monashazly
30/03/2009, 09:55 PM
Sorting Out Internet Effects
With the dawn of the Internet age, researchers are struggling to understand how this medium affects users. Specifically, researchers wonder how Internet use affects a person in terms of addictive tendencies, one’s communication, social involvement and well-being. Most of the research so far has been inconclusive in terms of causality, but some correlations have been observed. In “Computer Addiction: Implications for Nursing Psychotherapy Practice,” Weiland describes Internet use as it relates to the propensity for one to become addicted to it. Internet addiction is sometimes associated with “overuse of technology and neglect of others and self as a result” (p.153). She cites five problematic issues related to Internet use as “cybersexual addiction, cyber relationship addiction, net compulsions, information overload, and addiction to interactive computer games” (p.154). Supposedly, computers are used to compensate for feelings of loneliness, marital and work problems, poor social life, and financial problems. While reading this article, I couldn’t help but wonder if there is a similar conjecture made about TV addiction. It seems that users could use the television to escape the stressors of their lives, such as they do with Internet. I also found it interesting that a study done by McFarlane, Bull, and Reitmeijer (2000) concluded that individuals who seek sexual partners on the Internet appear to be at higher risk for sexually transmitted diseases than those who do not use the Internet. This makes intuitive sense to me, since those who seek sexual partners on the Internet engage in contact with strangers, although I think that seeking a sexual partner in a similar situation (where one does not know the other partner before engagement) may result in similar findings about STD transmission. I don’t think it is actually the fact that users are seeking partners on the Internet, but that those individuals who seek on the Internet are also likely to participate in risky sexual activities.
In “Internet Paradox Revisited,” Kraut et al. discuss results from following up with participants in their original 1995-96 study. Interestingly, negative effects seen after two years of the longitudinal study had dissipated by year 3. These effects included increases in depression and loneliness along with declines in family communication; by the third year, these effects had gone away. However, the increase in stress reported after Internet use remained for the third year of the study. In the second survey, administered in 1998-99, opposite effects were seen; positive effects were exhibited in communication, social involvement, and well-being. In this second study, researchers recruited households who had recently bought a computer; in order to create an experiment, half of these households were given free Internet service, while the other half of the new computer buyers were given an amount of money equal to that of the Internet service. I found it interesting that the researchers were so surprised that this “control group” (those who just bought a computer but were not given Internet service) ended up buying Internet service on their own in the middle of the experiment. I can’t believe that the researchers did not foresee this obvious challenge in their experiment. I also found it interesting that researchers noted that as Internet use increased, commitment to living on one’s current location decreased. This makes sense as the Internet allows users to see what else is out there in the world; users probably got a sense of “the grass is greener on the other side,” as the Internet allowed them to learn more about other locations in the world. Additionally, I think that the stress involved in Internet use may have something to do with the medium itself, as participants in this study probably used a dial-up connection, which is extremely slow; it can be very stressful and frustrating to sit at a slow computer waiting for your pages to load up.
In “Net-Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities,” Wellman and Gulia attempt to answer questions regarding the true characteristics of community, both virtual and “real-life.” The authors explain that just as in present-day real-life communities, most ties are specialized on the Internet; one does not seek help from only one other person on all matters, but instead seeks help from different ties related to different issues. This occurs both on and off the net. The authors state, “there is no systematic evidence about whether individual relationships are narrowly or broadly based” (p. 336). To me, it seems that relationships on the Net are mostly narrow; what are some examples of broadly based relationships on the Net? Aside from interpersonal relationships on the Internet, I can only think of portals as meeting broad needs, such as Google or Yahoo. The authors also discuss the quick spread and trust of misinformation associated with the Net. They further note, “people have always given each other advice” (p.340). I think there is a difference, though, between hearing advice from a friend or stranger, and actually reading it online. Do you think it may be more believable to read advice online? I think that because it may be hard to distinguish between websites that are written by professionals and those that are just newsgroups and amateurs giving advice, people may find it more difficult to distinguish incorrect information. The lack of situational cues makes it hard to determine if information is legitimate.
Posted by g34 on September 27, 2006 12:33 PM
http://www.mysocialnetwork.net/blog/410/g34/2006/09/sorting_out_internet_effects.html
With the dawn of the Internet age, researchers are struggling to understand how this medium affects users. Specifically, researchers wonder how Internet use affects a person in terms of addictive tendencies, one’s communication, social involvement and well-being. Most of the research so far has been inconclusive in terms of causality, but some correlations have been observed. In “Computer Addiction: Implications for Nursing Psychotherapy Practice,” Weiland describes Internet use as it relates to the propensity for one to become addicted to it. Internet addiction is sometimes associated with “overuse of technology and neglect of others and self as a result” (p.153). She cites five problematic issues related to Internet use as “cybersexual addiction, cyber relationship addiction, net compulsions, information overload, and addiction to interactive computer games” (p.154). Supposedly, computers are used to compensate for feelings of loneliness, marital and work problems, poor social life, and financial problems. While reading this article, I couldn’t help but wonder if there is a similar conjecture made about TV addiction. It seems that users could use the television to escape the stressors of their lives, such as they do with Internet. I also found it interesting that a study done by McFarlane, Bull, and Reitmeijer (2000) concluded that individuals who seek sexual partners on the Internet appear to be at higher risk for sexually transmitted diseases than those who do not use the Internet. This makes intuitive sense to me, since those who seek sexual partners on the Internet engage in contact with strangers, although I think that seeking a sexual partner in a similar situation (where one does not know the other partner before engagement) may result in similar findings about STD transmission. I don’t think it is actually the fact that users are seeking partners on the Internet, but that those individuals who seek on the Internet are also likely to participate in risky sexual activities.
In “Internet Paradox Revisited,” Kraut et al. discuss results from following up with participants in their original 1995-96 study. Interestingly, negative effects seen after two years of the longitudinal study had dissipated by year 3. These effects included increases in depression and loneliness along with declines in family communication; by the third year, these effects had gone away. However, the increase in stress reported after Internet use remained for the third year of the study. In the second survey, administered in 1998-99, opposite effects were seen; positive effects were exhibited in communication, social involvement, and well-being. In this second study, researchers recruited households who had recently bought a computer; in order to create an experiment, half of these households were given free Internet service, while the other half of the new computer buyers were given an amount of money equal to that of the Internet service. I found it interesting that the researchers were so surprised that this “control group” (those who just bought a computer but were not given Internet service) ended up buying Internet service on their own in the middle of the experiment. I can’t believe that the researchers did not foresee this obvious challenge in their experiment. I also found it interesting that researchers noted that as Internet use increased, commitment to living on one’s current location decreased. This makes sense as the Internet allows users to see what else is out there in the world; users probably got a sense of “the grass is greener on the other side,” as the Internet allowed them to learn more about other locations in the world. Additionally, I think that the stress involved in Internet use may have something to do with the medium itself, as participants in this study probably used a dial-up connection, which is extremely slow; it can be very stressful and frustrating to sit at a slow computer waiting for your pages to load up.
In “Net-Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities,” Wellman and Gulia attempt to answer questions regarding the true characteristics of community, both virtual and “real-life.” The authors explain that just as in present-day real-life communities, most ties are specialized on the Internet; one does not seek help from only one other person on all matters, but instead seeks help from different ties related to different issues. This occurs both on and off the net. The authors state, “there is no systematic evidence about whether individual relationships are narrowly or broadly based” (p. 336). To me, it seems that relationships on the Net are mostly narrow; what are some examples of broadly based relationships on the Net? Aside from interpersonal relationships on the Internet, I can only think of portals as meeting broad needs, such as Google or Yahoo. The authors also discuss the quick spread and trust of misinformation associated with the Net. They further note, “people have always given each other advice” (p.340). I think there is a difference, though, between hearing advice from a friend or stranger, and actually reading it online. Do you think it may be more believable to read advice online? I think that because it may be hard to distinguish between websites that are written by professionals and those that are just newsgroups and amateurs giving advice, people may find it more difficult to distinguish incorrect information. The lack of situational cues makes it hard to determine if information is legitimate.
Posted by g34 on September 27, 2006 12:33 PM
http://www.mysocialnetwork.net/blog/410/g34/2006/09/sorting_out_internet_effects.html