Screens are a game changer: How environments influence social capital in the digital era

Figures & data

Figure 1(a). Interaction between human and the surroundings. 1(b). Accumulated human-environment interactions over time and associated temporal patterns shapes the person’s development, based on the bioecological systems model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).

Table 1. Definitions and examples of influential factors in human-environment interactions

Variables	Definitions	Examples	Environment?
Physical	Physical settings often associated with social roles or expected behaviors	Home, school, work, streets, greeneries, neighborhood	O
Social	People in a given environment	Number of people, relationships with people	O
Sociocultural	Societal and cultural factors, norms of society or group	Societal trends/changes, policy, culture, history, technology, economy, generation	O
Screen	Portable personal electronic communication devices and platforms	Mobile phone, tablets, laptops; cellphone call, text messaging, the Internet, social networking sites, social media, smartphone apps	O
Temporal	Temporal patterns associated with setting or activity; timing	Duration, periodicity, stochastic properties; time of day or week, season, time in history	X
Individual	Individuals’ biological and behavioral factors	Age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, genetic, personality, personal history	X

Table 2. Boosters and barriers towards social interaction by physical contexts and screen usage aiding geographically bound social capital

Community	Boosters of social capital	Barriers to social capital	Screen use
Impoverished	Homogenous socioeconomic status (SES); greater value of community space; physical proximity	Poor housing and neighborhood qualities; crimes	Listservs; SNS among teenagers
Suburban towns	Higher home-ownership and longer residency; moving-in cohortship; homogeneous SES; children at home	Automobile-oriented planning; longer distance between houses and to community space
Urban	Close physical proximity; greater walkability; higher external population density	Diverse demographic factors and lifestyle; large apartment buildings; less needs of neighborhood ties	Apps, SNS
College communities	Close physical proximity; multiple settings to encounter; temporal similarities (academic calendar and class time); similar age, intellectual levels, screen skills; cohortship; institutions’ community-building efforts	Heterogeneous SES, race, culture; large dormitories with insufficient semi-public space	SNS

Figure 2. Apartment building floor plan diagrams. Unwanted social interaction more likely occur in transient hallways in (a) than in (b).

Figure 3. A wide pedestrian street accommodates outdoor seatings with shades.

Figure 4. Various seating options in a university library can welcome both groups and solitaries. Diverse enclosure options are likely desired in outdoor seating as well.

Figure 5. A large table in a café is filled up with small groups and solitary persons.

Figure 6. The relationships among screen use, contexts and local social capital.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed.). (pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

 Google Scholar