2.3.1 Building Connection — Communities, Belonging & Psychological Safety
Chapter 2 of Design for Human Connection within Global Communities — An exploration through digital experience design and participatory action research
Relationships are essential in the understanding of an individual’s sense of self, providing a positive reference of acceptance and the fundamental human demand for belongingness (Deci and Ryan, 2004). Even though technology is considered an enabler of social connection and content distribution (Tapscott, 2009), it also influences interpersonal relationships. As illustrated by Przybylski and Weinstein (2012), having mobile phones during an in-person communication can limit the production of a meaningful relationship. Moreover, the unreasonable use of the internet can enhance the feeling of loneliness in the long term since online social interactions are not as effective as real-life relationships (Yao and Zhong, 2014). In order to use design for human connection, it is critical to explore literature around communities and what defines them.
Communities and Belonging
Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler and Tipton (1985), in the book Habits of the Heart, define community as follows:
“A community is a group of people who are socially interdependent, who participate together in discussion and decision making, and who share certain practices that both define the community and are nurtured by it.” (p. 333)
Moreover, McMillan and Chavis (1986) describe community as “a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members needs will be met through their commitment to be together” (p. 9). According to MacQueen et al., (2001) “a common definition of community emerged as a group of people with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties, share common perspectives, and engage in joint action in geographical locations or settings”. The study shows that community was described similarly but experienced differently by people with different backgrounds.
Co-matter, a global network exploring what makes communities thrive, accepts this view claiming that “community is a group of people participating around a shared purpose” (Matusek, 2017). For Matusek, becoming a member of a community is a journey that starts with awareness, and each layer should be carefully designed to connect people closer to the shared purpose, independent of their location in the world. These spaces should be co-created and driven by the community and can take many shapes like a newsletter, podcast, collective exhibition, artistic competition, digital publication or neighbourhood gatherings.
Overall, arguments of different authors propose that the essential elements of a community are having shared experiences around shared values and a clear shared purpose. On the other hand, Komito (1998) claims that “community is not fixed in form or function but is a mixed bag of possible options whose meanings and concreteness are always being negotiated by individuals, in the context of changing external constraints”. Not only the community is not fixed, but the individuals within communities are simultaneously a member of other interacting communities, societies and cultures (Wilson and Peterson, 2002).
Notably, the levels of individual well-being rise with the number of people a person can trust and address difficulties or concerns, while these levels decline with the presence of strangers in the network (Powdthavee, 2008). For instance, another way of understanding the sense of community is as a consequence of interaction by people united by similar interests and shared goals (Westheimer and Kahne, 1993). Hanh (2012) recommends for those that learned about mindful living and wants to create change towards it to find a practice community to receive the support and feel part of the community. To put it another way, the sense of belonging is not only linked with those that are part of the community, but also the overall purpose and desire to support and be supported.
Considering all the possibilities in a continually changing environment, the feeling of belonging and trust among members and individuals of a community should exist — both on and offline. For that, focusing on creating a sense of support is essential to feel belongingness in opposition to thousands of unknown connections on social networks.
Psychological Safety
While trust is a crucial element in communities, Psychological Safety represents people’s perceptions of the consequences of taking interpersonal risks in a particular context (Edmondson, 1999). According to the author, Psychological Safety indicates that group members appreciate each other, feels free to take risks, share personal information, and discuss errors without fear of punishment.
Researchers have studied the critical drivers of Psychological Safety, and the results are:
- the levels of previous interaction and familiarity among team members (Roberto, 2002);
- the quality of human relationships between team members ruled by trust (Erdem and Ozen, 2003);
- high-quality relations between team members and outside parties (Brueller & Carmeli, 2011).
The more psychologically safe team members recognise their team to be, the more inclined they are to ask for help and to see them as friends (Schulte, Cohen, & Klein, 2012). For instance, Strohkorb Sebo et al. (2018) investigated a robot’s potential to shape trust within a team through the robot’s feelings of vulnerability. The experiment found that in a group with a robot making vulnerable statements, participants responded more to the robot’s comments, displaying a higher engagement. Moreover, in times of tension, teammates in a group with a robot making vulnerable statements were more inclined to share failures, support team members who had made errors and make fun of it together, activities that reduce potential tensions. These results suggest that sharing vulnerability improve not only openness for asking and giving support but also the creation of safe spaces that allow different behaviours and perspectives to emerge, inviting all members to take interpersonal risks of learning and evolving.
Teams and communities share strong similarities and bring the importance of members of communities showing opinion and vulnerability in different social spaces and contexts. By contrast, several experts claim that we live in online filter bubbles that only show us the beliefs we agree with (De-Wit, Brick and Van Der Linden, 2019). This perspective is compatible with extensive psychological research on confirmation bias, proving that we are more inclined to seek out and accept views that follow our pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses (Armstrong and Plous, 1994). With that in mind, individuals and communities must be able to have conversations and evolve together, avoiding unnecessary division. Overall, it is necessary to have safe spaces for people to revisit beliefs, interrogate with curiosity their own and each other’s perspectives to make sense of existence.
Read 2.3.2 Building Connection — Trust in Online Communities
