Myspace: Social Networking or Social Isolation?

By

Rob Nyland
Raquel Marvez
Jason Beck

Graduate Students
Brigham Young University
Department of Communications

Paper Presented at the AEJMC Midwinter Convference, Feb 23-24, 2007 in Reno, Nevada

Please direct all correspondence to:

Rob Nyland
547 E. 200 N.
Provo, UT 84606
(801) 885-0745
Introduction

Social networking sites have seen a dramatic surge in popularity since the beginning of

the decade. These sites (i.e. MySpace, Facebook, Xanga and Friendster) are an appendage of the

new wave of the Internet, or what is referred to as the Web 2.0. This new version of the web,

works on a user generated model for the creation of web content: users can upload their own

text, photos and music easily to websites that are accessible to anyone who is online. Social

networking sites act as a personal directory for this content. Users create their own profiles – a

virtual persona – and use their profile to list their favorite music, movies, and television, as well

as upload their own pictures, video and music.

Because of this ability to create an identity, social networking has become an essential

part of the lives of adolescents and young adults – the most frequent users of these sites. danah

boyd (boyd & Jenkins, 2006) comments that “MySpace is a cultural requirement for American

high school students. Or, as one teenager said, ‘If you’re not on MySpace, you don’t exist.’ Not

all MySpace users are teenagers, but most American teenagers have accounts on MySpace” (para

3).

The popularity of these sites has made them new media powerhouses. For the month of

August 2006, Myspace received 35 billion views (Rosenbush, 2006) while Facebook received

14.8 billion views in the same month (Rosenbush, 2006). In response to traffic like this, Rupert

Murdoch’s media conglomerate Newscorp bought MySpace for 580 million dollars (Mintz,

2006) and experts say that it could be worth up to 15 billion dollars in 3 years (Rosenbush,

2006).

The amount of time that youth have been spending on social networking sites has caused

a great deal of moral panic among the population. Concern has been shown as to the safety of
these sites, with some worrying that such sites are playing ground for sexual predators (Hempel,

2005). Others are concerned over the morality of these sites – arguing that there is too much

material that would be deemed as pornographic on these sites (Social networking sites are porn

directories according to ChristianNet study, 2006). Studies suggest that this may be correct: In a

content analysis of MySpace profile photos, Pierce (Sex, Myspace: Fresno State Professor Finds

Links, 2006 ) found that 59 percent of photographs on the site contained risqué or sexual poses,

and that 54 percent contained profanity.

Another main concern over the use of social networking sites is that the youth who use

them already have busy enough lives and that time spent on social networking sites only

contributes to their workload. A recent study by the Kaiser family foundation (Roberts, Foehr &

Rideout, 2005) found that teen media users were cramming in 8.5 hours of media content into a

space of 6.5 hours daily. This has led the Foundation to describe the lives of youth as being

“media saturated” – they are exposed to multiple sources of media at once. For this reason they

have been dubbed by the Foundation as “The Multi-tasking generation” (Roberts, Foehr &

Rideout, 2005). Hempel (2005) argues that adults and adolescents use the Internet in different

ways: adults use the Internet for a more utilitarian purpose, to supplement their daily lives, while

youth are more likely to use it as a place to communicate and hang out with their friends.

This divide between perceptions of online space has caused parents to become concerned

that their children aren’t interacting with their friends enough in real life. In fact many users of

Myspace seem to be closing their accounts because they feel that they aren’t receiving enough

face-to-face interaction, or that the interaction that they have online isn’t as meaningful

(Noguchi, 2006).
 Is there a link between the amount of time that a person uses social networking profile

and the amount of interaction they have in real life with their friends? Do the connections that

are created through social networking add to or take away from the connections that one feels in

their relationships? The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between one’s use

of social networking sites and their feeling of involvement in real world relationships.

Literature Review

Social Networking

Because social networking is such a new phenomenon, few published studies have

addressed the topic. What is needed within the field is a great deal of collaboration so that

simple research questions can be answered and literature regarding the subject can be built.

Those studies that have been published have focused on such issues as privacy (Govani &

Pashley, 2005; Gross & Acquisti, 2005; Jones & Soltern, 2005). Through a content analysis

utilizing concept mapping, Anton et al (2006), determined that student and mainline newspapers

framed issues relating to social networking differently, illustrating the divide between the

generations in regards to their attitudes towards social networking.

Ellison, Steinfield, and Lamp (2006) study is most closely mirrored to the present study.

Using a population from MSU, they sought to explore the relationship between Facebook usage

and social capital. They found that students who intensely used Facebook reported higher levels

of bonding, bridging and high school social capital. Although this study touches upon the

relationship between social involvement and social networking use, it only looks at the

relationship between Facebook exposure and social capital. Our study aims to look at the

individual uses of social networking and how those uses mediate feelings of social involvement.
Internet Use and Social Involvement

Several studies have argued over the issue of the use of Internet and its effect upon social

capital. Robert Putnam, a political scientist at Harvard, has heavily studied social Capital and its

interaction with the usage of the media. Putnam envisions social capital in two parts: network

capital (relationships with friends and neighbors) and participatory capital (involvement in

politics and volunteer organizations) (as cited in Wellman, Haase, Witte, and Hampton 2001).

Putnam argues that the growth of new massified media has led to the decline in social capital for

members of society.

This has led many researchers to ask about the relationship between the use of the

Internet and an individual’s level of social capital. Originally, the Internet was envisioned as a

democratic form of media, a place where users could come together and everyone would have a

voice— The Internet would provide users with more abilities to interact with their communities.

However, the results from the studies investigating this relationship between community

involvement and internet use have not been so definite.

The first group of studies are the most influential and most controversial. These studies

suggest that there is a negative relationship between the use of the Internet and the social capital

of the user. The first in this group is a study performed by Kraut et. al (1998). In the study, the

researchers followed a group of 93 families in 1995, which were provided access to the internet

through HomeNet. Through survey, they determined that use of the internet was related to small

but statistically significant declines in social involvement, and the size of local networks. They

also found that internet users had higher reports of loneliness and depression. Additionally, Nie

and Erbing (2000) found that individuals who spent more time on the internet were more likely
to lose touch with their social environment: they turned their back on traditional media and spent

less time talking on the phone.

The combination of these two studies suggest that users of the internet are isolating

themselves and not fulfilling the vision of the internet to connect with ones community.

However, these studies – particularly the Kraut study – are quite old. Users of the internet at the

time would be considered early adopters and it is difficult to determine if their relationship to the

internet is different than one’s is now.

Shah et al. (2002), provides different results from the previous studies mentioned. In

their study they indicate that time spent on the internet is not a significant predictor of informal

socialization and vice versa.

The final groups of studies argue that exposure to the internet alone is not a good

predictor of social involvement. Instead, these studies take a “multi-modal” approach to internet

use and find that certain uses of the internet are significant predictors of ones level of social

involvement. Moy et al (2005) found that internet activities such as searching for information,

emailing interpersonal sources, community based activity and political activity was positively

related to levels of civic engagement. Whereas other uses, such as chatting socially was not

related to civic involvement.

Shah et al (2001) also utilize this multi use model, claiming that the use of the internet for

information exchange was positively related to engagement in civic activities, trust in other

people and life contentment. The researchers also found that there was a negative relationship

between the use of the internet for social recreation and the individual’s engagement in civic

activities.
 The results of these studies suggest that we should look back at the results from the

earlier studies from Kraut et al (1998) and Nie and Erbing (2000). Their studies take an

approach that looks at overall exposure to the Internet as a predictor of social involvement.

However, as these later studies indicate such an approach may be too simple and as a result may

overshadow the real results. These later studies suggest instead that we need to look at the way

that an individual uses the internet, and how that particular use can predict their overall level of

civic engagement.

Uses and Gratifications

In an attempt to examine the ways that individuals use the internet for specific purposes,

and how those uses media effects of the media, this study takes a uses and gratifications

approach. This method, whose solidification in communications theory is attributed to Jay

Blumler and Elihu Katz, is a reaction to the behavioralist, effects driven model of

communications that was prevalent in the early 20th Century. Instead of concentrating on the

effects of media content on media audiences, the uses and gratifications approach was more

concerned with why media audiences attended to media content, more specifically what types of

needs are satisfied through the use of a particular medium. Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch (1973)

summarize the approach as being concerned

“With (1) the social and psychological origins of (2) needs, which generate (3)

expectations of (4) the mass media or other sources, which lead to (5) differential patterns

of media exposure (or engagement in other activities), resulting in (6) need gratifications

and (7) other consequences, perhaps mostly unintended ones” (p. 510).
 Since its inception as a method, studies have applied to the uses and gratifications method

to several different media. The main purpose of these studies is to understand that uses and

gratifications that each media fulfill. Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch (1973) suggest that further

steps need to be taken beyond merely identifying the uses of each media. They suggest that

studies need to look at how the particular uses and gratifications of a particular medium mediate

any effects from the medium. This is the main purpose of our study.

Uses and Gratifications of the Internet

Several studies have attempted to apply the uses and gratifications approach to the

Internet. Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) identified 5 different uses of the Internet in their study:

for information seeking, for interpersonal utility, to pass time, convenience, and entertainment.

They also found that those people that viewed the internet as being more socially present (that it

is warm, social and active) were more likely to use it to pass time, because it was convenient, for

entertainment and for interpersonal utility. Additionally, those users who found face to face

interaction to be less rewarding and who found their social environment to be less valuable were

more likely to use the internet for social interaction, while those who found their social

environment as more valuable were more likely to use the internet as primarily an information

tool.

LaRose and Eastin (2004) identify 6 different expected outcomes of internet use, many of

which are very similar to those identified in earlier gratifications studies. These are: Activity

outcomes (similar to entertainment uses), monetary outcomes (using the internet to get money),

novel outcomes (obtaining information), social outcomes (similar to interpersonal utility), self-
reactive outcomes (using to pass time, relax), and status outcomes. These uses were found to be

significant predictors of total internet use, with status uses (r = .53) being the heaviest predictor.

Studies have also looked at other aspects of the online experience. Flanagine (2005)

identified four significant usage factors in the use of instant messaging by college students:

Social entertainment, social usefulness, Entertainment and Task accomplishment. Additionally,

the researchers compared the relative gratifications that were fulfilled by different media. They

found that while face-to-face communication was seen as the most useful and versatile channel

of communication, instant messaging and Cellular phones followed closely behind.

Most of the studies that have utilized a uses and gratifications approach to the internet

have done so with the intent of identifying the reasons which individuals are using it. As we

have seen from these studies, the uses tend to be similar. Focusing around issues such as

interpersonal utility, entertainment, and information gathering. Because social networking is a

new facet of the internet experience, we expect its uses to be similar to the ones from the

previous studies. However, it will be interesting to see if any new uses can be derived from our

research.

Hypotheses

The first set of hypotheses will test overall exposure to social networking sites. Since use

of social networking sites is predicted to augment already existing social relationships, and

produce higher levels of social capital (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2006). The first two

hypotheses are as follows

H1: People who spend more time on social networking sites are more socially involved

H2: People who have more contacts on social networking sites are more socially involved
 In order to take a multi-modal approach to the relationship between social networking use

and social involvement, a typology of uses of the sites must be developed. This prompts the first

research question;

RQ1: What are the main uses of social networking sites?

Once the uses of different uses of social networking sites are determined, those uses can

be tested against the individuals’ level of social involvement, in order to determine how

particular uses may mediate effects. This prompts the final research question:

RQ2: Is there any relationship between social networking uses and social involvement?

Sample

Data was collected via a survey administered on Qualtrics.com. The purposive sample

was collected through two primary methods: 1) By posting the link to the survey on various

message boards (available in several directories including Google, Yahoo, and Big-Boards.com)

and 2) By sending the link to the survey via message to randomly selected members of social

networking sites. The survey was available for approximately 3 weeks. Only those respondents

who were 18 years and older were invited and allowed to take the survey.

Because of the nature of a survey administered over the Internet, an exact response rate

cannot be assessed. However, out of approximately 5000 invitations sent out for the survey over

MySpace, and various message board postings, only 202 surveys were completed, resulting in a

total of 184 usable respondents. This indicates a response rate of less than 5 percent. Such a low

response rate to MySpace messages may indicate that users are accustomed to large amounts of

spam, and it may be difficult to do survey research in such an environment.

 184 people responded to the survey. Of the respondents, distribution was split evenly

between males (N=93) and women (N=91). The average age of respondents was 27 years old

(which is higher than the average social networking user – 18-24), 81.5% (N=150) were white,

2.2% (N=4) were African-American, 5.4% (N=10) were Asian, 3.3% (N=6) were Hispanic and

7.6% (N=14) were categorized as other.

Respondents were asked to list their highest level achieved in education. 3.8% (N=7) of

the respondents had less than a High School diploma. 38% (N=70) had only a High School

diploma, 45.7% (N=84) had a Bachelor’s Degree, 9.8% (N=18) had a Master’s Degree, and

2.7% (N=5) had Doctoral Degrees.

Measures

Independent Measures

Social Networking Exposure. Respondents were asked several descriptive questions

about their social networking use. Exposure and involvement in social networking sites was

measure by answering two questions: The first question asked the respondent how much time in

a day they would spend on social networking sites. The second question asked how many

distinct contacts (“friends” who do not overlap from site to site) the individual had on all of their

social networking accounts.

Social Networking Uses. Respondents were given a list of 23 uses and gratifications for

the use of social networking sites (see table 1). The uses were compiled from the measures

utilized in general internet uses studies (Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000; Recchiuti, 2003).

Additional uses particular to functions on social networking sites were also added (How often the
respondent uses social networking to upload photos and videos, blog, etc). To assess social

networking uses, respondents rated how often they had used social networking for the listed

purpose by responding to a 5-point Likert scale with responses ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very

frequently).

Dependent Measures

Social Involvement. A self-report measure of feeling of social involvement was created.

This scale was adapted from a scale used by Ellison & George (1994). Respondents were asked

to rate how often they had felt the following from their relationships: understood, useful,

informed about the activities of your friends, listened to, that they have a definite role among

their friends, that they can consult with others about their deepest problems, that they can count

on their friends for help. Answers ranged from 1 (hardly ever) to 3 (most of the time). Answers

to these items were then combined to create an additive scale that measures the individuals

perceived level of social involvement (α=. 867).

Demographic Variables. Respondents also answered questions regarding several

traditional demographic variables, which could be used as controls in the analysis. These

include: Gender, Age, Education, and Ethnicity.

Results

Of the 184 respondents who took the survey, 79.3% (N=146) used some form of social

networking. Of those respondents who used social networking sites, 81.5% (N=40) had

accounts on MySpace, 33.6% (N=40) had accounts on Facebook, 9.6% (N=14) had accounts on
Friendster, 3.4% (N=5) had accounts on Xanga, and 31.5% (N=46) had accounts on other social

networking sites.

Social Networking Exposure. Hypothesis 1 posits that who spend more time on social

networking sites perceive themselves as more socially involved. In order to test this, a median

split was used to break users into two groups: low users (20 minutes or less of use a day) and

high users (more than 20 minutes of use a day), and the groups perceived level of social

involvement was compared. This hypothesis was not supported. In fact the opposite effect

exists, those individuals who are high users perceived themselves as being less socially involved

(t=1.741, p <. 05).

Hypothesis 2 claims that the more contacts a person has on social networking sites, the

more socially involved they will perceive themselves being. This hypothesis was not supported

(p=ns).

Social Networking Uses. Research Question 1 looks for the main uses for Internet social

networking. In order to determine these uses, an exploratory factor analysis was performed on

the items measured in social networking uses matrix. Results from the factor analysis are

displayed in Table 1. Only factors with eigenvalues above 1 were kept. This exploratory factor

analysis produced 5 factors, which explain 70.8% of the variance: The first factor, Use to meet

new people, (eigenvalue = 4.636) was comprised of 5 items which describe uses for meeting and

communicating with people that users didn’t know in real life. The second factor, Use to

entertain, (eigenvalue = 2.470) consisted of 3 items which describe social networking uses for

passing time and entertaining oneself. The third factor, Use to maintain relationships,
(eigenvalue = 2.070) describes uses related to maintaining already existing relationships outside

of social network sites. The fourth factor, Use for social events, (eigenvalue = 1.691) describes

uses related to learning about social activities and music. The fifth factor, Use for media

creation, (eigenvalue = 1.169) describes the user generated media capabilities of social

networking sites such as uploading music and videos.

The scores of each of the uses from each factor (from 1 to 5) were combined to create an

additive scale, which measure the frequency of use for that certain factor. For the first factor,

Use to meet new people; scores ranged form 5 to 25 (M=12.68, ∝=. 844). For the second factor,

Use to entertain, scores ranged from 3 to 15 (M=10.74, ∝=. 927). For the third factor, Use to

maintain relationships, scores ranged from 3 to 15 (M=10.65, ∝=. 834). For the fourth factor,

Use for social events, scores ranged from 3 to 15 (M=7.5, ∝=. 729). The final factor, Use for

media creation, although weak statistically was included because of its uniqueness to Internet

social networking. Scores ranged from 3 to 13 (M=5.26, ∝=. 567).

Research Question 2 wants to know if there is any significant relationships between the

uses that are outlined for social networking developed in the previous questions and an

individuals perceived level of social involvement. The results from the correlation only point out

one significant relationship. The more an individual uses social networking for entertainment

purposes (Use for entertainment) the less they perceive themselves as socially involved (r=-.235,

p<. 01).

After the hypotheses were tested and the research questions were answered, the

researchers were interested to see if gender mediated the relationship between social networking

use and social involvement. In comparing high and low users, no significant differences could

be found between high and low male social networking users in regards to their level of social
involvement. There was however a significant difference between high and low female users,

with high users perceiving themselves as less socially involved (t=2.235, p <. 05), suggesting

that most of the effect tested in hypothesis 1 is carried by female users.

Discussion

The results of this study are interesting when compared to the results of studies

performed by Kraut et. al (1998) and Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe (2006). Our results indicate

that high users of social networking sites, feel less socially involved with the community around

them. Now while causality is difficult to determine this may suggest that those people who feel a

lack of connection with their community, are more likely to use social networking tools in a

quest to create that connection. But as the results also indicate, they are finding that they are

felling that connection less – at least with those friends around them.

These results contrast with those produced by Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe (2006). This

may be due to the social networking sample. Their study looked exclusively at the use of

Facebook. Facebook is a social networking site organized around local networks (such as

schools and cities) so that individuals can only interact with users who are in their same network.

Because their study is looking at the production of social capital within the context of a college

community, social networking sites may augment social relationships more than open networks

such as MySpace, which is based on an open network model. Because most of our sample was

MySpace users, this may account for the differences in results.

This study has also been useful in pointing out the particular uses of social networking

sites. Many of these uses (to meet new people, to maintain relationships, and to entertain) mirror

the uses that are enumerated in previous internet studies. This study produces two additional
factors, which reflect the additional tools that social networking sites provide. The first, use for

social events, emphasizes the geographical aspects of social networking use. Members are able

to keep tabs of events that are happening in the community around them. The last, use for

media, emphasizes the positioning of social networking sites within the Web 2.0. On these sites,

users are able to upload and share user created media.

When examining the relationship between these uses and social involvement levels, only

one significant relationship could be found: as individuals use social networking more for

entertainment, their level of social involvement decreases. This result reflects the results

produced by Shah et al. (2001) in that less active uses like recreation and entertainment may be

related to people withdrawing from the environment around them. They are not using the tools

to supplement relationships, but rather because it is something to do.

Limitations and Directions for Further Study

While this study has been useful in helping us understand the relationship between uses

of social networking sites and an individuals’ level of social involvement, there are several

limitations that prevent us from drawing more substantive conclusions. These limitations are

mostly related to the choice to administer the survey on the internet. For the survey, the

researchers had a difficult time getting respondents resulting in an incredibly low response rate.

Ultimately, having a higher N is essential for a study like this where the relationship between the

variables is very slight. A higher amount of respondents would help us find more subtle

relationships.

Other limitations that come from an internet survey are self-selected bias: the final

description of the survey shows that respondents are more older and more educated than the
average social network user. Having a sample that is closer to the average user of social

networking sites would help us better understand the role that religion has in their use. Also,

because much of the survey was administered through Myspace, the final description is bound to

lean towards users of that site. Facebook is popular among many youth because they feel that it

is safer than MySpace. Also as mentioned previously, different social networking sites may

influence how users build social involvement. Future studies should be more proactive in

obtaining a sample that is closer to the proportion of social networking users, or compare the

social involvement levels of MySpace users versus Facebook users.

Because of limitations with the scope of our research, we were only able to survey adult

social networking users. Further studies need to focus their attention on high school users. If

MySpace is viewed as the social currency among teens, how is the mediated experience

changing how they interact with one another?

This study attempts to investigate the relationship between social networking usage and

an individuals feeling of social involvement within their community. It suggests that individuals

that use social networking sites feel less socially involved, and that social networking sites may

not provide all the gratifications of face-to-face interaction.

This study has been a helpful step in building the literature regarding social networking

tools. Such literature is essential in providing empirical evidence to support or refute much panic

that has been portrayed in the media regarding these sites.

Table 1. Factor Analysis for Social Networking Uses

Scale Item Totals and Items Factor Mean SD

Loading
Use to meet people (eigenvalue=4.636, ∝=. 844) 12.68 4.59
To meet new people .827 2.34 1.14
To keep in touch with people I’ve met online .805 2.48 1.27
To find others who have the same interests .760 2.44 1.13
To share ideas and opinions .733 2.97 1.19
To help others .703 2.24 1.09
Use for entertainment (eigenvalue=2.470, ∝=. 927) 10.74 3.26
To occupy my time .931 3.35 1.27
To entertain myself .886 3.61 1.11
To pass time when bored .878 3.78 1.09
Use to maintain relationships (eigenvalue=2.070, ∝=. 834) 10.65 3.12
To keep in touch with friends .872 3.73 1.10
To keep in touch with friend or relatives who live far away .872 3.59 1.29
To keep in touch with people you don’t have time to see in person .804 3.32 1.19
Use for social events (eigenvalue=1.691, ∝=. 729) 7.50 3.16
To learn about social events .880 2.61 1.25
To publicize events that I am holding .732 2.23 1.30
To learn about new music .711 2.67 1.37
Use for media (eigenvalue=1.169, ∝=. 567) 5.26 2.31
To post videos that I have created .811 1.48 .90
To post music that I have created .780 1.57 1.13
To watch uploaded videos .484 2.19 1.12
Items not included in scales
To communicate with people who I am interested in romantically 2.13 1.21
To give or receive information with people you know 3.41 1.08
To show others encouragement 2.66 1.14
To post pictures that I have taken 2.97 1.22
To look at photos others have taken 3.36 1.06
To keep a blog (online journal) 2.21 1.33
References

Anton, F., Rey, R., Abbott, E. & Bugeja, M. (2006, August). Facebook Me! The Social Divide

Between Student and Main Line Newspapers. Paper presented at the Conference of the

Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, San Francisco, CA.

boyd, d. and Jenkins, H. (2006). "MySpace and Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA)." MIT

Tech Talk. May 26. http://www.danah.org/papers/MySpaceDOPA.html

Ellison, C. G. and George, L. K. (1994). Religious involvement, social ties, and social support in

a southeastern community. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33(1), 46-61.

Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., and Lampe, C. (2006). Spatially bounded online social networks and

social capital: The role of Facebook. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the

International communication Association, June 19-23, 2006, Dresden, Germany.

Flanagin, A. J. (2005). IM Online: Instant messaging use among college students.

Communication Research Reports, 22(3), 175-187.

Govani, T., & Pashley, H. (2005). Student Awareness of the Privacy Implications while Using

Facebook. Unpublished manuscript retrieved October 20, 2006 from

http://lorrie.cranor.org/courses/fa05/tubzhlp.pdf

Gross, R. & Acquisti, A. (2005, November 7). Information Revelation and Privacy in Online

Social Networks. Paper presented at the Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society,

Alexandria, VA.

Hempel, J. (2005, December 12). The MySpace Generation. Business Week, 88-96.

Jones, H. & Soltren, J. H. (2005). Facebook: Threats to privacy. Retrieved from

http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/student-papers/fall05-papers/facebook.pdf
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., and Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public

Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523.

Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, and Sherlis, W. (1998).

Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological

well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017-1031.

LaRose, R. & Eastin, M. (2004). A Social cognitive theory of internet uses and gratifications:

Toward a new model of media attendance. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,

48(3), 358-377.

Moy, P., Manosevitch, E., Stamm, K., & Dunsmore, K. (2005). Linking dimensions of internet

use and civic engagement. Journalism & Mass Communications Quarterly, 82(3), 571-

586.

Nie, N. H., and Erbing, L. (2000). Internet and society: a preliminary report. Stanford, CA:

Stanford Instituted for the Quantitative Study of Society.

Noguchi, Y. (2006, October 29). In Teens' Web World, MySpace Is So Last Year;

Social Sites Find Fickle Audience. The Washington Post.

Papacharissi, Z. and Rubin, A. (2000). Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, 44(2), 175-196.

Recchiuti, J. K. (2003). College student’s uses and motives for e-mail, instant messaging, and

online chat rooms. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Delaware, Newark,

Delaware.

Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G. & Rideout, V. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8-18

year olds. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from

http://www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedia030905pkg.cfm
Rosenbush, S. (2006). Facebook's Changing Fortunes. Business Week Online, Retrieved

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 from the Academic Search Premier database.

Sex, Myspace: Fresno State Professor Finds Links. (2006, September 14). Retrieved October 20,

2006 from Lexis Nexis Academic.

Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., and Holbert, R. L. (2001). “Connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic

life: Patterns of internet use and the production of social capital. Political

Communication, 18, 141-162.

Shah, D., Schmierbach, M., Hawkins, J., Espino, R., and Donavan, J. (2002). Nonrecursive

models of internet use and community engagement: Questioning whether time spent

online erodes social capital. Journalism & Mass Communications Quarterly, 79(4), 964-

987.

Social Networking Sites Are Porn Directories According to a ChristiaNet Study. (2006). Market

Wire. Retrieved October 20, 2006 from Lexis Nexis Academic.

Wellman, B., Haase, A. Q., Witte, J., and Hampton, K. (2001). Does the internet increase,

decrease, or supplement social capital?: Social networks, participation, and community

commitment. American Behavioralist Scientist, 45(3), 436-455.