Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: Clarification concerning Internet Paradox Paper
From: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 17:01:56 -0400
Mike is a grad student who was involved in the study and will base his PhD on parts of it. Dave Reply-To: <patterso () interval com> From: "Mike Patterson" <patterso () interval com> To: <farber () cis upenn edu> Hi Dave, I spoke to you before about writing a response to misconceptions about the Internet Paradox study. First I present 8 points with more detailed explanations below. 1] When you ask heavier users (who became more depressed) about the Internet's effect on their lives, they often say it has improved their lives. 2] The change in depression and loneliness was small (but significant). 3] Our sample demographics are generally representative of the U.S. population 4] Our results are based on home Internet use, it is unclear what the effects would have been in a classroom or other settings 5] Our primary results are based on statistically significant comparisons, not solely qualitative research. 6] We compared peoples differences in amount of Internet use, rather than the simple presence or lack of Internet access. 7] People with higher depression scores were not more likely to use the Internet initially, but those who used the Internet more, reported more depression. 8] The results are not limited to teenagers. ----more detail on points---- 1] We were initially surprised and skeptical of our findings because they were contrary to what we expected. We found that people with heavier use, who also became more depressed, were often the most enthusiastic about the Internet and offered colorful examples of social events and benefits of their Internet use. We did not directly ask "Does Internet use make you depressed?" It is difficult for people to accurately answer this type of self-evaluation question. We use several psychological scales to capture depression at two time points and associated this with their online usage. Note that the initially depressed people were not more likely than less depressed people to use the Internet more. We also controlled for the effects of race, income, and gender. A recent critique of our results is based on the methodology of asking users questions like "Does the Internet expand interactions with friends and family?" (www.activemedia.com). Our findings and observations are not counter to people self-reporting positive effects. 2] It is also important to note that the changes in depression and loneliness were small, but significant. Clinical psychologists would prefer that we use the term "dsythmia" which connotes depression to a lesser degree than the more serious clinical depression. It's much more like feeling in a funk than feeling suicidal. 3] One advantage of our research project is that we loaned computers and gave Internet access to families that were not already connected in 1994. This study was an attempt to look into the future when technological and economic barriers to access would be lowered. Our sample is generally representative of the U.S. population in terms of demographics, although the household income is slightly higher. This sample is however more representative of the U.S. population than a sample of only Internet users, who tend to be white males, with higher income, and education. We do not know how well the effects would generalize to long-time users, who may have developed more meaningful Internet connections. 4] Our results are based on home Internet use. It is unclear what the effects would be in a classroom or other settings. It could be that Internet in classrooms actually have positive social effects. It would be inappropriate to use these results to argue against getting Internet access for inner-city schools. 5] Our primary results are based on statistically significant comparisons, not solely qualitative research. Some who only read the NY Times article believed our results were only qualitative. 6] Using a control group would have allowed us to determine whether or not people given Internet access have different effects from those who were not given access. It would have been desirable to test that question. Having a control group has certain advantages, particularly when comparing blocks of people. A control group would allow us to rule out an extraneous event (e.g. Clinton caught lying) which could have lead people in both groups to become more depressed, not just those with Internet access. But having a control group would not explain why increases in Internet use are related to changes in depression, loneliness, family communication, and size of social circle among those with Internet access. 7] People with higher depression scores were not more likely to use the Internet initially, but those who used the Internet more, reported more depression. Thus Internet use preceded depression. 8] Teenagers tended to both use the Internet more and become more depressed. However, we controlled for whether or not they were a teen. Internet use was still related to depression both among teens and adults. I am very interested in the questions that you and others would like answered in future research, because I am currently developing a related dissertation topic. Thank you, Mike Patterson mp72 () andrew cmu edu Reference: Robert Kraut, R.; Patterson, M.; Lundmark,V.; Kiesler, S. Mukophadhyay, T. & Scherlis, W. (1998) Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53 (11). Draft Online: http://homenet.andrew.cmu.edu/progress/HN.impact.10.htm
Current thread:
- IP: Clarification concerning Internet Paradox Paper Dave Farber (Sep 08)