[Bridging_the_digital_divide] New digital divide study

[Jason Barkeloo]

[excerpted]


The impact of Internet use on the other side of the digital divide

Linda A. Jackson, Alexander von Eye, Gretchen Barbatsis, Frank Biocca,
Hiram E. Fitzgerald, Yong Zhao

In 1998, researchers at Carnegie-Mellon University found evidence of what
they labeled "the Internet paradox" [5]. Greater Internet use was
associated with decreased psychological well-being and social involvement.
These findings were considered paradoxical because Internet use was
assumed to facilitate social connection and the psychological and social
benefits associated with it [1]. The HomeNet findings captured national
attention, inspiring such headlines as "Sad, Lonely World Discovered in
Cyberspace" (New York Times, Aug. 30, 1998), "Heavy Net Use Cuts into Real
Life" (USA Today, Feb. 16, 2000), and "A Web of Workaholic Misfits? Study
Finds Heavy Internet Users are Socially Isolated" (Washington Post, Feb.
16, 2000).

Given the importance and visibility of the HomeNet study, it is not
surprising it provoked severe criticism from other researchers. Much of
the criticism focused on the measures used to assess psychological
well-being and social involvement and on the representativeness of the
sample [7]. HomeNet researchers responded to both criticisms in a
three-year follow-up of the original study's participants, and in a second
longitudinal survey study [3]. Results of the three-year follow-up
indicated that the negative psychological and social effects of Internet
use had dissipated by the third year, with the exception of stress.
Findings from the survey study indicated benefits of Internet use for
psychological well-being and social involvement, again with the exception
of stress. However, benefits were limited to extroverts and those who had
greater amounts of social support.

To explain changes in findings over time within the original HomeNet
study, Kraut et al. [3] suggested that maturation of participants and
changes in how they used the Internet may account for the dissipation of
negative psychological and social effects. Further, discrepancies in
findings between the follow-up to the original study and the longitudinal
survey study may be attributable to unmeasured sample differences.
However, the most economical explanation, according to CMU researchers, is
that changes in the Internet itself account for these differences: "Simply
put, the Internet may have become a more hospitable place over time." More
friends and family members are likely to be online now than previously.
Services that facilitate the development of strong social ties have
increased (for example AOL buddy lists and instant-messaging services). In
addition, the explosion of information on the Internet may have
contributed to the benefits of Internet use by providing a better
integration of users' online and offline lives.

Other research examining the social impact of Internet use has produced
mixed results. Some studies found Internet use contributes to
psychological well-being by providing opportunities for social connection
and community, as well as convenient access to information [6, 9, 10].
Other studies indicated that Internet use undermines well-being because
online connections are weaker than real-life connections, or because
online connections are often used to replace real-life relationships and
activities [8]. Thus, the social impact of Internet use remains
controversial, with a variety of explanations offered for findings of
favorable or unfavorable impact.

The HomeNetToo project was based in part on the original HomeNet study
[4]. As in the original study, we automatically recorded Internet use for
an extended period of time (16 months) and measured psychological
well-being and social involvement with multiple measures and at multiple
times. However, the HomeNetToo study was designed to address questions
about the digital divide, particularly the racial digital divide [2]. Our
sample is unique in that it consists of low-income African-Americans and
Caucasians using the Internet at home for the first time. In this article,
we address the following questions:

Does Internet use influence psychological well-being in low-income adults?
If so, is its influence dependent on race or other factors known to be
related to psychological well-being (such as extroversion, or common daily
hassles and annoyances)?

Does Internet use influence social involvement in low-income adults? If
so, is its influence dependent on race or other factors known to be
related to social involvement (for example, extroversion)?

---

Results of the HomeNetToo project indicate Internet use has no effect on
the psychological well-being and social involvement of low-income
African-Americans. Nor does it affect these outcomes for low-income
Caucasians. The absence of social impact was found regardless of how
Internet use was measured (time online, number of sessions) and regardless
of how psychological well-being (depression, happiness) and social
involvement were measured (number of close friends, time spent with
family). Discrepancies between our findings and those of the original
HomeNet study—the only other study to automatically record Internet
use—are easily explained by differences in sample characteristics and
changes in the Internet itself. Of greater interest is why Internet use
had neither a positive nor negative social impact for our sample.

An explanation for the absence of Internet effects on psychological
well-being and social involvement may lie in the low frequency of email
use by HomeNetToo participants. Recall that the average number of email
messages sent was only three per week, despite evidence that Internet use
was nontrivial, averaging about 43 minutes per day. African-Americans, who
comprised 67% of our sample, were particularly unlikely to use email.
Apparently, our participants never embraced the Internet as a
communication tool. Rather, they viewed it as an information tool.
Ethnographic data collected by the HomeNetToo project supports this view.

Why didn't our participants take to the Internet as a communication tool?
The explanation is so obvious as to be elusive. Email is a desirable
communication tool only if you have people to communicate with, in
particular, family and friends who have home computers and Internet
access, or co-workers with whom email communication is encouraged or
required. It is likely that many of our participants had family and
friends on the same side of the digital divide as they were. It is
unlikely that many of our participants had co-workers with whom they
communicated using email. Thus, it is not surprising that they never
embraced the Internet as a communication tool.

Of course, email is not the only way to communicate on the Internet. We
recorded the frequency of chat and newgroup activity by HomeNetToo
participants and found it to be essentially nonexistent. Some participants
were particularly wary of chat rooms, which they viewed as dangerous
places where predators lurk.

Evidence that Internet use has no social impact on low-income adults has
implications for efforts to reduce the digital divide and suggests that
concerns about a negative social impact are unwarranted. While finding a
positive impact would have been more supportive of efforts to reduce the
divide, it may be that a positive impact does occur in domains other than
the social domain. For example, Internet use may increase learning
motivation and cognitive competencies, possibilities we are examining
using other measures from the HomeNetToo project.

As the digital divide narrows, the Internet may become an important
communication tool for low-income families as well. A reexamination of the
social impact of Internet use may be necessary as both the "typical"
Internet user and the Internet itself change over time.

http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1010000/1005819/p43-jackson.html?key1=1005819&key2=9367497801&coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=22966264&CFTOKEN=82014203

-- 
Jason Barkeloo
President
TouchSmart Publishing
TouchSmart.net
http://www.touchsmart.net
tele 513.225.8765