JCMC 7 (4) July 2002
Message Board
Collab-U  CMC Play  E-Commerce Symposium Net Law  InfoSpaces Usenet
  NetStudy VEs VOs O-Journ HigherEd Conversation Cyberspace Web Commerce
Vol. 6 No. 1  Vol. 6 No. 2  Vol. 6 No. 3  Vol. 6 No. 4  Vol. 7 No. 1  Vol. 7 No. 2  Vol. 7 No. 3  Vol. 7 No. 4

Psychological Predictors of Internet Social Communication

Sarah A. Birnie and Peter Horvath
Acadia University, Canada

Abstract

This study investigated the relationship of traditional social behavior to social communication via the Internet in a completely wired campus where every professor uses computers in classroom teaching, each residence is wired to the Internet, and every student is issued a laptop computer. It has been suggested that shy and socially isolated individuals communicate more on the Internet because it provides some protection from social anxiety. However, little research has empirically tested this assumption. In line with social network theory, we proposed, instead, that online social communication would complement or supplement the uses of face-to-face social contact resulting in a positive association between the two forms of social behaviors. We assessed the frequency and intimacy of traditional social behaviors, sociability, and shyness in 115 undergraduates (52 male, 63 female). These variables were then used to predict the frequency and intimacy of Internet social communication. Sociability and the frequency of traditional social behaviors were positively associated with the frequency of Internet social communication. The intimacy of traditional social behaviors was positively associated with the intimacy of Internet social communication. Overall, the findings supported the implications of social network theory in that online social communication appeared to complement or be an extension of traditional social behavior rather than being a compensatory medium for shy and socially anxious individuals. With relation to uses and gratifications theory, however, shyness was associated with increased intimate socializing over the Internet, indicating that traditional and Internet communication are not functionally equivalent.

Introduction

Are people who use traditional forms of contact (e.g., face-to-face, telephone) likely to use the Internet similarly? Are individuals who are shy more likely to use the relatively greater privacy afforded by the Internet for social contact and expression? Such questions are usually difficult to answer because of the disparity caused by socio-economic factors that affect access to computers and the learning of computer skills, unless all the participants sampled are on an even-level playing field in terms of access to computers and to computer skills. However, it is important to try to address such questions. The fact that Internet users, including women and the elderly, are increasing in numbers (Fox & Rainie, 2001), suggests that more and more people will use it for interpersonal communication. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of traditional forms of social behavior to social communication using electronic media. The present study is unique in that it investigated the relationship of traditional social behavior to online social communication in a completely wired campus where every professor uses computers in classroom teaching, each residence is wired to the Internet, and every student is issued his or her own laptop computer. In other words, all the participants sampled were roughly comparable in terms of access to computers and potentially to computer skills.

There has been much discussion about the impact of the Internet on society, social interaction, and communication (Carey, 1989; Civin, 2000). For example, it has been suggested that the Internet will have a greater impact on society than television did, as the Internet affects many more areas of a person's life - personal, family, school, and work domains (Surveying the Digital Future, 1999). Civin (2000) claimed that the Internet is a communication technology that has changed how people relate to one another. However, empirical research has not always found this to be the case (see Katz & Aspden, 1997; Robinson, Kestnbaum, Neustadtl, & Alvarez, 2000). To examine a related issue, we investigated whether individuals communicate over the Internet for social purposes similarly to their use of more traditional forms of social communication. In order to place our investigation in perspective, we review the relevant theory and research on computer uses for social communication.

December (1996) considered it important to define precisely what is meant by Internet social communication. In the current study, traditional social communication was defined as the frequency and intimacy of traditional social contacts and interpersonal interactions (e.g., face-to-face or telephone). Intimacy was defined as the exchange and disclosure of personal information. Internet social communication was defined as the frequency and the intimacy of social contacts and interpersonal interactions on the Internet. Internet social communication can be measured by the frequency of social contacts and intimate interactions individuals engage in communicating over electronic mail, Instant messenger programs, and Internet chatting sites, etc.

Computer-Mediated Social Communication

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) for social purposes has been a topic of debate beginning with the introduction of company networks. One topic of interest to researchers was whether true social communication was possible over company networks (i.e., in electronic mail or messages posted to company bulletin boards). It was argued that communicating through text makes CMC low in "social presence" given the absence of necessary social context cues like eye contact. A main concern of social presence theory is that CMC is deficient compared to face-to-face communication in social context cues like facial expressions, posture, dress, social status indicators, and vocal cues (see Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). However, other research found that CMC was primarily honest, creative, and positive (see Hiltz, 1978).

Despite the claim that true emotional expression was not possible in CMC, computer networks used for social purposes became more active than non-social networks (Rice & Love, 1987). In contrast to what would be expected from social presence and information richness theories (i.e., communication on the computer is impersonal and cold), friendly, dominant, and relaxed communication styles have been associated with increased use of CMC (Rice, Chang, & Torobin, 1992). Even when the intent was work-related, people inevitably sought to achieve social goals (Murray & Bevan, 1982). Despite the claim that computer communication had fewer social cues than face-to-face interaction, people experimented with the new medium for social purposes. CMC appears to facilitate social interaction.

A second major area of CMC research was introduced when the Internet started to appear in the typical home. Some researchers have cited the negative effects of the Internet on traditional social interactions (e.g., Kraut et al., 1998; Nie & Erbring, 2000). For example, Kraut et al. (1998) found that over a one or two-year period first-time Internet users markedly decreased their traditional social networks and social support. Similar results were obtained by Nie and Erbring (2000). Not everyone has agreed with these results, however, as McKenna and Bargh (2000) have shown that the participants in Kraut et al.'s study had unusually large social circles at the beginning of the study (and did not, therefore, constitute a truly random sample).

Social Network Theory

Other researchers have claimed that the Internet enhanced traditional relationships and family ties (i.e., Katz & Aspden, 1997; Robinson et al., 2000). Katz and Aspden (1997) found that when the Internet was placed in the home it did not result in people's "dropping out of real life" and in fact, it augmented involvement in traditional familial activities. Robinson et al. (2000) suggested that frequent Internet users might actually have more active social lives than non-users. A majority of Americans surveyed perceived that communication over the Internet has improved their connections to family and friends (Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2000). Some recent studies have found Internet use to be associated with increased local and distant social circles and face-to-face interactions with friends and family (Boneva, Kraut, & Frohlich, 2001; Kraut et al., 2002). In line with the "rich get richer" model rather than the "social compensation" model, increased family communication was associated with Internet use among those with greater social support. Increased community involvement was associated with Internet use among extroverts rather than introverts.

Social network theory proposes that social behavior and communication are affected by the patterns of ties among people. Studies of social networks have surveyed the social interactions of specific individuals by lists of persons contacted and by measuring the frequency of their interactions (see Hampton & Wellman, 1999). Social network theory suggests that the more people are socially connected, the more intensely they are likely to communicate using various media available to them. Social network theory is applicable to describe human relationships across two media, like communication face-to-face or through electronic means. Like previous advances in communication technology, the Internet continues the process of connecting people participating in social networks and geographically dispersed people and organizations bound by shared interests (Haythornthwaite & Wellman, 1998; Wellman, Haase, Witte, & Hampton, 2001). Social network theory suggests that Internet social communication supplements and is an extension of traditional social behaviors. In line with the social network perspective, it has been found that the more individuals in organizations are connected, communicate face-to-face, and the more intimate their relationships, the more frequently and intimately they use email and a variety of media to communicate (Haythornthwaite & Wellman, 1998). In other words, the Internet supplements traditional social behavior, without necessarily increasing or decreasing it (Wellman et al., 2001). This is true not only for adults but for teenagers as well (Lenhart, Rainie, & Lewis, 2001).

These perspectives also fit well with network social influence theory that describes the effects of various types of social organizations on attitudes and behaviors (see Rice, 1993). Research in this area has found that specific interactions in social networks have more influence on specific attitudes and behaviors than more general social factors like group membership. Therefore, we would expect interaction within traditional social networks to carry over to Internet social communication. In line with social network theory, we expected a positive association between traditional social behavior and Internet social communication. The more a person interacts traditionally and the more intimate his or her relationships, the more that person would use the Internet to maintain communication with others and the more intimate would be their online communication.

Social Motives in Traditional and Internet Communication

In addition to behaviors, a comprehensive examination of the relationship of traditional and Internet social communication needs to consider social motives and attributes. Cheek and Buss (1981) defined sociability as a "tendency to affiliate with others and to prefer being with others to remaining alone," and shyness as "one's reaction to being with strangers or casual acquaintances: tension, concern, feelings of awkwardness and discomfort, and both gaze aversion and inhibition of normally expected social behavior" (p. 330). Sociability, therefore, involves social habits and motives, whereas shyness also contains elements of social discomfort and anxiety. Sociability and shyness are complex variables that have pervasive effects and are negatively correlated with each other (Bruch, Gorsky, Collins, & Berger, 1989). Sociability and shyness have been linked to traditional social behavior. Asendorpf and Wilpers (1998) found that the more sociable and less shy first-time university students were at the beginning of the semester, the more their peer network grew over the course of the semester. Sociability and shyness have also been posited as subfactors of extroversion (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998). Research indicates that extroversion predicts more traditional social contacts, higher social support, and satisfaction with social networks (e.g., Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Chay, 1993; Lu, 1997; Russel, Booth, Reed, & Laughlin, 1997). Shy people, in contrast, take longer to build friendships (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998) and have high social anxiety (Cheek & Buss, 1981).

Social motives and attributes have also been linked to online communication. Some studies have found that those with low or unsatisfactory traditional social contacts use the Internet more frequently than others. For example, Dunham et al. (1998) found that single mothers who were socially isolated used an online support group more frequently than those who were not socially isolated. However, they did not compare the single mothers to other groups of mothers, limiting generalizability. Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) found that those who felt less satisfied and valued in face-to-face communication used the Internet as an alternative to interpersonal communication. However, they noted that this relationship was eclipsed by the fact that individuals were more likely to use the Internet merely to fill time. In other research loneliness and social anxiety predicted the formation of online relationships (Leary, 1983; McKenna & Bargh, 2000).

McKenna and Bargh (2000) noted that the focus of CMC research on the socially isolated and other disadvantaged members of society has lead to headlines about the sad and lonely world of cyberspace. Research investigating the benefits of the Internet, however, has found that it can also be a place to test social skills (Parks, 1996), overcome shyness in face-to-face interactions (Myers, 1987), and form personal relationships (Katz & Aspden, 1997; Parks & Roberts, 1998). The Internet has been suggested as a way for isolated or physically disabled people to communicate in a manner that protects them from social expectations (Kanaley, 1995; Sharf, 1997; Turkle, 1995). Larsen (1998) described online social environments as providing opportunity for role-play for those who experience anxiety during normal conversation. The anonymity of the Internet may provide opportunities for self-disclosure and some protection against social anxiety for shy individuals (McKenna & Bargh, 2000). Much of this research, however, has looked at relationships formed online, instead of Internet social communication more generally. This issue is important in light of the fact that many people use electronic mail to communicate with friends and relatives who have moved away from their geographical origin.

In contrast to some of the research described above, Katz and Aspden (1997) found that people who formed friendships over the Internet had higher levels of extroversion, sociability, and willingness to take risks. Kraut et al. (1998), however, found that more extroverted individuals were actually less likely to use the Internet. Data supporting the claim that social attributes predict social communication over the Internet has mainly involved friendships formed online, and not social communication more generally, or with individuals who were previous acquaintances (e.g., Katz & Aspden, 1997). Individuals high in sociability or those with large traditional social networks may continue their sociable behavior and desire for social contacts online. Support for this premise has been found in some studies (Cody et al., 1997; Joe, 1997). Examining the association of sociability and shyness with Internet communication will help to generalize our findings with regard to the social network model. Based on the evidence overall, we would predict that high sociability and lack of shyness would be positively associated with more frequent and intimate Internet communication.

Uses and Gratifications Theory

The above findings notwithstanding, traditional social behavior and Internet communication may differ in their associations with shyness because of the component of social anxiety. The anonymity of the Internet may provide some protection against social anxiety experienced by shy individuals. Accordingly, shy individuals may use the Internet for social communication somewhat differently than sociable individuals. Differences in the motivations at play in the use of traditional and Internet forms of communication would suggest that the two forms of communication are not functionally equivalent.

Uses and gratifications theory has provided a framework for examining the satisfaction of needs and interests through different forms of communications media (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974). If two media serve similar needs then they can act as functional alternatives (Katz, Gurevitch, & Haas, 1973). However, if they are designed to serve different needs then they are specialized. One type of medium may be preferred to another if it is better at fulfilling certain needs such as entertainment or socializing (Perse & Courtright, 1993). Uses and gratifications theory has been employed in studies of different forms of social communications because of the goal-directed nature of communications behavior (Rubin & Rubin, 1985). The motives at play, such as relaxation or the acquisition of information, can be quite different depending on the types of communications media used, such as TV or the Internet (Ferguson & Perse, 2000). Flaherty, Pearce, and Rubin (1998) found that the motives behind using CMC were different from motives for using face-to-face communication. Face-to-face communication was rated higher than CMC for all motives, including social ones like inclusion and affection.

Two forms of media may be so different that they alter social uses and social communication. At least in terms of romantic relationships, it has been suggested interactions on the Internet are different from face-to-face interactions. The anonymity afforded by the Internet requires relationships to proceed quickly to intimacy because of the limitations of other aspects of social contact (Merkle & Richardson, 2000). In some studies, individuals have been found to communicate less frequently and closely with Internet partners than with non-Internet partners (Cummings, Butler, & Kraut, in press). The Internet was also rated as less useful than face-to-face communication for maintaining social relationships.

Past research has employed uses and gratifications theory to examine motives, interests, and attitudes behind face to-face and online communication (see Ferguson & Perse, 2000; Flaherty et al., 1998). The theory suggests that if individuals find face-to-face communication and online communication useful to reach similar goals, then they will use the two media similarly. One could also expect similar motives at work in the two forms of communication. If, however, the uses of communication over the Internet were different from those of face-to-face communication, then one could expect different motives as a factor in the two forms of communication.

High sociability and low shyness have been associated with increased traditional social behavior (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Bruch et al., 1989). Past research also indicates that high sociability would be associated with increased Internet social communication. The greater anonymity provided by the Internet (see McKenna & Bargh, 2000), however, suggests that the motives may be somewhat different in the two forms of social communication. The Internet may help to reduce the social anxiety experienced by shy individuals. Accordingly, this effect may lead to somewhat different patterns of use in the two media for shy individuals. If this is the case, then the motives behind using traditional and Internet social communication may be somewhat different. Sociability would be positively associated with both traditional and Internet communication. However, the association of shyness with online communication is less certain. Any differences in the association of motives (e.g., shyness) with the two forms of social communication would indicate that the two media are not functional alternatives or functionally equivalent.

The Present Study

The main question that concerned this study was the relationship of traditional social behaviors to Internet social communication. Would individuals who are highly social continue this behavior online? Or would it be more likely that opportunities for greater privacy or anonymity would make the Internet appeal more to those who have difficulties with traditional forms of social communication?

In line with social network theory, it has been found that the more individuals communicate face-to-face and the more intimate their relationships, the more they use a variety of media, including the Internet, to communicate. Those engaging in more traditional socializing and intimacy would manifest more online socializing and intimacy. The more sociable the individual in face-to-face relationships, the more frequently and intimately they would use the Internet to maintain their relationships with others. Therefore, we expected that the Internet would complement or supplement traditional social behaviors.

A valid test of the above proposition should also show the following pattern of results. Variables associated with greater facility with the new communications media, such as having computer skills (Ferguson & Perse, 2000), would be positively associated with more frequent social communication over the Internet. Women have shown more interest in social communication and intimacy than men (Hussong, 1997; McAdams, Lester, Brand, McNamara, & Lensky, 1988) and are also using the Internet for social communication more than men (Boneva et al., 2001; Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2000). Accordingly, we expected that women would show more frequent and intimate online social communication in comparison to males.

We also examined the two forms of communication in terms of uses and gratifications theory. Although we did not propose any hypotheses here, we examined the patterns of associations of social motives (i.e., sociability and shyness) with both traditional and Internet social communication. With reference to uses and gratifications theory, we reasoned that if the pattern of associations of the two motives with the two social communication media were different, then the two forms of social communication would not be functionally equivalent.

Our focus included reported behaviors rather than just expressed interests or preferences for channels of communication, because the latter are only modestly related to actual behavior (Ebersole, 2000; Ferguson & Perse, 2000). This study complemented past research in a number of other ways. It included various types of online social communication, not just friendships formed online. It investigated the relationship of intimacy in traditional social behavior to the intimacy of Internet social communication, as it may be that the frequency and intimacy of online social communication are predicted by different constructs. Lastly, it examined the relationship of traditional social behavior and Internet communication at several levels of psychological constructs and generality.

Hypotheses

Our first hypothesis (H1) proposed that greater computer skills would be associated with more frequent social communication over the Internet. In our second hypothesis (H2) we expected that females would show more frequent and intimate online social communication in comparison to males. Our last three hypotheses specifically referred to social network theory in that Internet use would complement or supplement traditional social behaviors. In our third hypothesis (H3) we expected that those showing more frequent traditional social contacts and socializing behaviors would show more frequent Internet social contacts and socializing behaviors. In our fourth hypothesis (H4) we expected that those showing more intimate traditional social contacts and socializing behaviors would show more intimacy in Internet social contacts and socializing behaviors. Our fifth hypothesis (H5) referred to social motives. We expected that those showing more sociability and less shyness would show more online social behaviors and intimacy. Table 1 summarizes these five hypotheses.

We also examined these two channels of social communication with regard to uses and gratifications theory. However, we did not propose any specific hypotheses here. Here we reasoned that if our findings indicated that the motives behind traditional and Internet social communication were somewhat different, then it would indicate that the two forms of social communication are not functionally equivalent.

Method

Participants

Participants were 115 undergraduate students (52 male and 63 female) with a mean age of 23.03 years. They were enrolled in spring and summer courses, or were working on campus during the summer. They were recruited by asking departmental staff about students working over the summer, as well as by asking professors teaching spring/summer courses to allow the researcher to come into the class to announce the project. The sample was a cross-section of students on campus. Students in the sample had a mean Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) of 3.11. Fifteen participants had just finished their first year (13.0%), 21 their second year (18.3%), 52 their third year (45.2%), 14 their fourth year (12.2%), and 8 their fifth (or higher) year (7.3%). Five participants did not specify their year. Participants' major field of study varied within degrees, and 43 participants (37.4%) were enrolled in a science program, 33 (28.7%) in an arts program, and 39 (33.9%) in a professional studies program (kinesiology or business). Twenty-nine percent of the sample was enrolled in the honors program for their field of study. All students had finished at least their first year of university, giving them time to adjust to a university-wide laptop computer access program where each student is issued a laptop computer and 24-hour Internet access. This was believed to be important as Hiltz (1978) has noted, "once people gain facility with a new medium, initial attitudes will change to reflect more closely the medium's actual adequacy for various communication tasks" (p. 157). In addition, it created an level playing field where extraneous factors, such as access to personal computers, were less likely to distort the true association between traditional and computer-based social communication.

Procedure

The study was described to students in their classroom or place of work (e.g., office). They were told that they would be entered in a cash drawing for $100 upon consent to participate. Interested students were then asked to fill out a consent form and also informed orally that they were free to withdraw their consent at any time during the study. They were told that they would not be removed from the drawing even if they decided to withdraw their consent. Next, the participants were given a booklet of questionnaires to fill out which contained a section for demographics and then subsequent measures in a standard order. Any questions posed by the participants during the study were answered. Finally, the students were debriefed orally and were given a debriefing form.

Predictor Variables

The following predictor variables were at two levels of personality constructs. They covered the range from the more internal social motives of sociability and shyness to more external social intimacy, social contacts, and socializing behaviors.

The following four traditional social behavior measures were used to test social network theory. The socializing and the more specific social contact measures covered both the frequency and intimacy of social behaviors. The use of lists of contacts and rating the frequency of social interactions with those contacts allowed us to measure the social networks of the participants (see Hampton & Wellman, 1999). These measures were all different in terms of their items, except for some overlap among individuals listed on the contact measures. Examples of items are presented for each measure.

Traditional Contact Frequency (TCF). Participants were asked to list (by initials) the individuals (e.g., friends, family, acquaintances) with whom they communicate socially in a traditional manner (i.e., face-to-face or telephone). Each listed person was rated on a scale from 1 to 8 depending on the frequency of traditional communication. The rating scale was as follows: 1 = less than once a month, 2 = once a month, 3 = every 2 weeks, 4 = weekly, 5 = biweekly, 6 = daily, 7 = more than once a day, and 8 = more than three times a day. The frequency ratings for the initialled individuals in the list were summed to obtain a total score for each participant in the study.

Traditional Contact Intimacy (TCI). Participants were asked to rate each person (i.e., the previously listed individuals) with whom they communicated socially in a traditional manner, on a rating scale from 1 to 5, on the frequency of intimate social communication (i.e., how often they disclosed personal information to the person face-to-face or over the phone). The rating scale was as follows: 1 = never, 2 = infrequently, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently, and 5 = always. The intimacy ratings for the individuals in the list were summed to obtain a total score for each participant.

Traditional Socializing Frequency (TSF). Participants answered five general questions tapping the frequency of traditional socializing (e.g., "During the week I often go out and socialize with my friends" and "I am involved with clubs and organizations with other individuals") on Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = no opinion, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). The five items were summed to obtain a total score. The internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) for the five questions was .71.

Traditional Socializing Intimacy (TSI). Participants rated five general questions tapping the intimacy of traditional socializing (i.e., "Face to face conversations with my friends are for the most part superficial" (reversed) and "If I had a problem, I could turn to my friends to talk about my problem") each on Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = no opinion, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). The five items were summed to obtain a total score. The alpha coefficient for the five questions was .69.

In addition to their inclusion to test social network theory in a more comprehensive manner, the following two measures of social motives (i.e., sociability and shyness) were employed to test uses and gratifications theory.

Sociability. Bruch et al.'s (1989) revision of Cheek and Buss' (1981) Sociability scale was used, with the addition of two questions. The final scale used in the study contained seven questions and tapped into the participant's desire to be around others and to be in social situations, as Cheek and Buss (1981) define sociability as a "tendency to affiliate with others and to prefer being with others to remaining alone" (p. 330). Examples of questions in the current study are "I like to be with people," "I welcome the opportunity to mix socially with people," and "I am most happy when I am around other people." The internal consistency reliability of the scale (coefficient alpha) in the original study was .76 (Bruch et al., 1989). Its validity was demonstrated by significant correlations with positive social thoughts and social conversation. Each item was rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = no opinion, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). The seven items were summed to obtain a total score. The internal consistency reliability (alpha) of the scale in the current study was .86.

Shyness. The Bruch et al. (1989) revision of the Cheek and Buss (1981) Shyness scale was used to measure social anxiety and shyness. Cheek and Buss (1981) defined shyness as "one's reaction to being with strangers or casual acquaintances: tension, concern, feelings of awkwardness and discomfort, and both gaze aversion and inhibition of normally expected social behavior" (p. 330). The Bruch et al. measure contained 13 questions looking at the cognitive, behavioral, and emotional aspects of shyness. Examples of questions are "I am socially somewhat awkward," "I don't find it hard to talk to strangers (reversed)," and "I feel tense when I'm with people I don't know well." Shyness and sociability have been found to be negatively correlated (Bruch et al., 1989). The original internal consistency reliability of the scale (coefficient alpha) was .82 (Bruch et al., 1989). Its validity was demonstrated by significant correlations with fearfulness, negative social thoughts, and public self-consciousness. Each item was rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = no opinion, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). The 13 items were summed to obtain a total score. The internal consistency reliability (alpha) of the scale in the current study was .88.

The following measure was developed for this study to estimate the number of computer skills possessed by the participants.

Computer Skills. Participants were asked to indicate (circle "yes" or "no") whether they were familiar with or had used six applications related to computer use (e.g., electronic mail, HTML editor, FTP client, UNIX). Participants were also asked to indicate whether they had ever accomplished any of three computer-related activities (e.g., downloading an Internet file, making a personal Web page). Participants were given a score ranging from 0 to 9, based on the number of computer skills that they had. All nine items were designed to assess the dimension of computer skills based on input from members of the computer support center at Acadia University.

Criterion Measures

The four criterion measures also covered both the frequency and intimacy of Internet social contacts and socializing behaviors. These measures were all different in terms of their items, except for some overlap among the individuals listed on the contact measures. Examples of items are presented for each scale.

Internet Contact Frequency (ICF). Participants were asked to list (by initials) the individuals (e.g., friends, family, acquaintances) with whom they communicate socially over the Internet. Each individual was rated on a scale from 1 to 8 depending on the frequency of communication with the person. The rating scale was as follows: 1 = less than once a month, 2 = once a month, 3 = every 2 weeks, 4 = weekly, 5 = biweekly, 6 = daily, 7 = more than once a day, and 8 = more than three times a day. The Internet contact list was not necessarily the same as the traditional contact list, although some names were same. The frequency ratings for the individuals in the list were summed to obtain a total score for each participant in the study.

Internet Contact Intimacy (ICI). Participants were asked to rate each individual with whom they communicated socially via the Internet (i.e., the previously listed individuals) on a rating scale from 1 to 5 depending on the frequency of intimate social communication with each person (e.g., how often they disclosed personal information to the listed individuals over the Internet). The rating scale was as follows: 1 = never, 2 = infrequently, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently, and 5 = always. The Internet contact list was not necessarily the same as the traditional contact list, although some names were same. The Internet intimacy ratings for the initialled individuals in the list were summed for each participant to obtain a total score.

Internet Socializing Frequency (ISF). Participants answered eight general questions tapping into the frequency of Internet social communication (e.g., "I use random Internet chatting sites" and "I spend time talking to acquaintances or people I have never met face-to-face on the computer") on Likert scales (1 = never, 2 = less than once a month, 3 = once a month, 4 = every 2 weeks, 5 = weekly, 6 = biweekly, 7 = daily). The eight items were summed to obtain a total score. The alpha coefficient for the eight questions was .72.

Internet Socializing Intimacy (ISI). Participants rated six general questions tapping the intimacy of Internet social communication (e.g., "I disclose personal/intimate information to my friends during social communication using ICQ/email" and "If I had a problem I could turn to people over ICQ/email to talk about my personal problems") each on Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = no opinion, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). The six items were summed to obtain a total score. The alpha coefficient for the six questions was .71.

Results

Individual Difference Variables

The mean number of traditional social contacts was 10.90, while the mean number of Internet contacts was 8.32. About half of the Internet contacts were the same as the traditional social contacts. Descriptive statistics for the main variables and measures can be found in Table 2. Participants communicated both traditionally and over the Internet with most of their contacts on a bi-weekly or weekly basis (contact frequency measures). Average disclosure traditionally was between "infrequently" and "sometimes" and average disclosure over the Internet was lower at "infrequently" (contact intimacy measures). The frequency of traditional social contacts was higher than the frequency of Internet social contacts, and likewise the intimacy of traditional social contacts was higher than the intimacy of Internet social contacts.

Correlational Analysis

Table 3 shows the Pearson Product Moment correlations between all the variables. Younger participants tended to socialize more traditionally, had better computer skills, and also tended to socialize more on the Internet. Females engaged in more traditional contact and socializing intimacy than males. CGPA was not associated with Internet use. The frequency and intimacy of traditional social contact was associated with the frequency and intimacy of Internet social communication. More sociable participants also tended to have a higher frequency of traditional social contacts and Internet social communication. Shyness was inversely associated with traditional socializing frequency and contact intimacy but directly associated with Internet socializing intimacy.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses

Tables 4 and 5 present the results from a comprehensive series of hierarchical regression analyses predicting Internet social communication. The analyses were conducted separately to predict Internet contact frequency and socializing frequency (Table 4) and Internet contact intimacy and socializing intimacy (Table 5). In each analysis, sex and computer skills were entered at the first step of the regression analysis and the theory-relevant predictor variables were entered in subsequent steps, going from the more internal motivational variables to the more external intimacy and social behaviors. Therefore, sociability and shyness were entered at the second step, traditional contact intimacy and socializing intimacy at the third step, and traditional contact frequency and socializing frequency at the fourth step. The tables present the change in the proportion of variance at each step, the adjusted variance accounted for by the block of predictors at each step, the block F values, the betas of the predictor variables in each block, and their significance.

As shown in Tables 4 and 5, the complete set of predictors in the final regression equations, consisting of gender, computer skills, social motives, and traditional social behavior variables significantly predicted Internet contact frequency, socializing frequency, contact intimacy, and socializing intimacy. The complete set of predictors in the final equations accounted for 47%, 22%, 45%, and 15% of the variance in the different forms of Internet communication, respectively. In predicting Internet contact frequency, the proportion of variance accounted for by the predictor variables increased significantly at the steps where sociability, contact intimacy, contact frequency, and socializing frequency entered the regression equations (see Table 4). At every step of the regression equation, the computer skills variable was also a significant predictor. In predicting Internet socializing frequency, the proportion of variance accounted for by the predictor variables increased significantly at the steps where computer skills, sociability, and socializing frequency entered the regression equations (see Table 4). In predicting Internet contact intimacy, sex was a significant predictor at the first step (with females showing more Internet contact intimacy), with the regression equation being nearly significant (see Table 5). The proportion of variance accounted for by the predictor variables increased significantly at step 2, with a nearly significant beta value for sociability ( = .17, p < .09), and when contact intimacy entered the regression equation at step 3. In predicting Internet socializing intimacy, the proportion of variance accounted for by the predictor variables was significant at step 1, with significant beta values for sex and computer skills in the regression equation (see Table 5). Females engaged in more intimate Internet socializing than males. Shyness and traditional socializing intimacy were also significant predictors of Internet socializing intimacy at step 3, with the proportion of variance increase being nearly significant, F(2, 102) = 2.96, p < .06.

Confirmatory Regression Analyses

A final set of confirmatory regression analyses were conducted. All variables that had been statistically significant predictors of a particular Internet social communication in a previous hierarchical regression analysis were entered together into one overall regression equation predicting that particular Internet variable. This method was a more conservative set of analyses and also better controlled for possible muticollinearity among the significant predictors. Except for a few exceptions, overall the results confirmed the main findings of the previous hierarchical regression analyses and supported the implications of social network theory.

To predict Internet contact frequency, we entered computer skills, sociability, traditional contact intimacy, traditional contact frequency, and traditional socializing frequency into the regression. The overall equation was significant, F (5, 107) = 21.27, p < .001 and predicted 49% of the adjusted variance in Internet contact frequency. The significant predictors were traditional contact frequency (beta = .49, p < .001) and traditional socializing frequency (beta = .21, p < .05).

To predict Internet socializing frequency, we entered computer skills, sociability, and traditional socializing frequency into the regression. The overall equation was significant, F (3, 107) = 11.12, p < .001 and predicted 22% of the adjusted variance in Internet socializing frequency. The significant predictors were computer skills (beta = .29, p < .01) and traditional socializing frequency (beta = .30, p < .01).

To predict Internet contact intimacy, we entered sex and traditional contact intimacy into the regression. The overall equation was significant, F (2, 110) = 55.81, p < .001 and predicted 50% of the adjusted variance in Internet contact intimacy. The only significant predictor was traditional contact intimacy (beta = .71, p < .001).

To predict Internet socializing intimacy, we entered sex, computer skills, shyness, and traditional socializing intimacy into the regression. The overall equation was significant, F (4, 113) = 6.40, p < .001 and predicted 16% of the adjusted variance in Internet socializing intimacy. The significant predictors were computer skills (beta = .25, p = .01), shyness (beta = .19, p < .05), and traditional socializing intimacy (beta = .25, p < .01).

Summary of Findings

Table 6 presents the summary of the findings from the two sets of regression analyses testing the hypotheses. The first hypothesis (H1) was supported by the findings. The computer skills variable was associated with three of the four Internet variables, contact frequency, socializing frequency, and socializing intimacy. The second hypothesis (H2) was partially supported. Women were more likely than men to engage in intimate Internet contacts and socializing (but only in the hierarchical regression analyses).

The last three hypotheses specifically tested social network theory. The third hypothesis (H3) was generally supported. Internet contact frequency was predicted by traditional contact frequency and traditional socializing frequency. Internet socializing frequency was predicted by traditional socializing frequency. Hypothesis four (H4) was partially supported. Internet contact intimacy was predicted by traditional contact intimacy. Internet socializing intimacy was predicted by traditional socializing intimacy. Hypothesis five (H5) was also partially supported. Sociability predicted Internet contact frequency and Internet socializing frequency (but only in the hierarchical regression analyses). However, contrary to prediction, shyness was associated only with increased Internet socializing intimacy. Overall, the findings supported the implications of social network theory in that online social communication appeared to be an extension of traditional social behaviors.

Uses and Gratifications Theory

The findings on the association of social motives with traditional and Internet social communications had implications for uses and gratifications theory. The pattern of the associations of social motives with traditional and Internet social behaviors were different. Table 3 shows that the social motives, sociability and shyness, had stronger correlations with traditional social behaviors than with the Internet social communication variables. Sociability had positive correlations with both sets of communication variables. Shyness, however, was negatively correlated with traditional socializing and contact intimacy, but positively correlated with Internet socializing intimacy. Shyness also predicted greater socializing intimacy in a hierarchical regression analysis (see Table 5) and in a confirmatory regression analysis.

Discussion

The findings of this study advanced our knowledge of how traditional socializing is related to social communication over the Internet. The study looked at electronic social communication more generally, not just at friendships formed online. We measured both online social contacts with those considered important in the participants' lives, as well as more anonymous social communication, such as with individuals at random chatting sites. In addition, the research investigated the association between communication behavior across different media not just interests and preferences, which may not be highly correlated with actual behavior. For these reasons, the results of this study have taken a step beyond the usual research on Internet communication.

Table 6 presents the hypotheses that were supported by the findings. Support for the first two hypotheses indicated that our findings were valid overall. As expected, computer skills were associated with more online social communication. In addition, women were more likely than men to engage in intimate Internet social interactions. The implications of social network theory were supported overall by the findings testing the last three hypotheses. As hypothesized, traditional social contacts and socializing predicted the frequency of Internet social communication. Also, intimacy in traditional social behaviors predicted intimacy in online communication. Finally, sociability predicted Internet social interactions. However, contrary to prediction, shyness was associated only with increased Internet socializing intimacy. The next sections elaborate on the implications of these findings.

Social Network Theory

Previous research linking traditional and Internet social behaviors looked at changes in social activity at home caused by the Internet (see e.g., Katz & Aspden, 1997; Kraut et al., 1998) or the formation of online social relationships (Dunham et al., 1998; Leary, 1983; McKenna & Bargh, 2000). The current study examined social behavior more generally. Overall, the findings supported the implications of social network theory in that online social communication appeared to be an extension of interactions in traditional social networks. Our findings indicate that Internet social communication is used to supplement the usual set of social behaviors individuals engage in (also see Haythornthwaite & Wellman, 1998; Wellman et al., 2001). The Internet is not mostly a social outlet for those who have infrequent or superficial social contacts. This finding seems to contradict previous suggestions that those who are socially anxious (McKenna & Bargh, 2000) or less satisfied with interpersonal relationships (Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000) use the Internet as a substitute for face-to-face communication. Lacking longitudinal data, our aim was not to test whether the Internet increases or decreases traditional socializing over time. However, past research indicated that the Internet has not lead to decreases in traditional social interactions. Furthermore, the strong associations that we found between traditional and Internet social behaviors also suggests that this does not typically happen.

As hypothesized, social motives were significantly associated with the frequency of Internet social communication. As sociability increased, so did the frequency of the individual's social contacts over the Internet. These results were found in the hierarchical regressions but not in the confirmatory analyses. Social behaviors were moderately correlated with sociability and it is likely that they cancelled out the effects of sociability when placed together in the same regression equation. These results are similar to previous findings that the extent of network messaging and online interactions are related to sociability in real life (Cody et al., 1997; Joe, 1997; Rice & Love, 1987; Robinson et al., 2000). Cheek and Buss (1981) defined sociability as the desire to be with people. These results seem to suggest that the medium of the Internet is employed for the expression of the desire to be with people. These sociable people might also be using the Internet to a greater degree because of recent computers' improved speed and emotional expression options.

Contrary to prediction, shyness was not associated with less Internet social communication. Shyness appeared to be associated only with more intimate socializing over the Internet. This finding, however, seems to provide only minimal support for previous claims that the socially anxious use the Internet to fulfil their social needs (see Leary, 1983). Shy individuals may feel somewhat freer to express themselves on the Internet because of its greater anonymity, as previously suggested (McKenna & Bargh, 2000). However, they are not increasing their usual number of social contacts. It may be that in spite of the suggestion that the Internet is a place where people can compensate for their shyness and test social skills (Myers, 1987), most shy people may not be taking full advantage of the Internet for social communication. There are some important differences in the components of sociability and shyness in that the former is more motivation based whereas the latter also contains elements of anxiety. Perhaps Internet social communication is still too intimidating for the shy person who is inhibited to experiment with various types of social ventures. Alternatively, shy people may not realize the benefits of the Internet for social purposes, or simply do not wish to communicate socially to a great degree in any medium. Lastly, perhaps social anxiety is not reduced as much in Internet social communication as one might assume. This would be an important area to explore in future research (i.e., to contrast social anxiety on and offline). Overall, however, the results on social motives support our other findings based on specific social behaviors that the Internet is a vehicle to promote existing socializing rather than being a compensating mechanism for shy and socially anxious persons.

Uses and Gratifications Theory

With reference to uses and gratifications theory, traditional and Internet social communication channels were not found to be functionally equivalent. Although Internet communication was found to be an extension of traditional socializing, there were also some differences in the underlying motivations at play in the two forms of communication. Social motives had stronger correlations with traditional social behaviors than with Internet social communication. In addition, shyness was negatively correlated with traditional socializing and contact intimacy, as one would expect, but positively correlated with intimate Internet communication. Although shy individuals appear to avoid face-to-face socializing, they may feel more secure in expressing themselves or in revealing their feelings on the Internet. The fact that the effect of shyness was on the Internet socializing intimacy measure (which was more anonymous), rather than on the contact intimacy measure, suggests that the possible reduction of social anxiety may pertain more to anonymous social interactions rather than with known individuals, in line with previous suggestions by McKenna and Bargh (2000). Further research will need to explore these possibilities.

Finally, on measures that were comparable, the frequency of traditional social contact was higher than the frequency of Internet social contact, and likewise the frequency of intimate traditional social contact was higher than the frequency of intimate Internet social contact. These findings also suggest some differences in the uses and underlying motives at play in the two forms of communication. We may conclude, therefore, that the two forms of communication are not functional alternatives or functionally equivalent in fulfilling social needs. Face-to-face contact appears to have the edge for socializing and intimacy, as also found in previous studies (Cummings et al., in press). There are differences in the two media in terms of the social needs that they fulfil, as found in previous research comparing face-to-face and Internet communication (see Ferguson & Perse, 2000; Flaherty et al., 1998).

Strengths and Limitations of the Study

This study built upon and extended early research in several ways. The fact that everyone on campus had their own laptop computer created a level playing field where the association between the two forms of social communication could be validly tested without the contamination of the issue of computer accessibility. The significant relationships of variables expected to be associated with social communication on the Internet supported the overall validity of the findings. Computer skills significantly predicted the frequency of Internet social communication, similarly to the finding of Parks and Roberts (1998) of an association between Internet skills and the frequency of using the computer for social purposes. We found that women engaged in more intimate Internet social communication, which is consistent with other findings that women were more likely than men to form online relationships (Parks & Roberts, 1998). Our finding on the influence of gender is consistent with our claim that online social behavior is an extension of traditional social behavior, as females tend to be higher on intimacy than males (Hussong, 1997; McAdams et al., 1988). They also communicate over the Internet with family and friends more frequently than men (Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2000). In addition, we found that younger individuals engaged in more frequent and intimate Internet socializing. This finding makes sense in that younger generations are more likely to take to new technology and accordingly have more practice with the Internet.

Frequencies based on lists of Internet contacts appeared to be more sensitive criterion measures of the effects of traditional social behaviors than the more general Internet socializing measures. These results support the significance of the findings in terms of specific behavioral criteria. On the other hand, the general Internet socializing measures appeared to be more sensitive to the effects of demographic variables, like age and sex, and to computer skills. These findings make sense when one considers the fact that social interactions would be reflected in specific behaviors, whereas demographic variables and basic skills are likely to have broad influences. These results also fit well with network social influence theory (Rice, 1993) in which specific interactions in social networks have been found to have more influence than more general social factors like group membership on specific attitudes and behaviors.

Conclusions

In the current study, traditional social motives and behaviors were associated with the frequency and intimacy of online social communication. Other variables that have been found to be associated with increased traditional social communication (e.g., gender) were also associated in the expected direction with Internet social communication. In contrast, shyness was a significant predictor only of Internet socializing intimacy. Although the two media were not functionally equivalent in fulfilling social needs, the findings do suggest that online social communication is more likely to be an outlet for the sociable person than a compensatory mechanism for the shy or socially anxious individual with infrequent or superficial social contacts. In contrast to the speculation about the social-isolate benefiting the most from Internet social communication, our data suggest that it is the person with a large social network and frequent/intimate social communication who is more likely to use the new medium for social purposes. These days Internet use seems to have more in common with the telephone than the television (see Robinson et al., 2000), and advances in Internet communication technology may have reached a point where the gap between it and traditional social communication is closing.

To complement our findings, future research could examine whether social anxiety is actually reduced in Internet social communication. As well, it would be beneficial to compare the predictors of anonymous Internet social communication (e.g., chatting with those met online) with the predictors of other forms of Internet social communication (e.g., chatting with individuals also known in a traditional sense). Our study did not tease apart these two online behaviors. However, the fact that the effect of shyness was on the somewhat more anonymous socializing intimacy measure rather than on measures of intimacy with known individuals suggests that possible reduction of social anxiety may pertain more to anonymous social interactions. Communication media have been regarded as having powerful influences that change social processes (Carey, 1989). Our findings suggest that in addition to change in social patterns fostered by the media, people also adapt new technologies to extend and expand their traditional forms of social interactions.

References

Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1531-1544.

Boneva, B., Kraut, R., & Frohlich, D. (2001). Using e-mail for personal relationships: The difference gender makes. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 530-549.

Bruch, M. A., Gorsky, J. M., Collins, T. M., & Berger, P. A. (1989). Shyness and sociability reexamined: A multicomponent analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 904-915.

Carey, J. W. (1989). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. New York: Routledge.

Chay, Y. (1993). Social support, individual differences and well-being: A study of small business entrepreneurs and employees. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66(4), 285-302.

Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(2), 330-339.

Civin, M. A. (2000). Male, female, email: The struggle for relatedness in a paranoid society. New York: Other Press.

Cody, M. J., Wendt, P., Dunn, D., Pierson, J., Ott, J., & Pratt, L. (1997, May). Friendship formation and creating communities on the Internet: Reaching out to the senior population. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.

Cummings, J., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (in press). The quality of online social relationships. Communications of the ACM.

December, J. (1996). Units of analysis for Internet communication. Journal of Communication, 46(1), 14-37.

Dunham, P. J., Hurshman, A., Litwin, E., Gusella, J., Ellsworth, C., & Dodd, P. W. (1998). Computer-mediated social support: Single young mothers as a model system. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(2), 281-306.

Ebersole, S. (2000). Uses and gratifications of the Web among students [48 paragraphs]. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication [Online serial], 6(1), Available:  http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/ebersole.html.

Ferguson, D. A., & Perse, E. M. (2000). The World Wide Web as a functional alternative to television. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44(2), 155-174.

Flaherty, L. M., Pearce, K. J., & Rubin, R. B. (1998). Internet and face-to-face communication: Not functional alternatives. Communication Quarterly, 46(3), 250-268.   

Fox, S., & Rainie, L. (2001, July 16). Time online: Why some people use the Internet more than before and why some use it less. Pew Internet and American Life Project. [On-line] Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_Time_spent_online.pdf

Hampton, K. N., & Wellman, B. (1999). Netville online and offline: Observing and surveying a wired suburb. American Behavioral Scientist,  43(3), 475-492.

Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1998). Work, friendship and media use for information exchange in a networked organization. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(12), 1101-1114.

Hiltz, S. R. (1978). Controlled experiments with computerized conferencing: Results of a pilot study. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 4(5), 11-12.

Hussong, A. M. (1997). Gender differences in adolescent friendships and adjustment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(7-B), 4710.

Joe, S. K. (1997, May). Socioemotional use of CMC: Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.

Kanaley, R. (1995, July 8). Seizing an on-line lifeline: The disabled and the net. Philadelphia Inquirer, pp. A1, A8.

Katz, J. E., & Aspden, P. (1997). A nation of strangers. Communications of the ACM, 40(12), 81-86.

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Ulilization of mass communication by the individual. In J. G. Blumler, & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19-32). Beverly Hills: Sage.  

Katz, E., Gurevitch, M., & Haas, H. (1973). On the use of mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38, 164-181.

Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49-74.

Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017-1031.

Larsen, C. N. (1998). Social MUSHes and the anxiety of communication [6 paragraphs]. Journal of Virtual Environments [Online serial], 3(1). Available E-mail: clarsen@hms.harvard.edu

Leary, M. R. (1983). Understanding social anxiety: Social personality, and clinical perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lenhart, A., Rainie, L., & Lewis, O.  (2001, June 20). Teenage life online: The rise of the instant-message generation and the Internet’s impact on friendships and family relationships. Pew Internet and American Life Project. [On-line] Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Report.pdf

Lu, L. (1997). Social support, reciprocity, and well-being. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(5), 618-628.

McAdams, D. P., Lester, R. M., Brand, P. A., McNamara, W. J., & Lensky, D. B. (1988). Sex and the TAT: Are women more intimate than men? Do men fear intimacy? Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 397-409.

McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(1), 57-75.

Merkle, E. R., & Richardson, R. A. (2000). Digital dating and virtual relating: Conceptualizing computer mediated romantic relationships. Family Relations, 49, 187-192.

Murray, B., & Bevan, N. (1982). The social psychology of computer conversations. In B. Shackel (Ed.), Human-Computer Interaction- INTERACT '84 (pp. 33-38). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Myers, D. (1987). “Anonymity is part of the magic”: Individual manipulation of computer-mediated communication contexts. Qualitative Sociology, 10(3), 251-266.

Nie, N., & Erbring, L. (2000). Internet and society: A preliminary report. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society. [Online]. Available: http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/Press_Release/Preliminary_Report.pdf.

Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44(2), 175-196.

Parks, M. R. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46(1), 80-97.

Parks, M. R., & Roberts, L. D. (1998). “Making MOOsic”: The development of personal relationships on line and a comparison to their off-line counterparts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(4), 517-537.

Perse, E. M., & Courtright, J. M. (1993). Normative images of communication media: Mass and interpersonal channels in the new media environment. Human Communication Research, 19(4), 485-503.

Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2000, May 10). Tracking online life: How women use the Internet to cultivate relationships with family and friends. [On-line] Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/Report1.pdf

Rice, R. E. (1993). Using network concepts to clarify sources and mechanisms of social influence. In W. Richards, & G. Barnett (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences: Advances in communication network analysis (pp. 43-52). Norwood. NJ: Ablex.

Rice, R. E., Chang, S. J., & Torobin, J. (1992). Communicator style, media use, organizational level, and use and evaluation of electronic messaging. Management Communication Quarterly, 6(1), 3-33.

Rice, R. E., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computer-mediated communication network. Communication Research, 14(1), 85-108.

Robinson, J. P., Kestnbaum, M., Neustadtl, A., & Alvarez, A. (2000). Mass media use and social life among Internet users. Social Science Computer Review, 18(4), 490-501.

Rubin, A, M., & Rubin, R. B. (1985). Interface of personal and mediated communication: A research agenda. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2, 36-53. 

Russell, D. W., Booth, B., Reed, D., & Laughlin, P. R. (1997). Personality, social networks, and perceived social support among alcoholics: A structural equation analysis. Journal of Personality, 65(3), 649-692.

Sharf, B. (1997). Communicating breast cancer on-line: Support and empowerment on the internet. Women and Health, 26(1), 65-84.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Surveying the digital future: How the PC and Internet are changing the world. (1999, June). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for Communication Policy. [Online] Available: http://ccp.ucla.edu/one_page.htm.

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Wellman, B., Haase, A. Q., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 436-455.

 

About the Authors

Sarah A. Birnie is a doctoral student in clinical psychology at the School of Psychology, University of Ottawa.

Peter Horvath is Professor in the Psychology Department, Acadia University. This research was supported by a Small Universities Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Address: Department of Psychology, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada, B0P 1X0.

©Copyright 2002 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication