Patching the Melting Pot: Sociability in Facebook Groups for Engagement,Trust,and Perceptions of Difference

Abstract

The more racial or ethnic diversity a person lives around in America, the less likely they are to take part in civic life, or to profess feelings of trust for the average person. Differences have instead become reasons to pull back, prompting a mass erosion of social capital, by undermining social contact. The present study moves the conversation online, to the Facebook group setting in particular, as a means of highlighting shared interests while downplaying other differences at first. Results of a national web survey (N = 1,005) indicate the use of Facebook groups for meeting new people relates to civic participation, along with added weak-tie discussions, which spill over to participation again indirectly. Sociability use of Facebook groups is also a source of bridging social capital, or having more active weak ties upon which to draw, and this contributes to trusting in people. Localized diversity becomes a reason to trust as well, but only for sociable Facebook group users. Less sociable users still mistrust at the sight of difference, but online social efforts appear to swing the direction of influence, for converting neighborhood-level racial and ethnic diversity into trust.

Keywords

sociability Facebook groups social capital uses and grats generalized trust civic engagement

The United States now finds itself diversifying rapidly (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017; Van Hook & Lee, 2017), home to one-fifth of the world’s immigrant population, some 48 million people (Pew Research, 2018).¹ Fifteen percent of Americans are foreign-born (Huth, 2018; United Nations, 2017), with immigrants and their children together comprising 27% of the populace (Zong, Batalova, & Hallock, 2018). And over the next 50 years, new immigrants and their offspring are expected to account for 88% of U.S. population growth (Passel & Cohn, 2017; Pew Research, 2017). Whites become a minority around 2045 (Frey, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2018).

In the face of these changing demographics, America’s reputation as a melting pot appears little more than mythology (Tocqueville, 1969). Once racial or ethnic diversity moves into a given neighborhood, residents withdraw (Costa & Kahn, 2003; Hewstone, 2015; Neal, 2017). They “hunker down” (Putnam, 2007, p. 137), pulling out of civic life and mistrusting more generally (Cortright, 2015; Dinesen & Sønderskov, 2018; Kesler & Bloemraad, 2010). Differences instead evoke threat, or feelings of being in direct competition with new and diverse others for life chances (Oliver & Wong, 2003), which are driven by Whites fearful of living among minority groups (Abascal & Baldassarri, 2015). This is ironic, given their own pending minority status, and the fact that diverse social contact is actually a key source of social capital. It adds to personal connections, who contribute to beneficial outcomes like engagement and trust (Burt, 1992; Coleman, 1988; Granovetter, 1973). Except that perceived differences, and the feelings of threat these elicit, mostly prevent the requisite contact from occurring, and social capital from forming (Abascal & Baldassari, 2015; Dinesen & Sønderskov, 2018).

As a foothold for sociality in a country long devoid of it, social networking sites show potential for addressing the American decline in social capital. On Facebook, for example, the world’s most popular social networking site (Richter, 2018), “People You May Know” are suggested, while groups on the site allow users to rally around common interests or concerns (Donath & boyd, 2004). This can encourage the formation of “affiliative” ties—new social connections who share an affinity, but still differ in a range of other ways (e.g., race and ethnicity; Flanagin, Stohl, & Bimber, 2006, p. 35). By softening these differences at first, through the use of small, optional profile pictures, contrasts feel less salient on the site (Donath & boyd, 2004; Ellison & boyd, 2013). This streamlines the process of weak-tie activation (Ellison, Vitak, Gray, & Lampe, 2014), with group topics as easy icebreakers.

So despite fears that digital settings would usher in new ways of hunkering down (Putnam, 1995), assuming Facebook groups act as a haven for weaker, more affiliative ties to connect, efforts of sociability they host should relate to increased civic engagement and generalized trust (Gil de Zúñiga & Valenzuela, 2011; Glanville, Andersson, & Paxton, 2013; Putnam, 2000). I further ask whether this use of Facebook groups for meeting new people might alter user perceptions of difference more generally, as the start of social learning (Greenhow & Robelia, 2009), for conveying the “strength of weak ties” first in the absence of threat online (Granovetter, 1973; Spitzberg, 2012). Even as interactions move offline, and differences come to light, these should matter less, given past benefits, as the rewards of trusting in a wider range of people gradually overcome perceived risks (Bouchillon & Gotlieb, 2017; Glanville et al., 2013). Results suggest that digital groups are indeed well positioned to address the threat dynamic in this way, for improving the way users think about diversity, even in their neighborhoods, and whether they trust in the face of it.

The Self-Undermining Virtuous Circle

To accumulate social capital, a measure of personal network and resource diversity, requires an “unceasing effort of sociability,” one that take times and energy (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 52). Americans historically had been up to the task, as citizens said to be “forever forming associations” (Tocqueville, 1969, p. 513), both engaged civically and trusting socially. But empirically, this hasn’t been true for the better part of a century, where national levels of trust and civic engagement first began to slip in the 1960s, with losses in one reinforcing declines in the other (Paxton, 2007; Putnam, 2000). In the absence of trust, citizens feel less motivated to work together, so engagement suffers (Uslaner & Brown, 2005); and by neglecting to engage, they interact less, so feelings of trust struggle to develop (Putnam, 2007; Stolle, 1998).

As to what kicked off the downward spiral, Putnam (1995) famously blamed television, suggesting the medium displaced time spent engaging in the community. He spoke of changing social norms as well, with the dutiful civic generation dying off, replaced by younger Americans who engage less, or do so in nontraditional ways (Putnam, 2000). But his most durable explanation for the decline of social capital has been the steady influx of diversity stateside, where residents of diverse neighborhoods trust less in the average person and in people like themselves (Putnam, 2007). Mistrust becomes standard operating procedure, both limiting interactions and shuttering engagements, as whole communities hunker down (Alesina & La Ferrara, 2002; Cortright, 2015; Costa & Kahn, 2003; Putnam, 2007).

A New Media Solution

If diverse social contact is vital for social capital, perceived differences are what give us pause (Dinesen & Sønderskov, 2018). It follows that by downplaying these differences at first, digital settings might here offer an advantage. Facebook shows a utility for the activation of weak ties in particular (De Meo, Ferrara, Fiumara, & Provetti, 2014; Kwon, D’Angelo, & McLeod, 2013; Steinfeld, Ellison, & Lampe, 2008), who can differ in a range of ways, often in terms of race or ethnicity, but also in regards to lifestyle, religion, or politics (Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1983). The Facebook setting allows them to focus more on the substance of the interaction, and less on demographics (Donath & boyd, 2004; Ellison & boyd, 2013), while giving users control over who can access their profile (Bartsch & Dienlin, 2016). This makes them feel more comfortable expressing their views (Valkenburg & Peter, 2011), for interacting with “known as well as unknown others” (Bouchillon & Gotlieb, 2017, p. 302), as efforts that pay social capital dividends, like new chances to engage locally (Gil de Zúñiga & Valenzuela, 2011).

Sociability tops the list of reasons why users get involved with groups on Facebook (Park, Kee, & Valenzuela, 2009), where “for every cause there is a community online” (Thorson, Gotlieb, & Bouchillon, 2014, p. 6). Overlapping interests ease the formation of weak-tie connections therein (Flanagin et al., 2006), helping to facilitate recruitment into civic life (Boulianne, 2015; Conroy, Feezell, & Guerrero, 2012; Kahne, Lee, & Feezell, 2012). Teens and twenty--somethings are especially likely to adapt these participatory ideals (Kahne & Middaugh, 2012), joining civic groups locally after first doing so online. But motivations for using sites like Facebook can vary wildly from one user to the next, which serves to “morph” the experience, and “influence the type of social capital generated by Facebook use” (Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2011, p. 18). The present study thus elects to focus on sociability use of Facebook groups for meeting new people, as efforts thought to contribute to localized civic participation, through exposure to new information and opportunities (Bourdieu, 1986).²

Hypothesis 1: Facebook group sociability will have a positive association with civic participation.

The Strength of Weak Ties for Civic Life

“The greater variety of social interactions a communicator encounters or observes, the more likely he or she is to develop an action plan that is appropriate to accomplish his or her goal or goals in each” (Canary, Cody, & Manusov, 2008, p. 505). Reaching desirable outcomes by way of social contact is thus partially a function of the work one puts in, the wealth of experience they accumulate, and practice makes perfect in this regard. Repeated interactions improve the knowledge and skill with which one interacts, along with their motivation for doing so (Canary et al., 2008; Spitzberg, 2012), efforts that over time cultivate more adaptable, efficacious communicators, those driven to interact (Spitzberg, 2000; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984).

In past study, sociable Facebook users were in more frequent, meaningful contact with weak ties everywhere (Bouchillon & Gotlieb, 2017), converting interactions with them into higher levels of civic engagement, compared to less social users (Bouchillon & Gotlieb, 2017; Yu, Tian, Vogel, & Kwok, 2010). This speaks to an increase in competence, namely the motivation to interact with weak ties specifically, along with effectiveness at doing so. Because before committing to a given interaction, people think about what they stand to gain (Bandura, 1997), and the more an interaction type has led into positive reinforcements in the past, the stronger one’s expectancy becomes that it will do so again in the future (Rotter, 1966). So as a way of communicating the benefits of weak-tie connections, while subtly improving one’s ability to tap into them, I expect efforts of sociability in Facebook groups to incentivize weak-tie contact everywhere (Bouchillon & Gotlieb, 2017). Any increase in weak-tie discussion from social use of these groups should indirectly contribute to civic participation.

Hypothesis 2: Facebook group sociability will relate to civic participation indirectly, through a positive association with weak-tie discussion.

Generalizable Feelings of Trust

Weak-tie interactions provide new opportunities to participate in local life (Gil de Zúñiga & Valenzuela, 2011), but resulting social connections matter more for learning how to trust in people (Glanville et al., 2013; Stolle & Harell, 2013). Because prejudice dissolves and trust emerges when different kinds of people connect (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008; Stolle, Soroka, & Johnston, 2008), and there exist optimum conditions under which the formative contact should occur.³ These include equal status, common goals, cooperation, and support (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000), criteria that Facebook groups would appear to meet, at least in part. The shared interests that underlie these groups naturally come with some common goals (Flanagin et al., 2006), and although cooperation isn’t a given, through efforts of sociability it might be. Users can work together toward any number of ends, and the site itself provides structural support, allowing group members to flag posts and even ban other members if necessary (Baborska-Narozny, Stirling, & Stevenson, 2017). These affordances set the stage for gains in trust to occur (Allport, 1954; Bouchillon & Gotlieb, 2017), by closely approximating the “optimum” conditions for social contact. As such, I expect efforts of sociability in Facebook groups to contribute to faith in people more generally, by helping them to connect under idealized conditions.

Hypothesis 3: Facebook group sociability will have a positive association with generalized trust.

Bridging for Trust

New media cater to the construction of weak ties in a number of ways: by hosting interactions, easing perceptions of difference, and “by laying an infrastructure of latent ties (ones that exist technically but have not yet been activated)” (Haythornthwaite, 2002, p. 1). With the rise of social networking sites, access to latent ties has increased exponentially (Flanagin et al., 2006), where shared interests can now be used to trigger interactions with otherwise complete strangers (Ellison, Steinfeld, & Lampe, 2011), for adding them to personal networks. Doing so contributes to bridging social capital (Steinfeld et al., 2008), a measure of active weak ties, along with the resources accessible through them (Williams, 2006), and bridging is a source of generalized trust in past study (Bouchillon & Gotlieb, 2017). The inclusion of newer, weaker ties into a personal network contributes to feeling more optimistic about the average person’s trustworthiness (Glanville et al., 2013).⁴

As a site for the formation of these bridging social connections, meeting people on Facebook could offer at least one more way of replenishing social capital. In groups especially, members develop expectations of other members, that when met, contribute to perceived growth in a personal network (Ellison et al., 2011; Lee & Lee, 2010). Feelings of trust in the average person should expand as a result (Warren, Sulaiman, & Jaafar, 2015), through the perception of being connected to a wider range of people (Glanville et al., 2013; Kwon et al., 2013; Uslaner, 2002a), as Internet connections “tend to develop closeness and intimacy more quickly than do real-life relationships” (McKenna, Green, & Gleason, 2002, p. 20). Because of this, I expect efforts of sociability in Facebook groups to contribute to generalized trust indirectly, through an increase in bridging social capital, weak-tie gains that reflect kindly on the average person.

Hypothesis 4: Facebook group sociability will relate to generalized trust indirectly, through a positive association with bridging social capital.

Trusting and Perceptions of Difference

For improving the way people think about diversity, Spitzberg (2006) suggested that digital interactions could supplement interpersonal contact. Telecommunication between diverse individuals feels real enough to lead into perspective-taking (Yu et al., 2010); and the wider range of technologies they use, the greater returns to intercultural competency they enjoy (O’Dowd, 2007, p. 146). Chatting on Facebook tells a similar story, a usage that relates to showing greater empathetic concern (Alloway, Runac, Quershi, & Kemp, 2014), while providing users with new ways of demonstrating it—liking, messaging, video chatting, even using emojis (Carrier, Spradlin, Bunce, & Rosen, 2015). These efforts quickly become contagious as well, where empathizing online relates to showing empathy off-line (Carrier et al., 2015). Facebook users are more considerate of the thoughts and feelings of others everywhere (Vossen & Valkenburg, 2016).

But the drawbacks of social media use are by now painfully clear as well, with social networking in general linked to depression (Lin et al., 2016), and Facebook use in particular eroding life satisfaction and cognitive well-being over time (Ginsberg & Burke, 2017; Kross et al., 2013; Tromholt, 2016). Liking posts and pictures on the site works to undermine self-perception, making one’s own life seem worse by comparison (Wright, White, & Obst, 2018). It can also limit exposure to diverse opinions (Bakshy, Messing, & Adamic, 2015), which is true of the group setting as well, where bigots and racists can meet on the basis of “shared interests” (Bouchillon, 2014; Kaakinen, Oksanen, & Rasanen, 2018).

Drawbacks aside, recall that outcomes of Facebook use are again highly contingent on how users engage with the site (Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2011), and the use of social networking sites (SNS) to meet new people still contributes to beneficial measures like empathy and tolerance (Angelova & Zhao, 2014; Ciftci, 2016; Mollov, 2006). So as the most likely place to find these efforts on the world’s most popular SNS, Facebook groups might offer a solution to the original problem, one of diversity’s negative impact on trust locally (Park et al., 2009; Richter, 2018).

I thus ask whether sociability use of Facebook groups for meeting new people could mitigate the tendency for diversity to undermine trust at the neighborhood level—whether sociable members of these groups learn to trust at the sight of racial and ethnic differences, in light of positive experiences they accumulate online, and intercultural competencies these help them acquire. If so, the digital-group setting could play a role in changing the way users look at diversity, for beginning the process of reconnecting the populace, even locally.

Research Question 1: Does Facebook group sociability moderate any association between neighborhood diversity and generalized trust?

Method

Sample

To address the aforementioned hypotheses and research question, data from a national web survey of U.S. adults collected through Survey Sampling International (SSI) in January 2014 were used. SSI recruits respondents from multiple places, including survey panels, social media, and various websites, and those who respond to recruitment are asked to complete a short set of demographic questions. This allows SSI to approximate a representative sample of the target population across a range of variables. Compensation varies according to the length and focus of the survey but can include incentives like cash, prizes, and charitable donations see European Society for Opinion and Market Research, 2012 (ESOMAR 2012).

This process was used to generate a sample of U.S. adults matched to U.S. population estimates for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and region (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a, 2010b, 2012). Those invited to take the survey were linked to an online questionnaire, hosted in Qualtrics, where just over 1,000 (N = 1,005) usable responses were recorded (Table 1).

Table 1.

Comparison of Sample and U.S. Population Characteristics.

Model	Sample (%)	United States (%)
Women	51.1	50.8
Men	48.9	49.2
White	77.5	77.9
White (non-Hispanic)	62.7	63
Black	12.9	13.1
Asian	5.1	5.1
American Indian	1.0	1.2
Pacific Islander	0.19	0.2
Biracial	1.3	2.4
Hispanic	17.3	16.9
18–29 years old	21.9	22.1
30–39 years old	16.5	17.3
40–49 years old	18.7	18.8
50–59 years old	17.3	17.9
60+ years old	23.6	23.9
Northeasterners	17.3	17.9
Midwesterners	22.8	21.7
Southerners	36.1	37.1
Westerners	22.8	23.3

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2010a, 2010b, 2012).

Dependent Variables

Civic participation

Fifteen items were drawn from Son and Lin (2008) and the General Social Survey (Smith, Marsden, Hout, & Kim, 2008) to construct an index of active memberships in a wide range of civic groups. Membership in each group was reported on a 3-point scale (0 = no involvement, 1 = I participated when I could, or 2 = I was actively involved). Responses were summed to form the additive index (Cronbach’s α = .83, M = 3.19, SD = 4.00).

Generalized trust

Three items were used from previous study (Valenzuela, Park, & Kee, 2009) to assess individual levels of trust in the average person (Cronbach’s α = .82, M = 3.45, SD = 0.69). They asked, “Generally speaking: (a) Would you say that people can be trusted (Rosenberg, 1957), (b) People try to be fair, and (c) People try to be helpful?” (Valenzuela et al., 2009). Responses were drawn on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).

Mediating Variables

Weak-tie discussion

Six items were used to measure frequency of interpersonal discussion with coworkers and acquaintances (Cronbach’s α = .91, M = 2.42, SD = 1.39; Gil de Zúñiga & Valenzuela, 2011). Responses fell on a 7-point scale (1 = never talked, 7 = talked multiple times a day).

Perceived access to bridging social capital

Five items from Williams (2006) were used to measure perceived access to bridging social capital (Cronbach’s α = .85, M = 3.64, SD = 0.72). Responses fell on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Independent Variable

Facebook group sociability

Three items were drawn from previous study (Park et al., 2009) and three more were developed to capture motivated use of Facebook groups for connecting with new and different people. Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the following along the same 5-point scale: “I join and interact with specific groups on Facebook: (a) to get peer support from others, (b) to feel like part of a community, (c) to keep in touch with people I know (Park et al., 2009), (d) to meet new and different people, (e) to talk about things with different people, and (f) to meet people like me who share my interests.” Item (c) was dropped to improve reliability, and the other items were combined to create the index for Facebook group sociability (Cronbach’s α = .91, M = 3.12, SD = 1.008).

Control Variables

Demographics

Demographic variables used to build this survey included age (M = 45.56, SD = 16.26), sex (51.1% female), race (77.5% White), ethnicity (17.3% Hispanic), and region of residence (36.1% Southern). Other potentially confounding influences were also controlled for, as detailed below.

Annual household income

This item was drawn from the General Social Survey (Smith et al., 2008), with responses ranging from less than $15,000 to $200,000 or more (M = $61,970.83; Mdn = $44,999; SD = 46,704.44).

Educational attainment

Respondents were asked about the highest level of education they had completed thus far, and responses fell on a 9-point scale (M = 7.0, Mdn = some college, SD = 1.67). About 13.5% were high school graduates, 25.4% had bachelor’s degrees, and another 14.5% held postgraduate or professional degrees.

Neighborhood diversity

This item came from the U.S. Citizenship, Involvement, and Democracy Survey (Howard, Gibson, & Stolle, 2006), asking respondents, “Of the people who live in your neighborhood, how many are a different race or ethnicity than you?” Responses fell on a 9-point scale: none (0%), almost none (5%), a few (10%), some (25%), about half (50%), many (75%), most (90%), almost all (95%), and all (100%; M = 2.87, SD = 2.01).

Party ID

Respondents were asked about their political party affiliation (Weisberg, 1999), with the sample comprising 234 Republicans (23.3%), 297 Independents (29.6%), 378 Democrats (37.6%), and 95 reporting “Other” as their party of choice (9.5%).

Perceived access to bonding social capital

Five items were used to account for perceived access to bonding social capital (Williams, 2006), as an index of active strong ties (Cronbach’s α = .87, M = 3.76, SD = 0.85). Responses fell on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Particularized trust

Five items were used to gauge trust in similar, proven others. Responses fell on the same 5-point scale (Cronbach’s α = .77, M = 3.94, SD = 0.61).

Intensity of Facebook use

Six items were used to measure a respondent’s number of Facebook friends, how much time they spent on the site, and its importance in their daily life (Ellison, Steinfeld, & Lampe, 2007). These were standardized and combined to create the index for intensity of Facebook use (Cronbach’s α = .88, SD = 0.79).

Time spent using Facebook groups

One final item was included to account for time spent in Facebook groups, asking respondents, “On a typical day, how much time do you spend reading and posting to various groups on Facebook?” Responses fell on a 7-point scale from no time at all to more than 3 hours (M = 2.04, SD = 1.63).

Statistical Techniques

Two multiple regressions were used in SPSS 24 to predict civic participation and generalized trust, both controlling for demographics (age, sex, race, ethnicity, region, education, income, and party ID) along with neighborhood diversity and relevant measures of social capital (weak-tie discussion, bonding/bridging, and generalized/particularized trust). The PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013) was used to test for mediating and moderating associations, while the MODPROBE macro (Hayes & Matthes, 2009) was used to plot the Research Question 1 interaction. The full set of control variables was utilized throughout.

Multicollinearity between predictor variables was not an issue, as no tolerance values fell below 0.4 and no Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values rose above 2 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995). Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests of normality were admittedly significant though (p < .001), and this can indicate that data are from a nonnormally distributed population. But these tests are highly susceptible to issues of sample size, and nonnormal distributions cease to be a problem in samples this large anyway, due to the central limit theorem (Ghasemi & Zahediasl, 2012). Looking at Q–Q plots indicated linear relationships between the predicted outcomes and sets of regressors, while scatterplots of the standardized residuals with standardized predicted values appeared to be homoscedastic as well.

Results

Hypothesis 1 predicted that efforts of sociability in Facebook groups would have a positive association with civic participation. The model accounted for 22.2% of the variance in civic participation, R ² = .222, F(18, 620) = 9.81, p < .001, with results indicating that Facebook group sociability was related to taking more active roles in a wider range of civic organizations (β = .162, p < .01). The simple act of spending time in Facebook groups was also a source of civic participation (β = .107, p < .05), while Facebook use was, in general, negatively associated with the same measure (β = −.100, p < .05). Facebook group sociability thus contributes to civic participation above and beyond the influence of spending time in groups, and beyond that of using Facebook in general, which is apparently a negative influence. Hypothesis 1 finds support. Sociability use of Facebook groups relates to more active involvement in civic life (Table 2).

Table 2.

Multiple Regression Predicting Civic Participation.

Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	Significance	Correlations
Model	B	Standard Error	β	Significance	Semipartial
Constant	−2.369	1.665		.113
Female	−0.015	0.342	−.002	.966	−.002
White	−0.546	0.418	−.051	.191	−.046
Hispanic	0.646	0.426	.057	.130	.054
Age	0.005	0.011	.019	.631	.017
Education	0.004	0.118	.001	.970	.001
Income	7.973E−6	0.000	.083	.032	.076
Republican	0.011	0.416	.001	.979	.001
Democrat	−0.657	0.364	−.074	.072	−.064
Southern	0.058	0.336	.007	.863	.006
Neighborhood diverse	0.149	0.088	.067	.092	.060
Weak-tie discuss	0.899	0.125	.291	.000	.255
Bridging	0.457	0.316	.074	.149	.051
Bonding	−0.193	0.231	−.037	.406	−.029
Particularized	−0.521	0.294	−.073	.077	−.063
Generalized	0.461	0.276	.072	.096	.059
Facebook	−0.634	0.315	−.100	.045	−.071
Facebook group	0.314	0.135	.107	.020	.083
Group sociability	0.703	0.210	.162	.001	.119

Hypothesis 2 predicted that Facebook group sociability would relate to civic participation indirectly as well, through an increase in weak-tie discussion. Results of a mediation analysis show that Facebook group sociability had a significant total effect on civic participation (β = .201, p < .001). Results further indicate that Facebook group sociability had a significant indirect effect on civic participation as well, through an increase in weak-tie discussion. That is, the use of Facebook groups for meeting new people relates to having more frequent conversations with coworkers and acquaintances (B = .187, β = .133, p < .01), as gains that additionally contribute to civic involvement (B = .899, β = .291, p < .001). Bootstrapped confidence intervals (CIs) confirm the significance of the indirect association (point estimate = .168, 95% CI [.06, .337]) or that the reduction in the size of the total effect is significant once the mediating variable is included in the model (see Preacher & Hayes, 2004). In percentage terms, the size of the relationship between Facebook group sociability and civic participation drops by 19.4% after the inclusion of the weak-tie discussion mediator, but remains significant (β = .162, p < .01). This indicates partial mediation (see Baron & Kenny, 1986), as Hypothesis 2 finds support. The link between Facebook group sociability and civic participation depends in part on the weak-tie discussions it contributes to.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that efforts of sociability in Facebook groups would be positively associated with generalized trust. The model accounted for 30.3% of the variance in trust, R ² = .303, F(18, 620) = 16.39, p < .001, however results show that Facebook group sociability was not directly related to trusting in the average person (β = .056, p = .224). Neither was spending time in Facebook groups (β = −.008, p = .857) nor using Facebook in general (β = .012, p = .804). Hypothesis 3 is not supported, and Table 3 presents the full model. Sociability use of Facebook groups is not directly related to estimations of the average person’s trustworthiness.

Table 3.

Multiple Regression Predicting Generalized Trust.

Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	Significance	Correlations
Model	B	Standard Error	β	Significance	Semipartial
Constant	0.513	.241		.034
Female	−0.105	.049	−.078	.034	−.070
White	0.089	.061	.053	.142	.049
Hispanic	−0.079	.062	−.045	.203	−.042
Age	0.006	.002	.149	.000	.136
Education	0.023	.017	.047	.185	.044
Income	−1.106E−6	.000	−.074	.040	−.068
Republican	−0.004	.060	−.002	.951	−.002
Democrat	0.082	.053	.059	.121	.051
Southern	−0.092	.049	−.067	.059	−.063
Neighborhood diverse	1.998E−5	.013	.000	.999	.000
Weak-tie discuss	0.030	.019	.062	.114	.052
Civic participation	0.010	.006	.062	.096	.055
Bridging	0.254	.045	.263	.000	.188
Bonding	0.125	.033	.154	.000	.124
Particularized	0.246	.042	.221	.000	.196
Facebook	0.011	.046	.012	.804	.008
Facebook group	−0.004	.020	−.008	.857	−.006
Group sociability	0.037	.031	.056	.224	.040

Hypothesis 4 predicted that Facebook group sociability would indirectly relate to generalized trust, through an increase in bridging social capital. Results of a mediation analysis indicate that Facebook group sociability had a significant total effect on generalized trust, such that users who actively socialize in these groups are more likely to trust in the average person, when bridging social capital is kept out of the model (β = .165, p < .001; Hayes, 2013). Results also show that Facebook group sociability had a significant indirect effect on trust, through bridging social capital. Divere social efforts in groups on the site help users amass larger stores of active weak ties upon which to draw (B = .289, β = .416, p < .001), and these gains spill over to trusting in people (B = .254, β = .263, p < .001). Bootstrapped CIs confirm the significance of the indirect association (point estimate = .074, 95% CI [.044, .111]) or that the drop in the size of the relationship between Facebook group sociability and generalized trust is significant once bridging social capital is included in the model. In fact, the direct association between the two measures actually drops to nonsignificance after bridging’s inclusion (β = .056, p = .224), which suggests full mediation. Any relationship between Facebook group sociability and generalized trust here completely depends on the bridging social capital users manage to accrue (see Baron & Kenny, 1986).⁵ But Hypothesis 4 finds support, as efforts of sociability in Facebook groups carry over to trusting in a wider range of people, because of the bridging social connections they permit one to activate.

Research Question 1 asked whether Facebook group sociability would moderate any association between neighborhood diversity and generalized trust. Results of a moderated multiple regression including the same set of control variables showed a significant interaction between neighborhood diversity and Facebook group sociability (B = .042, β = .125, p < .001). Neighborhood diversity was negatively associated with generalized trust between the values of 1 and 2.43 on the scale for Facebook group sociability. But between the values of 3.79 and 5, neighborhood-level diversity was a positive source of generalized trust (Figure 1). This indicates a crossover interaction (Szklo & Nieto, 2014) and explains the lack of any direct association between neighborhood diversity and trust in the full regression (see Table 3). Because the size and even direction of this association here depends on levels of sociability Facebook group users exhibit. As neighborhoods diversify, users who are less likely to interact in Facebook groups see their feelings of trust in the average person falter. But for those who employ Facebook groups in wide-ranging efforts of sociability, the influx of neighborhood diversity becomes a reason to trust in the average person. Research Question 1 thus finds support, as diverse social efforts in Facebook groups appear to bolster real-world perceptions of difference.

Figure 1.

The effect of neighborhood diversity on generalized trust at levels of Facebook group sociability.

Discussion

The problem of waning social capital in America can be viewed as a failure to grasp the strength of weak ties, all the benefits of diversifying personal connections, something efforts of sociability in digital groups might clear up. Because benefits arise when we learn to “put faith in strangers” (Uslaner, 2002b, p. 14), but the threat dynamic mostly prevents us from doing so (Dinesen & Sønderskov, 2018; Putnam, 2007). Digital-group settings can ease this process of connecting, for sourcing newer, weaker ties on the basis of shared interests (Flanagin et al., 2006). As a test of potential benefits, I weighed the use of Facebook groups for meeting new people alongside measures of social capital like civic participation and generalized trust (Putnam, 2000). The question of whether group sociability would alter the way users perceive of racial and ethnic diversity in their neighborhoods was also asked.

Sociability use of Facebook groups was a source of civic participation, contributing to users joining a wider range of civic efforts, and assuming more active roles therein. Group sociability was also an indirect source of participation, by adding to weak-tie discussions both online and off-line. Grasping the social-capital benefits of weak ties in the digital-group setting apparently nudges users to interact with them everywhere, and the added social contact spills over to new engagements in the end. Facebook use was in general negatively associated with the same measure of engagement. Yet meeting new people in Facebook groups becomes a direct and indirect source of localized participation.

As it relates to the other half of the virtuous circle, no direct association was found between Facebook group sociability and feelings of trust in the average person. Digital group interactions are not yet to the point of resembling face-to-face contact that they can be said to pay the exact same dividends. Nevertheless, indirect effects can exist even in the absence of direct or total effects (Hayes, 2013), and Facebook group sociability here contributed to generalized trust indirectly, through an increase in bridging social capital. Social efforts in these groups translate into faith in the average person by adding to weak-tie connections and resources. Indeed, bridging wholly accounts for Facebook group sociability’s contribution to trust in the present study.

When asked whether the average person could be trusted, sociable Facebook group users were here more likely to say yes, even in the face of increasing neighborhood diversity. They trusted because of the racial and ethnic differences they lived around, while less sociable users still mistrusted at the sight. An increase in intercultural competency is theorized as the reason why, where beyond measures like motivation or skill, diverse interactions promote feelings of tolerance and empathy (Mollov, 2006; Preece & Ghozati, 2001; Zhao, Abrahamson, Anderson, Ha, & Widdows, 2013). The use of Facebook groups for activating these connections may even alter the way users perceive of racial and ethnic diversity locally, thus mitigating the tendency for differences to get viewed as a threat. Making this switch ironically depends on the social effort one exerts online, in groups especially, as contact that sets the stage for a complete reversal, “the development of a positive attitude toward other cultures” (Ciftci, 2016, p. 317).

Limitations and Future Directions

This survey used a nonprobability mode of sampling, by fielding respondents from an Internet panel, which limits how widely the results generalize. I address this in part by matching respondents to U.S. Census parameters for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and region, so at the very least, this looks like a cross section of the American populace. But cross-sectional surveys cannot speak to causation in general, and the most that can be shown here is covariance. It could be that engaging civically and trusting socially prompts more social uses of Facebook groups, but not vice versa. Or, these associations could be spurious. Either way, a longitudinal survey is necessary to show time order, and an experiment to demonstrate causation, with covariance nonetheless as a step.

With the rise of social networking sites, and even newer technologies like virtual reality, digital modes of interacting can be said to more closely resemble interpersonal forms of social contact (Shuter, 2012). As this mimicry improves, so too might SNS’s potential to facilitate competencies traditionally acquired face to face (Bouchillon & Gotlieb, 2017). This would have a range of applications, from the travel industry to office-sensitivity training, but foremost among them remains the reintegration of local residents into back into neighborhood life (Julien, 2015), something efforts of sociability in Facebook groups here show potential for.

But the public’s good faith in Facebook has also warn thin, evidenced by the Cambridge Analytica breach, in which the private data of 87 million users was leaked by the site (Kang & Frenkel, 2018). So although digital mediums could aid in the regeneration of social capital, this notion becomes hard to reconcile with the often haphazard way in which these sites are managed. The task becomes one of providing for online interactions that resemble their real-world counterparts, while still protecting that which users would like to keep private.

Conclusions

If the “central challenge for modern, diversifying societies is to create a newer, broader sense of ‘we’” (Putnam, 2007, p. 139), new media can help, with SNS groups as something of a rare commodity, a place where diverse interactions still occur regularly (Lee & Lee, 2010) and still pay dividends for social capital (Bouchillon & Gotlieb, 2017). Here, these include weak-tie discussions, bridging social connections, civic participation, and generalized trust; and as an added bonus, diversity itself becomes a reason to trust, after recasting difference as a source of reciprocity. I thus provide evidence of not only the digitization of American social life, but the added value of digital groups for diverse social efforts, where interactions could ease the process of living near, and connecting with, different kinds of people.

Footnotes

Appendix

Author’s Note

This data set is available from the author upon request (bbouchillon@gmail.com).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Abascal

Baldassarri

(2015). Love thy neighbor? Ethnoracial diversity and trust reexamined. American Journal of Sociology, 121, 722–782. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1086/683144

Alesina

La Ferrara

(2002). Who trusts others? Journal of Public Economics, 85, 207–234.

Alloway

Runac

Quershi

Kemp

(2014). Is Facebook linked to selfishness? Investigating the relationships among social media use, empathy, and narcissism. Social Networking, 3. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.4236/sn.2014.33020

Allport

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

American National Election Studies. (2008). 2008 Time series study [variable questions]. Retrieved from http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/2008prepost/2008prepost.htm

Angelova

Zhao

(2014). Using an online collaborative project between American and Chinese students to develop ESL teaching skills, cross-cultural awareness and language skills. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29, 167–185. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.90730

Baborska-Narozny

Stirling

Stevenson

(2017). Exploring the efficacy of Facebook groups for collective occupant learning about using their homes. American Behavioural Scientist, 61, 757–773. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/0002764217717566

Bakshy

Messing

Adamic

L. A.

(2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348, 1130–1132. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

10.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

11.

Bartsch

Dienlin

(2016). Control your Facebook: An analysis of online privacy literacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 147–154. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.022

12.

Bouchillon

B. C.

(2014). Social ties and generalized trust, online and in person: Contact or conflict—The mediating role of bonding social capital in America. Social Science Computer Review, 32, 506–523.

13.

Bouchillon

B. C.

Gotlieb

(2017). Making them count: Facebook sociability for optimizing the accumulation of social capital. Social Science Computer Review, 35, 299–318.

14.

Boulianne

(2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 524–538. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542

15.

Bourdieu

(1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson

J. E.

(Ed.), Handbook of theory of research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

16.

Burt

(1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

17.

Canary

D. J.

Cody

M. J.

Manusov

V. L.

(2008). Interpersonal communication competence. In Canary

D. J.

Cody

M. J.

Manusov

V. L.

(Eds.), Interpersonal communication: A goals-based approach (pp. 502–520). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

18.

Carrier

L. M.

Spradlin

Bunce

J. P.

Rosen

L. D.

(2015). Virtual empathy: Positive and negative impacts of going online upon empathy in young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 39–48. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.026

19.

Ciftci

E. Y.

(2016). A review of research on intercultural learning through computer-based digital technologies. Educational Technology & Society, 19, 313–327. Retrieved from http://doi.org/jeductechsoci.19.2.313

20.

Coleman

(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.

21.

Conroy

Feezell

J. T.

Guerrero

(2012). Facebook ad political engagement: A study of online political group membership and offline political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1535–1546. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.012

22.

Cortright

. (2015). Less in common: City report. Retrieved from City Observatory: http://cityobservatory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CityObservatory_Less_In_Common.pdf

23.

Costa

D. L.

Kahn

M. E.

(2003). Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: An economist’s perspective. Perspectives on Politics, 1, 103–111. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.311839

24.

De Meo

Ferrara

Fiumara

Provetti

(2014). On Facebook, most ties are weak. Communications of the ACM, 51, 78–84. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1145/2629438

25.

Dinesen

P. T.

Sønderskov

K. M.

(2018). Ethnic diversity and social trust: A critical review of the literature and suggestions for a research agenda. In Uslaner

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social and political trust (pp. 175–204). Oxford, England: University Press.

26.

Donath

boyd

(2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22, 71–82. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1023/b:bttj.0000047585.06264.cc

27.

Ellison

N. B.

boyd

(2013). Sociability through social network sites. In Dutton

W. H.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Internet studies (pp. 151–172). Oxford, England: University Press.

28.

Ellison

N. B.

Steinfeld

Lampe

(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. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

29.

Ellison

N. B.

Steinfeld

Lampe

(2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media Society, 13, 873–892. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385389

30.

Ellison

N. B.

Vitak

Gray

Lampe

(2014). Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 855–870. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12078

31.

European Society for Opinion and Market Research (ESOMAR 2012). 28 Questions to help research buyers of online samples. Retrieved from https://www.esomar.org/knowledge-and-standards/research-resources/28-questions-on-online-sampling.php

32.

Flanagin

A. J.

Stohl

Bimber

(2006). Modeling the structure of collective action. Communication Monographs, 73, 29–54. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/03637750600557099

33.

Frey

W. H.

(2018, 3 14). The U.S. will become “minority white” in 2045, Census projects. Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/14/the-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/

34.

Ghasemi

Zahediasl

(2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: A guide for non-statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism, 10, 486–489. Retrieved from http://doi.org/PMC3693611

35.

Gil de Zúñiga

Valenzuela

(2011). The mediating path to a stronger citizenship: Online and offline networks, weak ties, and civic engagement. Communications Research, 38, 397–421. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210384984

36.

Ginsberg

Burke

(2017). Hard questions: Is spending time on social media bad for us? Facebook Newsroom. Retrieved from https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/12/hard-questions-is-spending-time-on-social-media-bad-for-us/

37.

Glanville

J. L.

Andersson

M. A.

Paxton

(2013). Do social connections create trust? An examination using new longitudinal data. Social Forces, 92, 545–562. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sot079

38.

Granovetter

M. S.

(1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.

39.

Granovetter

M. S.

(1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233.

40.

Greenhow

Robelia

(2009). Old communication, new literacies: Social networking sites as social learning resources. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 1130–1161. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01484.x

41.

Hair

J. F.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

Black

W. C.

(1995). Multivariate data analysis (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.

42.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

43.

Hayes

A. F.

Matthes

(2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 924–936. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.3.924

44.

Haythornthwaite

(2002). Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. The Information Society, 18, 385–401. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/01972240290108195

45.

Hewstone

(2015). Consequences of diversity for social cohesion and prejudice: The missing dimension of intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 71, 417–438. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12120

46.

Howard

M. M.

Gibson

J. L.

Stolle

. (2006). United States citizenship, involvement, democracy survey. Ann Arbor, MI: Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Retrieved from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/04607

47.

Huth

(2018, 5 1). Immigration in America by the numbers. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2018-05-01/immigration-in-america-by-the-numbers

48.

Julien

(2015). Bourdieu, social capital and online interaction. Sociology, 49, 356–373.

49.

Kaakinen

Oksanen

Rasanen

(2018). Did the risk of exposure to online hate increase after the November 2015 Paris attacks? A group relations approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 90–97. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.022

50.

Kahne

Lee

N. J.

Feezell

J. T.

(2012). The civic and political significance of online participatory cultures among youth transitioning to adulthood. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10, 1–20. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.701109

51.

Kahne

Middaugh

(2012). Digital media shapes youth participation in politics. Phi Delta Kappan, 94, 52–56. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/003172171209400312

52.

Kang

Frenkel

(2018, 4 4). Facebook says Cambridge Analytica harvested data of up to 87 million users. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/mark-zuckerberg-testify-congress.html

53.

Kesler

Bloemraad

(2010). Does immigration erode social capital? The conditional effects of immigration-generated diversity on trust, membership and participation across 19 countries, 1981–2000. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 43, 319–347. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423910000077

54.

Kross

Verduyn

Demiralp

Park

Lee

D. S.

Lin

… Ybarro

. (2013). Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PLoS One, 8, 1–6. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069841

55.

Kwon

M. W.

D’Angelo

McLeod

D. M.

(2013). Facebook use and social capital: To bond, to bridge, or to escape. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33, 35–43. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1117/0270467613496767

56.

Lee

(2010). The computer-mediated communication network: Exploring the linkage between the online community and social capital. New Media Society, 12, 711–727. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809343568

57.

Lin

L. Y.

Sidani

J. E.

Shensa

Radovic

Miller

Colditz

J. B.

… Primack

B. A.

(2016). Association between social media use and depression among U.S. young adults. Depression and Anxiety, 33, 323–331. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/da.22466

58.

McKenna

Green

A. S.

Gleason

(2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9–32. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00246

59.

Mollov

(2006, 6). Results of Israeli and Palestinian student interactions in CMC: An analysis of attitude changes toward conflicting parties. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany.

60.

Neal

Z. P.

(2017). Taking stock of the diversity and sense of community debate. Community Psychology, 59, 255–260.

61.

O’Dowd

(2007). Evaluating the outcomes of online intercultural exchange. ELT Journal, 61, 144–152. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm007

62.

Oliver

J. E.

Wong

(2003). Intergroup prejudice in multiethnic settings. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 567–582. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00040

63.

Papacharissi

Mendelson

(2011). Toward a new(er) sociability: Uses, gratifications, and social capital on Facebook. In Papathanassopolous

(Ed.), Media perspectives for the 21st century (pp. 212–230). New York, NY: Routledge.

64.

Park

Kee

K. F.

Valenzuela

(2009). Being immersed in social networking environment. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12, 729–733. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2009.0003

65.

Passel

J. S.

Cohn

(2017). Immigration projected to drive growth in U.S. working-age population through at least 2035. Pew Research Center Fact Tank: News in the Numbers. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/08/immigration-projected-to-drive-growth-in-u-s-working-age-population-through-at-least-2035/

66.

Paxton

(2007). Association memberships and generalized trust: A multilevel model across 31 countries. Social Forces, 86, 47–76. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2007.0107

67.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In Oskamp

(Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: The Claremont symposium on applied social psychology (pp. 93–114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

68.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504

69.

Pew Research. (2017). Key findings about U.S. immigrants. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/03/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/

70.

Pew Research. (2018). Origins and destinations of the world’s migrants. Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.org/2018/02/28/global-migrant-stocks/?country=US&date=2017

71.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553

72.

Preece

J. L.

Ghozati

(2001). Experiencing empathy online. In Rice

R. E.

Katz

J. E.

(Eds.), The Internet and health communication: Experiences and expectations (pp. 237–269). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

73.

Putnam

(1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28, 664–683. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096500058856

74.

Putnam

(2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

75.

Putnam

(2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 137–174. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x

76.

Richter

(2018). Facebook Inc. dominates the social media landscape. Statista. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/chart/5194/active-users-of-social-networks-and-messaging-services/

77.

Rosenberg

(1957). Organizations and values. In Robinson

J. P.

Shaver

P. R.

Wrightsman

L. S.

(Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 404–406). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

78.

Rotter

(1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1–28.

79.

Shuter

(2012). Intercultural new media studies: The next frontier in intercultural communication. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 41, 219–327. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2012.728761

80.

Smith

T. W.

Marsden

Hout

Kim

. (2008). General Social Surveys [variable questions]. Retrieved from http://www3.norc.org/GSS+Website/Browse+GSS+Variables/

81.

Son

Lin

(2008). Social capital and civic action: A network-based approach. Social Science Research, 37, 330–349.

82.

Spitzberg

H. (2000). A model of intercultural communication competence. Intercultural Communication: A Reader, 9, 375–387.

83.

Spitzberg

B. H.

(2006). Preliminary development of a model and measures of computer-mediated communication (CMC) competence. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11, 629–666. Retrieved from 1083-6101.2006.00030.x

84.

Spitzberg

B. H.

(2012). Axioms for a theory of intercultural communication competence. In Samovar

L. A.

Porter

R. E.

McDaniel

E. R.

(Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 424–432). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

85.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Cupach

W. R.

(1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

86.

Steinfeld

Ellison

N. B.

Lampe

(2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 434–445. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.002

87.

Stolle

(1998). Bowling together, bowling alone: The development of generalized trust in voluntary associations. Political Psychology, 19, 497–525.

88.

Stolle

Harell

(2013). Social capital and ethno-racial diversity: Learning to trust in an immigrant society. Political Studies, 61, 42–66. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00969.x

89.

Stolle

Soroka

Johnston

(2008). When does diversity erode trust? Neighborhood diversity, interpersonal trust and the mediating effect of social interactions. Political Studies, 56, 57–75. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00717.x

90.

Szklo

Nieto

F. J.

(2014). Epidemiology: Beyond basics. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.

91.

Thorson

Gotlieb

Bouchillon

B. C.

(2014). Young citizens and ‘opt-in’ engagement: Designing online networks of information and mobilization. Paper accepted for the 2014 International Communication Association Conference, Seattle, Washington.

92.

Tocqueville

(1969). Democracy in America. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

93.

Tromholt

(2016). The Facebook experiment: Quitting Facebook leads to higher levels of well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19, 661–666. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0259

94.

United Nations. (2017). International migration report. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/migrationreport/docs/MigrationReport2017_Highlights.pdf

95.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010a). Age and sex composition: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf

96.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010b). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

97.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). State and county quick facts. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

98.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). The nation’s older population is still growing, Census Bureau reports. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/cb17-100.html

99.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). Older people projected to outnumber children for the first time in U.S. History. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-41-population-projections.html

100.

Uslaner

(2002a). Strategic and moralistic trust. In Uslaner

(Ed.), The moral foundation of trust (pp. 14–50). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

101.

Uslaner

(2002b). The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge, England: University Press.

102.

Uslaner

Brown

(2005). Inequality, trust, and civic engagement. American Politics Research, 33, 868–894. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X04271903

103.

Valenzuela

Park

Kee

K. F.

(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, 875–901. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043309

104.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Peter

(2011). Online communication among adolescents: An integrated model of its attraction, opportunities, and risks. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, 121–127.

105.

Van Hook

Lee

(2017, 2 21). How all of America is becoming more diverse. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/How-America-is-becoming-more-diverse-10948220.php

106.

Vossen

H. G.

Valkenburg

P. M.

(2016). Do social media foster or curtail adolescents’ empathy? A longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 118–124. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.040

107.

Warren

A. M.

Sulaiman

Jaafar

N. I.

(2015). Understanding civic engagement behavior on Facebook from a social capital theory perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34, 163–175. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2014.934290

108.

Weisberg

(1999). Political partisanship. In Robinson

J. P.

Shaver

P. R.

Wrightsman

L. S.

(Eds.), Measures of political attitudes (pp. 681–729). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

109.

Williams

(2006). On and off the ‘net: Scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 593–628. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00029.x

110.

Wright

E. J.

White

K. M.

Obst

P. L.

(2018). Facebook false self-presentation behaviors and negative mental health. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21, 40–49. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0647

111.

A. Y.

Tian

S. W.

Vogel

Kwok

R. C.

(2010). Can learning be virtually boosted? An investigation of online social learning impacts. Computers & Education, 55, 1494–1503. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.015

112.

Zhao

Abrahamson

Anderson

J. G.

Widdows

(2013). Trust, empathy, social identity, and contribution of knowledge within patient online communities. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32, 1041–1048. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2013.819529

113.

Zong

Batalova

Hallock

. (2018). Frequently requested statistics on immigrants and immigration in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states