worlds to be
colonized by the so-called Spacers, a line
of space colonists.
• After centuries of sustained economic
growth boosted by an unbounded
technical progress, Solaria developed
the most eccentric culture of the colonies.
Solaria
• Originally, there were about 20,000 people
living alone in vast estates.
• Solarians’ lives were marked by technology:
citizens never had to meet, save for sexual
contact for reproductive purposes.
• All other contact was accomplished by
sophisticated holographic viewing systems, with
most Solarians exhibiting a strong phobia
towards actual contact, or even being in the
same room as another human.
• All work was done by robots: there were indeed
thousands of robots for every Solarian.
Solaria
• As centuries went by, economic growth and
technical progress made Solaria become even
more rigidly and obsessively isolationist. The planet
cut off all contact with the rest of the Galaxy
(although continuing to monitor hyperspatial
communications).
• Its inhabitants genetically altered themselves to be
hermaphroditic in order to avoid sexual contacts.
• At the final stage of Solarian civilization, the human
inhabitants disappeared, giving the impression that
they had died out (although they had in fact
withdrawn underground). Their estates continued
to be worked by millions of robots.
Growth, technology and
the risk of “dehumanization”
• Asimov draws on the Solaria metaphor to
warn against the risks of dehumanization
that may be caused by excessive
economic growth and technological
progress.
• In the 1950s, Asimov’s novel well embodied
the common fear according to which
technology would have progressively
destroyed social interaction.
Today, October 27, 2011
• Today, our lives are marked by technology almost
as those of Solarians, and – despite the spreading
of some criticism - growth is still the policy
makers’ pole star.
• The widespread diffusion of broadband, the internet
revolution, and the true explosion of online networks
like Facebook, Twitter, and Flickr create growing
worries about the risk of relational poverty.
• The folk wisdom pointing to technology as one of
the major responsible of the widespread social
isolation of our time has get stronger and stronger,
walking at the same pace of technological advance.
What is happening to social interactions?
•
•
According to the earlier sociological literature on the Internet, communication
technologies may lower the probability of having face-to-face contacts with family,
neighbours, or friends in one’s home.
Wellman et al. (2006) note that internet usage may even interfere with
communication in the home, creating a post-familial family where family members
spend time interacting with computers, rather than with each other.
The supposed decline in social capital
• Robert Putnam (1995; 2000) has
documented how most indicators of
social capital followed an inverted
U path in the United States during
the twentieth century.
• During the first two thirds of the
century “Americans took a more
and more active role in the social
and political life of their
communities”, and they behaved in
an increasingly trustworthy way
toward one another (2000, p. 183).
• Then, beginning in the 1960s and
1970s and accelerating in the
1980s and 1990s, an erosion of the
stock of American social capital
started.
The supposed decline in social capital
Putnam discusses 3
main explanations for
this inverted-U trend:
1) Pressure on time and money
2) Mobility and sprawl
These phenomena have been considered in the
economic literature as channels through which
economic growth can cause a reduction in
social connectedness.
3) Technology and mass media
Technology has made news and
entertainment increasingly individualized.
“Electronic technology allows us to consume
hand-tailored entertainment in private, even
utterly alone … the time allocation of Americans
massively shifted toward home-based activities
(especially watching TV) and away from
socializing outside the home” (2000, pp. 216217 and 238).
The negative social externalities of growth
• It is possible to argue that the pressure on time exerted
by economic growth acts as a factor hampering the
consolidation of social ties, thereby leading to an erosion
of the stock of social capital.
• Routledge and von Amsberg (JME, 2003) show that the
technical change and innovation generally associated to
growth influence social capital by rising labour mobility:
higher levels of turnover may hamper the
consolidation of social ties, both inside and outside
the workplace.
• Moreover, the uncertainty of future incomes related to
increased mobility affects any form of long-term planning
of life activities such as marriage and procreation.
The negative social externalities of growth
•
•
An early account of this process is given by Fred Hirsch (Social Limits
to Growth, 1976): “As the subjective cost of time rises, pressure for
specific balancing of personal advantage in social relationships will
increase ... Perception of the time spent in social relationships as a
cost is itself a product of privatized affluence.
The effect is to crowd out friendship and social contact ... The huge
increase in personal mobility in modern economies adds to the problem
by making sociability more of a public and less of a private good”.
The negative social externalities of technology
• Conventional wisdom suggests that growth’s
perverse effects on social cohesion are bound to
be exacerbated by technical progress (Solaria
syndrome).
• In an interview to the New York Times, Robert
Putnam stated that “The distinctive effect of
technology has been to enable us to get
entertainment and information while remaining
entirely alone.
• It’s fundamentally bad because the lack of social
contact means that we don’t share information
and values and outlook that we should”.
Why should economists care about social capital?
• One of the more intriguing theses standing from the debate is that
trust and social capital are key factors for making the economy work
in the right way.
• The economy’s ability of “reproducing” itself, thereby experiencing
sustainable growth, depends also on its ability to foster - or, at least,
to preserve - its endowments of social capital.
• A summary of the mechanism:
a) a social environment rich of participation opportunities is a fertile
ground for nurturing trust and shared values, where repeated
interactions foster the diffusion of information and raise reputation’s
relevance.
b) The higher opportunity cost of free-riding in prisoners’ dilemma kind
of situations makes the agents’ behaviour more foreseeable causing
an overall reduction of uncertainty.
c) Therefore, an increase in trust-based relations reduce monitoring
costs and, more in general, the average cost of transactions, specially
the highly trust-sensitive ones (e.g. those ones taking place in the
financial market).
d) In the long run, such a mechanism may boost growth and
development.
Why should economists care about social capital?
• The reverse effect that growth and development
exert on the accumulation of social capital is a
surprisingly (and guiltily) neglected topic in the
economic debate (…).
• It is logical to argue that the mechanism works along
two directions: not only social capital feeds growth
and development: growth and development create,
shape, destroy social capital as well. In other words,
the mechanism is circular.
• This presentation will try to provide some hints on
the conditions under which such a social capitalfed development can be sustainable in the long
run or, in other terms, when the social capital 
trust  development cycle may be able to self-feed.
Why should economists care about social capital?
• Sustainable development can be defined as a
process for improving the range of opportunities
that will enable individual human beings and
communities to achieve their aspirations and full
potential over a sustained period of time (i.e.
in the long run), while maintaining the resilience
of economic, social and environmental systems.
• We could adapt this definition of sustainable
development to our framework by stating that
development is sustainable as far as it does
not erode the stock of social capital of the
economy.
Bibliographical references on the relationship between social capital and economic
growth are available at the url http://www.socialcapitalgateway.org/growth
A model: Antoci, Sabatini and Sodini (2011, JEBO)
• We assume that, in each instant of time t, the wellbeing of the individual depends on the consumption of
two goods: a private (or material) good, Ci(t), and a
socially provided (or relational) good, Bi(t).
• Even if private and relational goods satisfy different
needs, the private good can be consumed as a
substitute for the relational one.
• For example, when the social environment is poor,
people may be constrained to replace human
interactions, e.g. joining the meetings of a cultural
circle or playing football with friends, with private
consumption, e.g. staying at home and watching TV or
playing a virtual match against the computer.
Definition of relational goods
• Relational goods are a distinctive type of
good that can only be enjoyed if shared
with others. They are different from private
goods, which are enjoyed alone (Uhlaner
1989). Following Coleman (1988, 1990),
we assume that social participation (i.e.
the production/consumption of relational
goods) generates social capital as a byproduct.
Model: Private vs. relational goods
• We assume that Bi(t) is produced through the joint action
of the time devoted to social activities, the average
social participation, and the stock of social capital:
• The time agent i does not spend for social participation, is
used as an input in the production of the private good.
Moreover, we model the claims of the empirical literature
by assuming that SC plays a role in private production:
Model: Private vs. relational goods
• The instantaneous utility of the representative agent is
represented by the following CES function:
U (C, B)  [C

1
  
 (1   ) B ]
i.e. agents’ well-being depends on private and relational
goods.
• We assume that private goods can satisfy both
private and social needs. On the contrary, relational
goods cannot satisfy primary needs such as food,
security, clothing, and shelter.
Model: Private vs. relational goods
• As we state in the introduction, these goods serve different
needs. However, we introduce the possibility that private
goods substitute for relational ones in the satisfaction of
social needs, or, at least, for compensating the
deprivation of human interactions. For example, a material,
highly technology intensive, good like a playstation can
(partially) console for the unavailability of 21 friends to play
football on a sport field.
• The extent to which such a substitution process can take
place is given by   11 measuring the (constant) elasticity
of substitution between B and C. We will address two cases:
• Low substitutability between B and C (θ > 0). In this
situation, material and relational goods are complements.
• High substitutability between material and relational goods
(θ > 0). We will refer to this case by saying that B and C are
substitutes.
Model: accumulation of social capital
• Following hints from rational choice sociology, we assume
that most of the times the creation of social ties does not
depend on rational investment decisions. Social capital is
accumulated as a by-product of social participation.
• Following hints from political science, we assume that the
production of private goods exerts a positive spillover on
social capital’s accumulation.
• Since human relations need care to be preserved, we
introduce a positive SC’s depreciation rate η to account for
their possible cooling over time:


K s  I ( s , K s )  K s  s K s  K s
Model: accumulation of social capital
• The resulting stock is a public resource, which enters
as an argument in every agent’s utility function due to its
ability to contribute to the production of both private and
relational goods.
Model: the agent’s problem
• Letting r be the discounting rate of future utility, the iagent’s maximization problem is:

max  U (C , B )e rt dt
s (t )
0
• Under the constraint:
Y (t )  1  s(t ) K s (t )
• Since agents are a continuum, i takes the average
values of s, B, and Y as given.
• Please refer to the paper if you want to learn more
about the exact functional forms.
Model: exogenous technological progress
• In this framework, we introduce an exogenous
technological progress.
• We assume that technological progress raises
productivity in the production of both private and
relational goods.
• The assumption is based on the observation that
technology can help the production of relational
goods in a variety of ways.
Y (t )  1  s (t ) K s (t )T  (t )

B(t )  s (t ) s
1 
(t ) K s (t )T  (t )
• where T represents technological progress, growing at
the exogenous rate μ.
Results
•
If the following assumptions
hold:
A) There is positive
substitutability between B
and C
B) and Ks gives a significant
contribution to the production
of private goods.
C) and technological progress
contributes to the production
of material goods more than
to the production of relational
goods:
• Then the stock of social
capital may exhibit a
growth followed by a
decline, so that its
relationship with
technological progress is
described by an inverted Ushaped curve.
Results
•
If there is no substitutability
between B and C
•
Or if:
A) Ks contributes to the
production of relational goods
more than to the production of
material goods
B) and technological progress
supports productivity more
in the production of
relational goods than in the
production of material
goods:
•
Then, the stock of social
capital can unboundedly grow.
Interpretation of results
• The role of technology in social interactions.
• When can technological progress support the
production of relational goods more than the
production of material goods?
• In our view, this is the case for online networking, i.e.
participation to social networking sites such as
Facebook and Twitter.
Interpretation of results
• In the rest of the presentation, we will show:
A) how, in a world characterized by a rising pressure on
time, the evolution of human interaction implies a
partial shift from face-to-face interactions to Internetmediated interactions.
B) Why we do not have to worry about this change.
An evolutionary model (Antoci et al. 2011c and 2011d)
• We model a society composed by a continuum of
identical individuals. In each instant of time they choose
how to allocate their leisure time, p, which is
exogenously given, between two kinds of social
interaction.
• We assume that, in each instant of time t:
1) A share x(t) of agents embrace a social networking
strategy SN, i.e. their social participation relies both on
online networks and face to face interaction.
2) The remaining share of the population 1 – x(t) adopts
a face-to-face strategy FF: they do not interact online
and thus develop all their relationships through face to
face encounters.
Payoffs
• The payoff of the FF strategy depends on x(t) and on the
share of time devoted to social interaction, p.
• The payoff of the SN strategy depends on the share of
the population adopting it, x(t), on the time agents devote
to social participation, p, and on the wealth of ties - or, in
other words, the stock of social capital - of online
networks at time t, : Kn(t)
The Internet social capital as a public good
• The stock Kn(t) is a public good, in that it potentially
benefits whoever is connected to the Web and adopts the
SN strategy.
• A peculiarity of Kn(t) is that it allows asynchronous
interactions which may help people to reconcile working
activities and pervasive busyness with the need to take
care of social relationships. When individuals cannot meet
in person due to time differences (think, for example, of
people working on a night shift, or of friends living in
different hemispheres), the Internet social capital offers the
possibility of a quality though deferred interaction.
• What happens here is NOT the replacement of actual
encounters with deferred, more impersonal and less deep,
contacts.
• Rather, in this case the Internet social capital offers
individuals the possibility to preserve relationships
which would otherwise be unravelled by busyness,
distance, and the pressure of time.
Payoffs: further assumptions
• We assume that the payoff of the FF strategy decreases
as the share of the population adopting the SN strategy
grows.
• The payoff of the SN strategy increases as Kn, i.e. the
stock of the internet’s social capital, grows.
In other words, the more our friends join Facebook, the
higher the utility of subscribing to the platform will be as
well. On the other hand, being outside of the network
(i.e. continuing to play the FF strategy) may imply an
increasing relational cost.
Payoffs: further assumptions (the role of p)
• The more the time p available for social participation
declines, the more the SN strategy becomes
comparatively more profitable.
• By contrast, a growth in the time p for leisure makes the
FF strategy comparatively more profitable.
• If agents are forced to be deeply immersed in their
professional activities, the possibility to take care of
human relationships in spare moments (e.g., while on
the train, or at home before going to sleep) becomes a
precious means for the preservation of social life.
• SN can thus be interpreted also as a “defensive”
strategy that individuals adopt to protect their social
life from growing pressure on time.
Payoffs: further assumptions (the role of p)
• Please refer to the full papers for the
development of the theoretical framework:
- Antoci, A., Sabatini, F., Sodini, M. (2011b). See
You on Facebook! A framework for analyzing
the role of computer-mediated interaction in
the evolution of social capital. Submitted.
- Antoci, A., Sabatini, F., Sodini, M. (2011c).
Bowling alone but tweeting together: the
evolution of human interaction in the social
networking Era. Submitted.
Results of the analysis of the model
• We show that two “extreme” stationary
states are “attractive”:
1) (Kn, x) = (0, 0) all agents adopt the FF
strategy
2) (Kn, x) = [(pβ / γ), 1]: the stock of the
Internet social capital reaches its highest
possible level and all agents embrace the
social networking strategy.
Results of the analysis of the model
• In the two cited papers we
show that the basins of
attraction of the stationary
state where all agents chose
the SN strategy (and the
stock Kn representing the
wealth of knowledge and ties
of the Internet reaches its
highest level) expands as the
time p available for social
participation decreases.
• Internet-mediated
interaction can be seen as
a tool allowing individuals
to manage their social
relationships despite
increasing time pressures
and possible distance
constraints.
The yellow line moves towards the leftbottom part of the plane as p
decreases
Empirical evidence
• Early sociological studies on computermediated communication shared the fear that
the Internet would cause a progressive
reduction in social interactions, just as the
activity of watching TV does.
• The main argument shared by Internet skeptics
was based on the presumption that the more
time people spend using the Internet during
leisure time, the more time has to be detracted
from social activities (Katz et al. 2001; Nie et al.
2002, Attewel et al. 2003; Gershuny 2003;
Robinson and Martin 2010).
Empirical evidence
• Anonymization hypothesis (see Weber
1963 and Wirth 1938): the internet may
have the potential to fragment local
communities into new virtual realities of
shared interest that may negate the
necessity (or even the desirability) of face
to face encounters (SOLARIA
SYNDROME)
Empirical evidence
• The “anonymization hypothesis” has been challenged by
results from early studies specifically assessing the
effects of online networking on communities living in a
precise geographic location (e.g. a city area or suburb).
• The seminal paper in this field is the pioneer study by
Hampton and Wellman (2003).
• Drawing on survey and ethnographic data from a “wired
suburb” of Toronto, the authors find that high-speed,
always-on access to the internet, coupled with a local
online discussion group, transforms and enhances
neighbouring.
• The internet especially supports increased contacts with
weaker ties, without bringing about a deterioration of
strong ties.
Empirical evidence
• However, studies emphasizing the negative correlation
between Internet usage and sociability date back to just
shortly before the explosion of online networking, and
they could not differentiate between pure entertainment
and social activities.
• At that time, using the internet was predominantly an
individual activity like watching TV or reading
newspapers.
• Today, the explosion in online networking makes any
comparison between the Internet and TV simply
anachronistic.
Pew Research Center on Internet & American Life
• Today, the use of the internet is strongly related to being connected
to social networking sites, which in turn entails forms of engagement
in social activities.
• In the U.S. 73% of online teens (aged 12-17) and an equal number
(72%) of young adults (18-29) use social network sites.
• In the U.S. in May 2011 fully 65% of online adults now use social
networking sites.
• This figure marks a dramatic increase from the first time the Project
surveyed usage of social networking sites in February of 2005. At
that time just 8% of internet users or 5% of all adults said they used
SNSs.
• In December 2010, U.S. Internet users were found to be more likely
than others to be active in some kind of voluntary group or
organization: 80% of American Internet users participate in
groups, compared with 56% of non-Internet users.
• Social media users are even more likely to be active: 82% of social
network users and 85% of Twitter users are group participants
(Rainie et al. 2011).
Empirical evidence
• Recent empirical evidence suggests that SNSs:
a) support the strengthening of bonding and bridging
social capital (Steinfield et al. 2008, Park et al. 2009; Pénard
and Poussing 2010; Bauernschuster et al. 2011)
b) allow the crystallization of weak or latent ties that might
otherwise remain ephemeral (Haythornthwaite 2005, Ellison
et al. 2007: 2011; Miyata and Kobayashi 2008)
c) facilitate the establishment of collaborations in the
academic community (Matzat 2004)
d) support teenagers' self-esteem - encouraging them to
relate to their peers (Ellison et al. 2007; 2011; Steinfield et al.
2008)
e) stimulate social learning (Burke et al. 2010)
f) enhance social trust (Matzat 2010), civic engagement
(Stern and Adams 2010; Zhang et al. 2010) and political
participation (Gil de Zúñiga et al. 2011)  SEE THE “ARAB
SPRING”!
g) help the promotion of collective action (Landqvist and
Teigland 2010).
Ellison et al. (2007)
• Drawing on survey data from a random sample of 800
undergraduate students, Ellison et al. (2007) find that certain
types of Facebook use can help individuals accumulate and
maintain bridging social capital.
• The authors suspect that the social network helps students to
overcome the barriers to participation so that individuals who
might otherwise shy away from initiating communication with
others are encouraged to do so through the Facebook
infrastructure.
• In the authors' words, highly engaged users are using
Facebook to “crystallize” relationships that might otherwise
remain ephemeral (2007).
• Social media seem to create latent tie connectivity among
group members that provides the technical means for
activating weak ties. Latent ties are those social network ties
that are technically possible but not activated socially.
The quality of Internet-mediated communication
• Web-mediated asynchronous interactions are not necessarily
of inferior quality compared to simultaneous, face-to-face,
interactions.
• Experiments found that the depth of a friendship can be
significantly improved by computer-mediated
communication. Apparently, by way of online relationships
individuals become far better in expressing their true selves
and feelings (Ellison et al. 2007; Park et al. 2009b; Burke et
al. 2010; Sheldon 2010; Burke and Settles 2011).
• Interactions through the Internet can foster the social
inclusion of individuals suffering from social anxiety, i.e.
anxiety about social situations, interactions with others, and
being evaluated by others (Caplan 2007; Steinfield et al.
2008).
• Thanks to new tools such as Facebook messages and Flickr
mails, many people have regained the habit of writing
letters. Psychological studies claim this form of interaction
can lead to an improvement in the quality of relationships.
The quality of Internet-mediated communication
• Letters have been found to have the
property of:slowing the communication
down, thus giving people more time and
reasons to process their feelings, to put a
greater effort into understanding others’
expectations, and to think in depth before
they respond (Kobayashi and Ikeda 2008;
Miyata and Kobayashi 2008; Steinfield et
al. 2008).
The quality of Internet-mediated
communication
• These hypotheses find support in Steinfield et al. (2008).
• The authors analyzed panel data from two surveys on
Facebook users conducted a year apart at a large U.S.
university.
• Intensity of Facebook use in year one strongly predicted
bridging social capital outcomes in year two, even after
controlling for measures of self-esteem and satisfaction
with life.
• The authors suggest that Facebook helps reducing the
barriers that students with lower self-esteem might
experience in participating to social networks that are
sources of bridging social capital.
Bauernschuster et al. (2011)
• In a recent paper based on data drawn from the
2008 section of the German Socio-Economic Panel
and confidential data provided by Deutsche
Telekom, Bauernschuster et al. (2011) find that
having broadband Internet access at home has
positive effects on:
a. the frequency of visiting theaters, the opera,
and exhibitions
b. and on the frequency of visiting friends, even
after controlling for endogeneity through
instrumental variables estimates and by accounting
for county fixed effects.
Internet, relational goods, and happiness
• Since engagement in relational activities and social
capital are positively correlated with happiness
(Becchetti et al. 2008; Bruni and Stanca 2008; Gui 2010;
Stanca 2010; Bartolini et al. 2011), Internet usage
could also have a positive effect on individual wellbeing (see Pénard and Poussing 2011 and Sabatini
2011).
• It thus seems reasonable to argue that Internet use can
support well-being by counterbalancing some
detrimental effects of the increasing pressure on time.
From the policy point of view, this implies that the
REDUCTION IN THE DIGITAL DIVIDE could be an
effective measure to contain inequalities in the
distribution of well-being.
Summary
• Economic growth and technological
progress can cause the disruption of social
ties and the erosion of social capital 
SOLARIA SYNDROME.
• The Solaria Syndrome can be avoided if
and only if technological progress
contributes to the production of relational
goods at least as much as it contributes to
the production of material goods.
Summary
• This condition would have been irrealistic at the
beginning of the current decade.
• Today, the explosion of online networking has
brought a major change in the role of technology
in the development of our social life.
• When the social environment is poor in
opportunities for participation and/or the
pressure on time increases (for example due to
the need to increase working hours, the social
capital stored in the Internet can help individuals
to defend their sociability.
Summary
• In our view, the Internet is offering us a way
back from Solaria to Earth.
• The reduction in digital divide should be a major
policy objective for the preservation of social
cohesion (making growth more “socially
sustainable” in the long run) and the reduction of
inequalities in the distribution of well-being.
(Besides the obvious benefits for the economic
activity)
Bibliography of this presentation
• All references can be retreived and
downloaded free of charge at the url
http://www.socialcapitalgateway.org/
• Photos have been taken from Flickr with a
creative commons license.
Authors are Mitchell Joyce and Aldo Cavini
Benedetti.
Bibliography of this presentation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Antoci, A., Sabatini, F., Sodini, M. (2011a). See you on Facebook! A framework for analyzing the role
of computer-mediated interaction in the evolution of social capital. Paper presented at the Conference
Networks, Topology and Dynamics, Paris, 14-16 june 2010.
Antoci, A., Sabatini, F., Sodini, M. (2011b). The Solaria Syndrome: Social Capital in a Growing Hypertechnological economy. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2010.12.018.
Antoci, A., Sabatini, F., Sodini, M. (2011c). Economic growth, technological progress and social capital:
the inverted U hypothesis. Economics and Econometrics Research Institute Research Paper 07/2011,
Brussels.
Bartolini, S., Bilancini, E., Pugno, M. (2011). Did the decline in social capital decrease American
happiness? A relational explanation of the happiness paradox. Social Indicators Research, in press.
Bauernschuster, S., Falck, O., Woessmann, L. (2011). Surfing Alone? The Internet and Social Capital:
Evidence from an Unforeseeable Technological Mistake. SOEP WP 392.
Beaudoin, C. (2008). Explaining the Relationship between Internet Use and Interpersonal Trust: Taking
into Account Motivation and Information Overload. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13,
550--568.
Becchetti, L., Degli Antoni, G. (2010). The sources of happiness: Evidence from the investment game.
Journal of Economic Psychology 31(4), 498-509.
Becchetti, L., Pelloni, A., Rossetti, F. (2008). Relational Goods, Sociability, and Happiness. Kyklos 61
(3), 343-363.
Bruni, L., Stanca, L. (2006). Income Aspirations, Television and Happiness: Evidence from the World
Values Survey. Kyklos 59 (2), 209-225.
Bruni, L., Stanca, L. (2008). Watching alone: Relational goods, television and happiness. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization 65, 506-528.
Burke, M., Marlow, C., and Lento, T. (2010). Social network activity and social well-being. ACM CHI
2010: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1909-1912.
Burke, M., and Settles, B. (2011). Plugged in to the community: Social motivators in online goal-setting
groups. C&T 2011: Fifth International Conference on Communities and Technologies.
Burke, M., Kraut, R., Marlow, C. (2011). Social capital on Facebook: Differentiating uses and users.
ACM CHI 2011: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Bibliography of this presentation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Caplan, S. (2007). Relations among loneliness, social anxiety, and problematic Internet use.
Cyberpsychology and Behavior 10 (2), 234-242.
Chaim F., Gandal, N. (2010). Direct and Indirect Knowledge Spillovers: The 'Social Network' of
Open Source Projects. RAND Journal of Economics, forthcoming.
Costa, D. L., Kahn, M. E. (2003). Understanding the decline in social capital,. 1952-1998. Kyklos,
56, 17-46.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook friends: Social capital
and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 12, 1143-1168.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implications
of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society 13 (6), 873-892.
Frey, B. S., Benesch, C., Stutzer, A. (2007). Does watching TV make us happy? Journal of
Economic Psychology 28, 283--313.
Gershuny, J. 2003. Web-use and net-nerds: A neo-functionalist analysis of the impact of
information technology in the home. Social Forces, 82 (1), 141-168.
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Jung, N., Valenzuela, S. (2011). Social media use for news and individuals'
social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, forthcoming.
Hampton, K., Wellman, B. (2003). Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet Supports Community
and Social Capital in a Wired Suburb. City & Community 2 (4), 277-311.
Kobayashi, T., Ikeda, K. (2008). The effect of PC e-mail usage on social tolerance: Focusing on
the mediating effect of communication with heterogeneous others. Research in Social Psychology
24 (2), 120-130
Bibliography of this presentation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Matzat, U. (2010). Reducing problems of sociability in online communities: Integrating online
communication with offline interaction. American Behavioral Scientist 53 (8), 1170-1193.
Miyata, K., Kobayashi, T. (2008). Causal relationship between Internet use and social capital in
Japan. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 11, 42--52.
Nie, N. H., Sunshine Hillygus D., Erbring, L. (2002). Internet Use, Interpersonal Relations and
Sociability: A Time Diary Study. In Wellman, B., Haythornthwaite, C. (eds). The Internet in
Everyday Life. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 215-243.
Park, N., Kee, K. F., Valenzuela, S. (2009). Is There Social Capital in a Social Network Site?:
Facebook Use and College Students' Life Satisfaction, Trust, and Participation. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (4), 875-901
Paxton, P., (1999). Is Social Capital Declining in the United States? A Multiple Indicator
Assessment. The American Journal of Sociology 105 (1), 88-127.
Pénard, T., Poussing, N. (2010). Internet Use and Social Capital: The Strength of Virtual Ties.
Journal of Economic Issues 44 (3), 569-595.
Pénard, T., Poussing, N., Suire, R. (2011). Does the internet make people happier?
CEPS/INSTEAD Working Paper 2011/41.
Putnam, R. D., (2000). Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Sabatini, F. (2011). Can a click buy a little happiness? The impact of business-to-consumer ecommerce on subjective well-being. Economic and Econometrics Reserch Institute Research
Paper 2011_12, Brussels.
Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online
social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29 (6),
434-445.
Social Capital Gateway is on Facebook too!
www.JeodOnline.com
What is Euricse?
Mission:
Euricse promotes knowledge development and innovation for the field of cooperatives, social
enterprises and other nonprofit organizations engaged in the production of goods and services. The
Institute aims to deepen the understanding of these types of organizations and their impact on
economic and social development, furthering their growth and assisting them to work more
effectively. Through activities directed toward and in partnership with both the scholarly community
and practitioners, including primarily theoretical and applied research and training, we address issues
of national and international interest to this sector, favouring openness and collaboration.
Four areas of activity:
Research
Multidisciplinary, theoretical and empirical
Consulting
For enterprises and representative
organisations
For govermnents and legislative bodies
Training
Communications
For students and researchers
Events
For practitioners
Publications
What is JEOD?
 A new scientific journal addressing all enterprise types
and models. Specifically:
 determinants and the effects of entrepreneurial diversity
 comparison between different types of enterprise and aims
 diversity within particular forms (e.g., different ownership and
governance models, companies organized to take social
responsibility into account, entrepreneurial networks)
 new forms, such as social enterprises
 JEOD is an international, online, open-access,
multidisciplinary journal, published in English
 Articles will be subject to double-blind peer review
 Now accepting submissions for the inaugural issue
Topics Covered
Theoretical and empirical research on topics such as:
• Theoretical analysis of any enterprise type or governance model;
• The role of entrepreneurial diversity and its influence on the
functioning of economies, market competition, employment and
other economic and social dimensions;
• Comparisons among types of enterprise and across different
national contexts;
• Analysis of national and international regulations;
• Analysis of different entrepreneurial models and their evolution on
a national, regional, and sectoral level;
• Development patterns and interaction with the economic, social,
and institutional environment;
• Entrepreneurial styles and organizational performance vs
motivations and behaviours of workers and consumers;
• Characteristics and roles played by networks of enterprises.
Governance
Co-Chief Editors:
Carlo Borzaga, University of Trento/Giovanni Ferri, University of
Bari/ Fabio Sabatini, Sapienza University of Rome
Scientific Committee:
Masahiko Aoki, Stanford University Geoffrey M. Hodgson, University of
Hertfordshire
Partha Dasgupta, University of
Ian MacPherson, Emeritus
Cambridge
Giovanni Dosi, Sant'Anna School of Professor, University of Victoria
Margit Osterloh, University of
Advanced Studies
Zurich,University of Warwick
Bruno Frey, University of Zurich
Elinor Ostrom, Indiana University
Enrico Giovannini, ISTAT and
Stefano Zamagni, University of
University of Rome "Tor Vergata"
Henry Hansmann, Yale University Bologna
Vera Zamagni, University of Bologna
Online Only, Open Access
• JEOD is published online at: www.JeodOnline.com
• It will also be published as a journal on SSRN, where
readers can subscribe for free to receive updates when
articles are published
• All articles will be available for download for free and
there will be no subscription or submission fees
JEOD uses the Editorial Manager system for easy,
electronic paper submission and peer review