“Break the Ice”: The Use of Technology to Initiate Communication in Public Spaces

Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 474)

Abstract

The use of mobile technologies in public spaces often serves to disconnect users from their surroundings and alienate them from current social setting. However, digital interactions are often seen as the most appropriate method for communicating with strangers because they can be impersonal and free people from the fear of face-to-face rejection and social judgment that is based on first appearance and impression. This paper aims to explore if the perceived sense of security when using internet and mobile technologies for communication could also be established in a public setting of a cafeteria and benefit individuals when they are lonely in a public space. For this purpose, we built a technology probe that facilitates digital interactions (e.g. games, instant messaging, collaborative sketching, etc.) between collocated individuals in a public settings of a cafeteria by placing tablet computers on all tables. Our exploratory study shows that people could benefit from such a system as it is likely to alter their common behaviour—a result of a new possibility of initiating communication without the fear of jeopardizing their integrity.

Keywords

Privacy Mobile technology Security Intimacy First contact Rejection Digital interactions Technology Communicating with strangers 

References

  1. 1.
    Nie, N.H., Hillygus, D.S., Erbring, L.: The impact of Internet use on sociability: time-diary findings. IT Soc. 1, 1–20 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., Scherlis, W.: Internet paradox: a social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? Am. Psychol. 53, 1017–1031 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bargh, J.A., McKenna, K.Y.A.: The internet and social life. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55, 573–590 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hampton, K., Wellman, B.: Neighboring in Netville: how the internet supports community and social capital in a wired suburb. City Commun. 2, 277–311 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Di Gennaro, C., Dutton, W.H.: Reconfiguring friendships: social relationships and the internet. Inf. Commun. Soc. 10, 591–618 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang, H., Wellman, B.: Social connectivity in America: changes in adult friendship network size from 2002 to 2007. Am. Behav. Sci. 53, 1148–1169 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McKenna, K.Y.A., Green, A.S., Gleason, M.E.J.: Relationship formation on the internet: what’s the big attraction? J. Soc. Issues 58, 9–31 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., Crawford, A.: Internet paradox revisited. J. Soc. Issues 58, 49–74 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tufekci, Z., Tufekci, Z.: Grooming, gossip, Facebook and MySpace – what can we learn about these sites from those who won’t assimilate? Inf. Commun. Soc. 11, 544–564 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tufekci, Z.: Who acquires friends through social media and why? ‘Rich Get Richer’ versus ‘Seek and Ye Shall Find’. In: 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, pp. 170–177. AAAI, Washington DC (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gross, R., Acquisti, A., Heinz, H.J.: Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In: Proceedings of 2005 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society - WPES 2005, pp. 71–81. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Essex, N.L.: Student privacy rights involving strip searches. Educ. Law 17, 105–110 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lampe, C., Ellison, N., Steinfield, C.: A Face(book) in the crowd: social searching vs. social browsing. In: Proceedings of 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW 2006, pp. 167–170 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Young, A.L., Quan-Haase, A.: Information revelation and internet privacy concerns on social network sites: a case study of Facebook. Publ. Policy 5, 265–273 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Derlega, V.J., Chaikin, A.L.: Sharing Intimacy: What We Reveal to Others and Why. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1975)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rubin, Z.: Disclosing oneself to a stranger: reciprocity and its limits. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 11, 233–260 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walther, J.B.: Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Commun. Res. 23, 3–43 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hatfield, E., Sprecher, S.: Mirror, Mirror: The Importance of Looks in Everyday Life (Suny Series, Sexual Behavior). State University of New York Press, Albany (1986)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hutchinson, H., Mackay, W.E., Westerlund, B., Bederson, B.B., Druin, A., Plaisant, C., Beaudouin-Lafon, M., Conversy, S., Evans, H., Hansen, H., Roussel, N., Eiderbäck, B., et al.: Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. In: Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 2003, pp. 17–24 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Premkumar, P.: Are you being rejected or excluded? Insights from neuroimaging studies using different rejection paradigms. Clin. Psychopharmacol. Neurosci. 10, 144–154 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FAMNIT, University of PrimorskaKoperSlovenia

Personalised recommendations