Internet and Social Life

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2004. 55:X--X doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141922
Copyright © 2004 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141922
0066-4308/04/0204-0000$14.00
BARGH „ MCKENNA
INTERNET AND SOCIAL LIFE
THE INTERNET AND SOCIAL LIFE
John A. Bargh and Katelyn Y.A. McKenna
New York University, New York, New York 10003; email: [e-mail], [e-mail] Key Words communication, groups, relationships, depression, loneliness
„ Abstract The Internet is the latest in a series of technological breakthroughs in interpersonal communication, following the telegraph, telephone, radio, and television. It combines innovative features of its predecessors, such as bridging great distances and reaching a mass audience.
However, the Internet has novel features as well, most critically the relative anonymity afforded to users and the provision of group venues in which to meet others with similar interests and values. We place the Internet in its historical context, and then examine the effects of Internet use on the user’s psychological well-being, the formation and maintenance of personal relationships, group memberships and social identity, the workplace, and community involvement. The evidence suggests that while these effects are largely dependent on the particular goals that users bring to the interaction---such as self-expression, affiliation, or competition---they also interact in important ways with the unique qualities of the Internet communication situation.
INTRODUCTION
It is interactive: Like the telephone and the telegraph (and unlike radio or television), people can overcome great distances to communicate with others almost instantaneously [AU: Annual
Reviews style is to cap the first letter of a complete sentence following colon.]. It is a mass medium: Like radio and television (and unlike the telephone or telegraph), content and advertising can reach millions of people

Cited: Attridge M, Berscheid E, Simpson JA. 1995. Predicting relationship stability from both partners versus one Ballard JD, Nornik JG, McKenzie D. 2002. Technological facilitation of terrorism: definitional, legal, and policy issues Bargh JA. 2002. Beyond simple truths: the human-Internet interaction. J. Soc. Issues 58(1):1--8 Bargh JA, McKenna KYA, Fitzsimons GM Brewer MB. 1988. A dual process model of impression formation. In Advances in Social Cognition, ed Byrne D. 1971. The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Carnevale PJ, Probst TM Cathcart R, Gumpert G. 1983. Mediated interpersonal communication: toward a new typology. Q Crocker J, Major B. 1989. Social stigma and self-esteem: the self-protective properties of stigma. Psychol Cummings JN, Butler B, Kraut R. 2002. The quality of online social relationships. Commun. ACM 45(July):103--8 Davison KP, Pennebaker JW, Dickerson SS. 2000. Who talks? The social psychology of illness support groups Deaux K. 1993. Reconstructing social identity. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 19:4--12 Derlega VL, Chaikin AL Fischer C. 1992. America Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940. Berkeley: Univ. Calif Frable DES. 1993. Being and feeling unique: statistical deviance and psychological marginality. J Geer S. 2000. Pocket Internet. London: Profile Books Glaser J, Dixit J, Green DP Gollwitzer PM. 1986. Striving for specific identities: the social reality of self-symbolizing. In Public Self and Private Self, ed Gross EF, Juvonen J, Gable SL. 2002. Internet use and well-being in adolescence. J. Soc. Issues 58(1):75--90 Hafner K. 2003. Eluding the web’s snare. New York Times, April 17:G1 Hampton K, Wellman B Howard PEN, Rainie L, Jones S. 2001. Days and nights on the Internet. Am. Behav. Sci. 45:383-- 404 Hughes R Jr, Hans JD. 2001. Computers, the internet, and families: a review of the role new technology plays in family life Jones EE, Farina A, Hastorf AH, Markus H, Miller DT, et al. 1984. Social Stigma: The Psychology of Marked Relationships Jones S. 2002. The Internet Goes to College. Washington, DC: Pew Internet/Am. Life Proj. http://www Kang J. 2000. Cyber-race. Harv. Law Rev. 113:1130--1208 21 Katz JE, Rice RE, Aspden P Kavanaugh AL, Patterson CJ. 2001. The impact of community computer networks on social capital and community involvement Keser C, Leland J, Shachat J, Huang H. 2002. Trust, the Internet, and the Digital Divide. IBM Res Kiesler S, Siegel J, McGuire T. 1984. Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication Kraut R, Kiesler S, Boneva B, Cummings J, Helgeson V, et al. 2002. Internet paradox revisited. J Kraut R, Patterson M, Lundmark V, Kiesler S, Mukopadhyay T, et al. 1998. Internet paradox: a social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? Am Lee E, Leets L. 2002. Persuasive storytelling by hate groups online. Am. Behav. Sci. 45:927--57 Manasian D Markoff J. 2002. High-speed wireless internet network is planned. New York Times, Dec. 26: C1 Matei S, Ball-Rokeach SJ McKay HG, Glasgow RE, Feil EG, Boles SM, Barrera M. 2002. Internet-based diabetes selfmanagement and support initial outcomes from the diabetes network project. Rehabil. Psychol McKenna KYA, Bargh JA. 1998. Coming out in the age of the Internet: identity ‘demarginalization’ through virtual group participation McKenna KYA, Bargh JA. 2000. Plan 9 from cyberspace: the implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology McKenna KYA, Green AS, Gleason MJ. 2002. Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction? J Murray SL, Holmes JG, Griffin DW. 1996. The self-fulfilling nature of positive illusions in relationships: Love is blind, but prescient Nie NH. 2001. Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the Internet: reconciling conflicting findings Nie NH, Erbring L. 2000. Internet and Society: A Preliminary Report. Stanford Inst. Quant. Study Soc., Stanford, CA O’Sullivan PB. 1996. A match made in cyberspace: interpersonal communication theory and interpersonal communication technology Parks MR, Floyd K. 1995. Making friends in cyberspace. J. Commun. 46:80--97 Postmes T, Spears R