This image displays equal distribution of power in interpersonal contact as opposed to unequal distribution of power in interpersonal contact. The primary visual difference is a greater amount of followers feeding into the person in power's social capital. More social capital provides greater influence to Simmers' content and ecological practices.

Defending the Inclusion of Social Capital:

We must account for the presence of complex social capital practices in the System of Interpersonal Interactions

To adapt Cooper's model to the Simming Ecology, I account for the increasing complexity with which Simming relationships are negotiated. In doing so, I attempt to sew new pages into Cooper's older binding to produce a framework that is both recognizable and salient within the field of Writing Studies but also suited to address new sites of writing, such as the Simming ecology.

When exploring Cooper's proposed system of interpersonal interactions, I draw from Ellison et al.'s study, "With a Little Help From My Friends: How Social Network Sites Affect Social Capital Processes," of social capital in social network sites. Here, Ellison et al. define social capital as "the benefits that can be attained from connections between people through their social networks" (127). While Cooper's explanation of interpersonal interactions includes the negotiation of power and intimacy to regulate access (8), Ellison et al. further illuminate social capital possibilities by applying concepts of bridging and bonding, in which bridging capital is constituted by more ephemeral connections, or connections lacking bidirectional intimacy, while bonding is usually present in situations of greater intimacy. They posit that "bridging social capital provides access to a wider range of information and diverse perspectives, bonding social capital is linked to social support and more substantive support, such as financial loans" (Ellison et al. 127). These forms of connection are not often clearly distinguishable, with some parties feeling "bond" connections while other may feel a lack of connection at all. This results in a process that Cooper alludes to called regulation.

Ellison et al.'s exploration of social capital connections is complicated by the social capital gained through virality in the Simming Ecology. Therefore, Ellison et al.'s work on social capital in social networks can be supplemented by Kristen Seas's "Writing Ecologies, Rhetorical Epidemics," in which she presents an argument on the spread of contagion or influence within writing ecologies. In the Simming ecology, accrual of bridging ties can also lead to more substantive forms of support through the growth of widespread influence. Seas writes of this power when she says "the weak ties embodied in these connectors allow for precisely the kind of unexpected nonlinear jump required to trigger an outbreak" (61). The spread or "virality" of content and the content creator's increased ecological influence and social capital is due in part to the interactions between people: "people and their relationships to one another are even more vital because these epidemics [her term for virality] are largely based on the dynamics of what is commonly referred to as 'word-of-mouth.' Whether via online communication or face-to-face conversations, word-of-mouth epidemics are a primary means of social contagion and thus social influence." (Seas 60). In the Simming ecology, "word-of-mouth" might best pertain to digital contact between parties, whether through re-tweets, comments, messages, views, or follows. These interactions, no matter how brief, can and do contribute to the system of interpersonal interactions and its influence on the Simming ecology's content creation.