You can read the pop-version here:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/0 ... iends.html
or download the full article as a pdf here (I hope, let me know if the link doesn't work):
http://www.asanet.org/galleries/default ... eature.pdf
The study starts with the previously many times demonstrated fact that social interactions are important for people, and that close social confidants, called core confidants play a special role in people's lives since they provide us with a broader scope of support and are more likely to provide major help in crisis situation. Our core confidants also influence us more than less close people.
The study use a phone survey in order to assess people's social networks, and compare the results from 1985 with the present results. The main findings are:
1. Discussion networks are smaller in 2004 than in 1985.
2. The number of people saying there is no one with whom they discuss important matters nearly tripled.
3. The mean network size decreases by about a third (one confidant), from 2.94 in 1985 to 2.08 in 2004.
In the discussion part of the article, the authors express worries about the changes in social network. A previous well-established study has shown that people who have only one or none core confident, has insuffiecient support. Generalising the findings of the present study, would mean that half of all Americans lack adequate social support.
The reasons for the changes are not known, but based on other studies, the authors suggest geographical spreading, increase in work hours and increase in internet use as possible factors. The also suggest the possibility of a change in mode of communication as an explanation for the results.
So what do you think? Is it negative that people have smaller social networks and fewer confidents? Can internet friends compensate for lack of real life friends? Don't we need friends in our physical environment anymore?McPherson wrote: Wellman et al. (2006:10–13) note that Internet usage may even interfere with communication in the home, creating a post-familial family where family
members spend time interacting with multiple computers in the home, rather than with each other. They suggest that computer technology may foster a wider, less-localized array of weak ties, rather than the strong, tightly interconnected confidant ties that we have measured here.
This may not be all bad, of course, since we know that weak ties expose us to a wider range of information than strong, close ties. We also know, however, that strong ties offer a wider array of support, both in normal times (Wellman and Worley 1990) and in emergencies (Hurlburt et al. 2000). Only geographically local ties can offer some services and emotional support with
ease (Wellman and Worley 1990). Whatever the reason, it appears that
Americans are connected far less tightly now than they were 19 years ago. Furthermore, ties with local neighborhoods and groups have suffered at a higher rate than others. Possibly, we will discover that it is not so much a matter of increasing isolation but a shift in the form and type of connection. Just as Sampson et al. (2005) discovered a shift in the type of civic partici-
pation, and the Pew Internet and American Society Report (Boase et al. 2006) showed a shift in modes of communication, the evidence that we present here may be an indicator of a shift in structures of affiliation.
I'd also like to hear if you are aware of any similar studies, and the results of those, in your countries. This study was performed in the US, and the results are consistent with other similar studies in the US. I haven't seen any studies on non-US populations though, but sociology is quite far from my own field so I may well have missed it.
). Anyway, what's so important about having physical friends? An online friend can be there for you in every way you need them as much as a physical friend; only way they can't be there for you is to take you out drinking when you're feeling blue. 
