 

ThE‘rﬁs
i

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

An Exploration of Online Social Support

presented by

 

lnho Cho

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Master of Arts degree in Telecommunication

Major Professor’s Signature

 

 

Dec. 6, 2002

 

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

UBRARY

Michigan State

University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

 

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
WE ‘1 3 ’23???
941 i) u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIFiC/DateDuo.p65-p.15

 

AN EXPLORATION OF ONLINE SOCIAL SUPPORT
By

Inho Cho

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTERS OF ARTS '

Department of Telecommunication

2002

ABSTRACT
AN EXPLORATION OF ONLINE SOCIAL SUPPORT
By
Inho Cho
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has become a popular new medium
for connecting people and establishing virtual relationships. Despite the growing interest
in this area, however, few studies have been conducted concerning why people look to
the Internet for social support. This study, therefore, seeks to further our current
understanding of online social support by evaluating perceptions of online and perceived
social support mechanisms based upon the uses and gratiﬁcations theoretical model.

A Web survey was administered to a general sample of Internet users and to
participants in online discussion/social support groups, in order to assess the impact of
online social support. The results indicated that there are indeed differences between the
perceptions of online group users’ and general Internet users’ perceptions with respect to
the level of social support provided by the Internet, as well as the general type of
gratiﬁcations being sought. Furthermore, a negative relationship was found between the
perceived level of social support or companionship, on the one hand, and the level of

social relationship gratification seeking behavior on the other.

Copyright by
INHO CHO

2001

DEDICATION

To my wife, Kyounghee Cho.
She has always had my best interests at heart. And to my parents, who

believed that I was capable of achieving anything that I put my mind to.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to many people who helped me
complete this thesis. It was a long process that I would not have been able to see to the
end without them. My deepest thanks go to my supervisor, Dr. Robert LaRose, for his
support and encouragement, continual motivation, and meticulous editing. I count myself
very fortunate to have had the privilege of his guidance and support throughout my
Master’s program at Michigan State University.

I also wish to thank Nick Lewis, Pattarinee Saengsert, Chien J ia Seng, and Sangki
Lee who worked with me as a team. We spent countless hours together throughout the
course of one semester engaged in research design and data collection. I would also like
to thank Dr. Matthew S. Eastin who took time out of his extremely busy schedule to meet

with us and answer our questions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLE ................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE RIVIEW ........................................................... 4
Online Social Support ...................................................................... 4

Social support ....................................................................... 4

Interpersonal potential of the Internet ............................................. 5

Internet as supportive network ................................................... 9

Online support groups ............................................................ 11

Uses and Gratiﬁcations Perspective ..................................................... 12

Uses and Gratiﬁcations Perspective ............................................ 12

Audience activity .................................................................. 13

Functional alternatives ........................................................... 15

Uses and gratiﬁcations typologies ............................................. l6

Hypotheses ................................................................................. 20
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD ......................................................... 28
Participants .................................................................................. 28
Procedure ................................................................................... 30
Operational Measures ..................................................................... 32

Data Analysis ............................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................. 35
Results ....................................................................................... 35
Discussion ................................................................................... 40
Limitations ................................................................................. 46
Implications and Directions for Future Research ..................................... 48
APPENDIX A: Survey questionnaire ............................................................ 51
REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 59

vi

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Social Support Dimensions of Internet Gratiﬁcation Factors ...................... 19

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Support Group Users (N=197) and
General Users (N=115) ........................................................................................ 29

Table 3: Independent Sample t—tests Comparing Support Group and
General Users .............................................................................. 36

Table 4: Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefﬁcients
based on Total Sample .................................................................. 38

Table 5: Relationships between Internet Gratiﬁcations and Perceived
Social Support based on Total Sample .................................................. 39

Table 6: Multiple Regression: Predicting Perception of Social Support
based on Total Sample ................................................................... 40

vii

Chapter 1: Introduction

The recent, rapid growth of virtual communities ranks among the most dynamic
and controversial developments in computer-mediated communication (Walther & Boyd,
2002). Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has become a popular new medium
for connecting people and establishing virtual relationships. In virtual communities,
people share interests and exchange information, serving mutual interests and providing
social support. In general, ongoing communication with acquaintances and friends and
participation in social group activities improves one’s level of psychological well being,
and this is true of electronic as well as face-to-face communication. Therefore, insofar as
the Internet serves to facilitate social communication for a majority of its users, there is
good reason to expect that the Internet, generally speaking, will have a positive impact on
society (Kraut, Kiesler, Boneva, Cummings, Helgeson & Crawford, 2002).

We are still in the initial stages, however, of studying the impact of CMC in terms
of building and maintaining social support networks. Nevertheless, it is very clear that
social support serves to reduce psychological problems such as depression and loneliness
(Friedman & Rosenman, 1974; Rahe & Arthur, 1978). Individuals lacking adequate
social support systems are vulnerable to stress-related physical and emotional problems
because they fail to ﬁll the basic human need to form meaningful interpersonal
relationships (Schwartzer & Leppin, 1992; Strobe & Strobe, 1996). This is especially
important because, as pointed out by Putnam (1996; 2000), there has been a steady
decline in social connectedness and civic engagement in the United States over the past
several decades. He suggests that Americans are getting together less frequently and

talking less to one another than they did in years gone by.

It could be argued, however, that the rapid and widespread diffusion of the Internet
may even be exacerbating this trend in some ways because, logically, the more time one
spends in front of one’s computer, the less time one has to devote to traditional
community activities, friends, and social ties. Indeed, some researchers have even argued
that Internet use tends to accompany severe rates of depression for many users (Young &
Rogers, 1998). One study went so far as to suggest that Internet use unifome
accompanies greater levels of depression and loneliness, although it is difﬁcult to
determine if depression is a cause or a consequence of Internet use (Kraut, Patterson,
Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukhopadhyay, & Scherlis, 1998). Other studies, however, reject
this suggestion concerning the negative emotional effects of Internet use, arguing,
conversely, that the Internet serves to enhance communication, social involvement, and a
sense of well being (Kraut et al., 2002).

Clearly, research concerned with the emotional health of Internet users has led to
controversial results and conclusions. Some would suggest, for example, that Kraut et
al.'s study (1998), linking the Internet to incidence of loneliness and mental depression, is
methodologically ﬂawed. Shapiro (1999), for example, suggests just the opposite, that
the Internet, in fact, serves as an antidote for social isolation. Rierdan (1999) argues that
the researchers concerned with the relationship between emotional problems and Internet
use sometimes fail to properly assess depression in their study. Radloff (1977) suggests
that some measures used to gauge depressive symptoms actually assess anxiety rather
than depression. In addition to these critics, Sanders, Field, Diego, and Kaplan (2000)
found empirical evidence that that level of Internet use is not related to depression.

Eastin and LaRose (2000) found that email messages could reduce depression among a

population of college students.

Despite the growing interest in this area, however, few studies have been
conducted concerning why people look to the Internet for social support. Traditionally,
social support has been thought of as taking place most often within intimate, well-
established, multi-dimensional personal relationships (Cutrona & Suhr, 1992; Leatham &
Duck, 1990). Nowadays, however, more and more people engage in social support
activity via CMC, in relatively large networks, sharing with others whom they have never
communicated with face-to-face (Walther & Boyd, 2002). CMC resembles traditional
forms of interpersonal communications to some extent and, as some argue, can even at
times surpass the richness of face-to-face communication (Walther 1992; 1996).

The effects of Internet use, of course, depend upon users’ motivations and the
character of online relationships. The main purpose of this investigation is to explore the
gratiﬁcations expected by people who seek online social support, based on the Uses and
Gratiﬁcations Perspective developed by Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, (1974). Clearly,
much of this depends on how the Internet is used, and how the various kinds of uses may
be related to one another. In other words, one’s Internet use may conform to one of
several distinct patterns that may share an underlying motivational basis. These patterns
of Internet use may well have an effect on one’s psychological well-being; indeed, one of
the central tenets of the uses and gratiﬁcations model of communication (Blumer & Katz,
1974) is that the way in which an individual is affected by electronic communication
depends on that individual’s reasons or goals for using the Internet. The uses and
gratiﬁcations model, therefore, helps us to develop a better understanding of how and

why online participants seek social support from beyond the ‘real world’.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Online Social Support

Social support. Social support has been deﬁned as a system of beliefs leading
people to feel valued and loved, as well as providing a sense of belonging to a network of
communication that entails mutual obligation or responsibility (Cobb, 1976). Social
support, however, is not a unitary phenomenon. Evans (1993) identiﬁed four different
types of social support: esteem support, actions or statements that provide people with
evidence of their own worth; informational support, advice or guidance that is helpful in
coping with problems; instrumental support, which consists of sharing, helping, and other
forms of pro-social behavior; and companionship support, which provides a sense of
belonging through shared activities. Cohen, Mennelstein, Kamarck, and Hoberrnan
(1985) empirically veriﬁed that social support is comprised of four different types of
support that they classiﬁed as tangible support, appraisal support, self-esteem support,
and belonging support. '

Individuals in socially disadvantaged situations are, generally speaking, more
vulnerable to psychosocial stressors than those who are blessed with a richer social
environment. The impact of these stressors is mediated by the psychological, social, and
physical resources available in one’s social environment (Cullen & Whiteford, In press).
There is an abundance of evidence that indicates the beneﬁts of social support (Troits,
1995). Social support serves to counterbalance the negative effects of stress on
psychological well being (Cobb 1976; Turner 1983; Lin 1997) and social support is
negatively related to depression (Cutrona & Troutrnan 1986; Monroe, Bromet, Connell,

& Steiner, 1986). Social interaction and constructive human relationships help to reduce

an individual’s uncertainty or level of stress (Walther & Boyd, 2002). On the other hand,
lack of social support generally serves to increase psychological stress (Cohen, 1988).

The concept of social support is closely related to the concept of social networks.
When people communicate with each other, this generally takes place through some form
of social network, a group of people, an organization or some social entity wherein
people are connected by social relationships, resulting in friendship, co-working, and/or
information exchange (Garton, Haythornthwaite, & Wellman, 1997). Social networks in
which individuals receive social support serve as a resource for coping with stress
(Lazarus & F olkman, 1984; Cohen, 1988). Supportive social networks help to foster
communication and mutual obligations between individuals. In the absence of support
from others, individuals tend to have fewer opportunities to mediate stress and engage in
activities that serve to form and maintain supportive interpersonal ties.

In the research concerned with social networks, investigators have typically
examined their composition and structure, seeking a better understanding of how the
characteristics of social networks affect the individuals that are involved (Wellman &
Frank, 2001). The concept of ‘network size’ refers to the number of individuals who are
connected to each other, forming and maintaining relationships (Burt & Minor, 1983).
Network size is of critical importance for the structure of social relations because
different network sizes generally represent different amounts of available human
resources and, subsequently, access to human relationships (Burt & Minor, 1983;
Wellman & Frank 2000; Lin 2001).

Interpersonal potential of the Internet. As in the ‘real world’, when people or

organizations are connected through electronic communication, this also represents a

social network. As the level of electronic or computer communication has continued to
expand and ﬂourish, the importance of computer-supported social networks has received
increasing attention as well (Garton et al., 1997; Wellman, 1997; Wellman & Gulia,
1999). The Net may be capable of facilitating and helping to maintain strong, intimate,
and supportive human relationships, although it may also increase the number and
diversity of weak or less consequential social ties as well (Wellman & Gulia, 1999). In
fact, the explosive growth of the Internet is due, in part, to the mushrooming popularity of
interpersonal communication in cyberspace. Numerous studies have shown that email
was the most widely used function for those connected to the Internet and that it had
positive effects on the development and maintenance of social networks (Kraut et al.,
2002; Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2000; UCLA Center for Communication
Policy, 2000).

There is little consensus, however, concerning the quality and effects of the social
interaction that is facilitated and shaped by participation in computer networks. Sproull
and Kiesler (1991) asserted that the lack of social control and de-individuation associated
with CMC might serve to decrease or distort the traditionally regulative functions of
social norms. Researchers have also been concerned with a lack of ‘social presence’—
the quality of a given media affecting the degree of salience of a conversational partner in
one-to-one interactions (Short, J ., Williams, E., & Christie, B., l976)—, identity
deception (Aronson, 1995; Donath, 1999), and lack of commitment to openness and
representativeness (Baym, 1998), all of which have been identiﬁed as potential threats to
the quality of online communities and relationship building.

Walther (1996) suggested that message senders relying on CMC tended to portray

themselves in a socially favorable manner in order to attract the attention of receivers and
fostered anticipation for future interaction. The asynchronous and relatively anonymous
character of CMC gives users a high level of control and serves to reduce the level of
stress that is associated with the immediate feedback inherent in face-to—face interactions,
serving to lower the levels of psychological intensity involved, making communication
‘safer’, more manageable.

This possibility of forming social identities in relatively anonymous contexts has
been afﬁrmed and explored by social identity theorists (Tajifel, 197 8; 1982; Turner 1985).
Postmes, Spears, and Lea (1988; 2000), for example, traced the formation of social norms
in CMC groups in terms of both cOntent and message form. It has been established that
the development of strong commitments to online groups is quite possible, and can be
observed, despite the ‘hiddenness’ of bodies and the extension of interaction over time
and place (Rafaeli & Sudweeks, 1997; Paolillo, 1999; Dahlberg, 2001). Dahlberg (2001)
demonstrated how social commitment takes place across the various modes of CMC,
including e-mail lists, role-playing domains (MUDs), newsgroups, and commercial
conferencing systems. Online chat participants, for example, return to the same ‘rooms’
in search of the virtual persons with whom they had previously developed virtual bonds.
With respect to identity deception, Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1997) found a high level of
voluntary self-disclosure in online interaction and concluded that interactivity—deﬁned
as the manner in which conversational interaction as an iterative process leads to jointly
produced meaning—is a process- related variable that is characteristic of CMC settings,

providing evidence for both the reality of and the mechanisms entailed in relationship

formation through CMC.

Parks (1996), in his study of the members of 24 different newsgroups, found that
more than 60 percent of his subjects had formed a personal relationship with someone
that they had the ﬁrst contact with through a newsgroup. Parks, and other investigators
as well (See Thomsen, 1996, for example), have noted that these types of relationships
often tend to endure over time and even expand through the use of additional channels of
communication (i.e., the telephone, the postal service, etc.), sometimes leading to face-to-
face encounters. Many investigators are highly optimistic about the constructive
potential of CMC. Reid (1995), for example, has argued that the problems associated
with CMC can be easily overcome. She suggests that an adequate level of social
information, required for relationship development, can be obtained via computer-
mediated interaction, but that the process simply tends to take longer and requires slightly
more effort on the part of the participants.

Online communication replicates the basic structure of traditional discourse.
Although a CMC participant may initially feel uncomfortable with limited sensory,
especially visual, feedback, such limitations can be overcome with time. Moreover, some
participants in CMC, especially those for whom interpersonal communication represents
a challenge, may perceive limited feedback, reduced interpersonal intimacy, and
decreased emotional intensity as incentives for participation. They may feel especially
attracted by the way in which CMC greatly reduces the personal and interpersonal risks
involved in face-to-face interaction where their identity, relatively speaking, is laid bare
in a much more forthright manner (Weinberg, Schmale, Uken, & Wessel, 1995; Casey,
2000). The lack of interpersonal pressure involved in CMC, coupled with the

opportunity to participate gradually, at one's own pace or comfort level, along with the

freedom to offer honest feedback without feeling inhibited or embarrassed, may serve to
increase the level of self-conﬁdence of participants as they self-disclose, become more
assertive, and establish boundaries in the support of others, all at their own pace (Lee,
2000).

Internet as supportive network. The emergence of a plethora of cyber-networks in
the 19908 has been accompanied by a great concern that users ﬁnd themselves less
emotionally satisﬁed and ultimately more isolated by new modes of communication, such
as email and voice mail, than had been the case with traditional forms of communication,
face-to-face, telephone, physical participation in groups, etc. (Kiesler, 1997; Locke,
1998). These investigators generally emphasize the importance of face-to-face
interaction for generating social intimacy. However, there is strong evidence that an
increasing number of individuals engage in this new form of social networking to form
lasting social relations, which, in time, do result in the development of social intimacy as
well (Lin, 1999).

This debate can be more fully appreciated through a discussion of ‘strong’ vs.
‘weak’ social ties. Granovetter (1973) deﬁnes strong ties as frequent communication
developed over a long period of interaction, characterized by a close and intimate
relationship; conversely, weak ties are characterized by infrequent communication on an
as-needed, rather than an ongoing, basis. Granovetter acknowledges, however, that weak
ties do play a vital role insofar as they provide bridges with which individuals can
connect to other individuals across social classes, vast distances, etc. Weak ties may also
serves as a basis for the subsequent development of strong ties. While the bulk of CMC

research has tended to focus on how to create and sustain strong ties (Haythomthwaite,

2001), it is important to keep in mind the way in which weak ties also play important and
potentially quite beneﬁcial role with respect to overall levels of information exchange
and access to information resources (Granovetter, 1973; Narayan, 1999).

CMC can result in strong ties for some participants. Allegiance to computerized
communities of shared interest may even become more powerful than allegiance to one’s
physical neighborhood or community. Walther (1994), for example, found strong
commitment to on-line groups that was at least perceived to be long lasting.

The Internet can provide a sense of community for many of its users, representing a
meeting space for people with common interests, allowing them to overcome limitations
of space and time that would never have been possible before (Sproull & Kiesler 1991;
Wellman, Haase, Witte & Hampton, 2001). Email use, in particular, generally has a
positive impact on professional lives (Allen, 1995), life content (Shah, 1998), and helps
in the struggle against depression and isolation (LaRose, Eastin, & Gregg, 2001a). In
one study, for example, 42 single mothers with young infants who participated regularly
in a computer-mediated social support group tended to experience a decrease in the level
of stress associated with being a single parent (Dunham, Hurshman, Litwin, Gusella,
Ellsworth, & Dodd, 1998).

The availability of supportive ties through CMC can have a major impact on one’s
psychological or emotional health, providing individuals with emotional aid, valuable
information, and even material resources that would not have been available otherwise
(Wellman, 1981). Even if we accept the criticism offered by Wellman (1981; 1997) that
the support/nonsupport dichotomy is problematic due to the fact that the simplistic

concept of a social support system generally fails to account for the multifarious

10

complexities of social ties and social support networks, it is still safe to say that CMC-
facilitated social networks do represent signiﬁcant resources for the promotion of
emotional health and the reduction of stress. The Internet represents an extremely
valuable resource with respect to friendship, aid, access to information, and interaction
with members of social networks (Lin, 1999; Wellman, 1997). Social networks on the
Internet are authentic social networks, despite their limitations or drawbacks, because
they do serve to link people together and foster communication that would not otherwise
have taken place. In addition, in at least some cases, these social networks help to build
authentic friendships as well, characterized by trust and reciprocity, thereby resulting in
much needed social support (Wellman 1997).

Online support groups. Support groups have been a popular focus of research for
many scholars of communication (Frey, Query, Flint, & Adelman, 2000; King, 1994),
increasingly so as online support groups have proliferated on the Internet. Online support
groups facilitate the exchange of ideas and information through the posting of messages
on electronic bulletin boards and sending email to lists of recipients in addition to
exchanging private email (King, 1994). This rapidly-growing phenomena is used by
increasingly large numbers of people to fulﬁll, in part, their need for a sense of
community and communication with like-minded others (Rheingold, 1993). There are
numerous electronic locales in which people exchange social support, such as Usenet
newsgroups, electronic mailing lists, discussion groups, Internet Relay Chat, and Multi-
user Domains (MUDs). These spaces may employ asynchronous, synchronous, or hybrid
systems, but most dedicated electronic support systems are asynchronous (Walther &

Boyd, 2002).

11

Perhaps the largest and most accessible asynchronous venues are the support
spaces of Usenet; providing affiliation and support as well as information exchange are
its most important ﬁrnctions (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991; Wellman 1997). Usenet
newsgroups are sorted according to topics, such as science, music, technology, and so
forth. Within each newsgroup, people interact with each other by posting messages.
Some newsgroups are especially dedicated to fostering social support, and are so
indicated by name (e. g. alt. support). This is not to say, however, that social support takes
place only within those groups that are identiﬁed as “online support groups,” but it is
logical to assume that one could expect to ﬁnd greater levels of social support within
these groups than in other newsgroups.

In sum, an online group can provide people with the kinds of support that they
might otherwise get from attending and participating in support groups for people with
shared needs or shared experiences in the ‘real world’ making this kind of support both
possible and convenient. There may be, however, some important differences between
online vs. traditional types of support groups, which need to be taken into consideration.
In addition, there are important differences between online support groups themselves,
with some groups concentrating on providing informational support while others are
more concerned with providing social companionship.

Uses and Gratiﬁcations

Uses and gratiﬁcations perspective. "What does the individual do with the
media?" "What do the media do to the individual?" These two questions help to
articulate the foundation of the uses and gratiﬁcations perspective or model, which is

closely related to discussions of the importance of online interaction, since most of the

12

gratiﬁcations that result from CMC are inherently social in nature. Since the rise of uses
and gratiﬁcation research in the early 1940's, it has been concerned with the following
aspects of the phenomena in question:

"(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." (Katz,

Blumler, Gurevitch, 1974: 20)

The identiﬁcation and operationalization of the social and psychological antecedents of
different patterns of media consumption and gratiﬁcation represented a profound shift
from the traditional effects model of mass media research (Katz et al., 1994).

The notion of functional equivalence has been used to explore how traditional
media use changes when a new medium becomes available and how interpersonal
interaction is affected by increased media use (Rubin & Rubin, 1985; Williams & Boyes,
1986). According to Rubin and Rubin (1985), media can provide a viable and functional
alternative to interpersonal interaction in certain instances. People’s psychological and
social needs inﬂuence how they use and respond to the media that serve to gratify those
needs.

Audience activity. The idea of an active audience has long been a core concept for
uses and gratiﬁcations theories (Levy & Windahl, 1984; Palrngreen, 1984; Rubin, 1994).
Levy and Windahl’s (1984) typology of audience activity provides an especially effective
theoretical groundwork for the uses and gratiﬁcations model. This kind of approach

examines the possible motives of a medium’s users, with one key assumption being that

13

media usage is mediated by the intention or motivation of the users (Katz, Gurevitch, &
Haas, 1973). In other words, media consumers actively attend to media for speciﬁc
reasons and to satisfy speciﬁc needs.

However, media use can be seen as an end in itself as well as a means to an end.
There are also ritualized or process oriented uses (e.g., passing the time, simple
enjoyment) as well as instrumental uses (Rubin, 1994; Swanson, 1992). Social
communication could also be seen as process oriented, since it is the process itself that is
gratifying, not necessarily the outcome (Birnie & Horvath, 2002). At least two of the
dimensions of social support identiﬁed by Evans (1993), for example, esteem support and
companionship support are arguably process oriented.

The audience derives unique gratiﬁcations from the use of speciﬁc media content
and channels, for various purposes, in a multitude of personal and situational contexts.
Individuals are confronted with various communication opportunities and their media
choices are dependent on their perceived beneﬁts of media use. The very nature of the
Internet entails a high degree of motivation in choosing speciﬁc media content or in
deciding ‘where’ and ‘how’ to interact with other people (Morris & Ogan, 1996).

Uses and gratiﬁcations research generally posits human needs and motives as
conceptual antecedents to media behavior and consequences (Rubin, 1994).
Psychological and sociological variables play especially important roles in guiding media
use (Rubin & Rubin, 1985). The social and psychological needs of the individual serve
as the motivational force driving the selective use of media, while gratiﬁcations represent
the product or outcome of such use. This includes the need for social support. However,

the various dimensions of social support are not adequately dealt with in the literature

14

dealing with the uses and gratiﬁcations model, something which will be treated here in a
later section.

Functional alternatives. The uses and gratiﬁcations model also offers a valuable
explanation for changes in media use that result from the adoption of new media
technologies (Ferguson & Perse, 2000). Traditional distinctions between mass media and
interpersonal communication have become blurred by emergent technologies with
interactive capabilities (F laherty, Pearce, & Rubin, 1998). Individuals select speciﬁc
communication channels based on their availability and the perceived value of potential
gratiﬁcations. According to Rubin and Rubin (1985), “if a channel is not available, or if
the interaction does not effectively fulﬁll the need, a functional alternative will be
chosen” (p. 48).

In the literature dealing with uses and gratiﬁcations models, researchers have
critically examined Internet use as a functional alternative to face-to-face communication,
with many investigators arguing that the fulﬁllment of interpersonal needs is heightened
through the use of computer-mediated communication (Dunham, Hurshman, Litwin,
Gusella, Ellsworth & Dodd, 1998; Flaherty, Pearce, & Rubin, 1998; Papacharissi &
Rubin, 2000; Perse & Courtright, 1993). Dunham et al. (1998) found, for example, that
an online support group had special appeal for socially isolated single mothers.
Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) found that interpersonal utility motivation was the only
predictor of amount of Internet exposure and that this motivation was linked to functional,
alternative uses of the Internet. F laherty et al. (1998) compared motivations for face-to-
face communication to motivation to communicate online and found that similar motives

were involved, a sense of inclusion, relaxation, social interaction, a pleasing way to pass

15

time, etc. Gross, J uvonen, and Gable (2002) found that on-line communication served
distinct functions for adolescents experiencing peer-related stress and that adolescents, in
particular, they were likely to use the Internet to avoid being alone.

With CMC people are able to choose among a variety of functional alternatives or
different channels that meet different needs, with participants able to evaluate various
communication channels, thereby selecting the mass or interpersonal communication
channel or function that they believe will provide the kind of gratiﬁcation that they seek
(Perse & Courtright, 1993). Individuals who are highly socially active in the ‘real world’,
may have limited desire to use the Internet for companionship. Conversely, individuals
with less face-to-face or conventional mediated social interaction (e.g., via the telephone)
may tend to rely more heavily on the Internet as a substitute for conventional forms of
social companionship. Thus, with the uses and gratiﬁcations model, the use of the
Internet to obtain social support can be motivated by the expectation that certain types of
social support will be found online.

Uses and gratiﬁcations typologies. Uses and gratiﬁcations theorists have devoted
a substantial amount of research to the task of categorizing potential uses of media. Katz
et a1. (1973) identiﬁed 14 needs clustered in ﬁve categories: cognitive needs, affective
needs, personal integrative needs, social integrative needs, and escapist needs. McGuire
(1974) suggested that use of mass media might be better understood by using a matrix of
16 general human motivations. Greenberg (1974)—in what is now considered a classic
research model in which free-response essays were used to construct questionnaires—
applied factor analysis to construct a set of six reasons given by British children for

watching television: learning, habit, arousal, companionship, relaxation, and to forget.

16

Rubin (1981) used cluster analysis to identify nine motivations for viewing television:
pass time/habit, companionship, arousal, program content, relaxation, information, escape,
entertainment, and social interaction.

The Increased opportunities for social interaction provided by the Internet
initiated the discussion of the usage motivations for this new medium. Chamey (1996)
found, from a study of university students, that the Internet was used "to keep informed,
for entertainment and diversion, to maintain communication, and to look at the sights and
sounds of the ‘Net’," but most frequently for entertainment or diversion. A 1995 study of
college students’ WWW usage resulted in "six motivational categories: entertainment,
social interaction, pass time, escape, information, and Web site preference" (Kaye, 1998).
Parker and Plank (2000), in a survey of previous studies of media that were not
concerned with the Internet, found similar factors to be involved with respect to uses and
gratiﬁcations: companionship and social relationship, surveillance and excitement, and
relaxation and escape. Ferguson and Perse (2000) studied the World Wide Web as an
alternative to television viewing. In their study, ﬁve principal factors were found to be
especially signiﬁcant with respect to web motivation: entertainment, passing time,
relaxation/escape and social information. Other recent studies have supported the
suggestion that personality and social environment have an inﬂuence on needs and
choices. Antecedents (e.g., contextual age, unwillingness to communicate) and media
perceptions (e.g., social presence) have been found to inﬂuence behavior and motivation
(Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000), thereby having an impact on personal choices with respect
to media. LaRose, Mastro, and Eastin (2001b) operationalized gratiﬁcations as outcome

expectations and found that activity outcomes, pleasing sensory outcomes, and social

17

outcomes were positively related to amount of Internet use.

Table 1 shows how these Internet gratiﬁcation factors converge with Cohen et
al.’s (1985) social support dimensions, as a result of applying the Interpersonal Support
Evaluation List (ISEL) to factors involving individual gratiﬁcation, categorizing them on
the basis of their predominant social support dimension. The ISEL assesses the perceived
availability of four types of social support: tangible (e. g., material aid), appraisal (e.g.,
advice and guidance), self-esteem (e. g., viewing oneself as a positive support provider),
and belonging (e. g., perceptions of being included in social activities).

On the ISEL, appraisal support (e. g., “There is someone I can turn to for advice
about handling problems with my family”) measures the perceived availability of
supportive persons able to provide advice or guidance. While this appraisal support may
not be directly related to speciﬁc categories employed in uses and gratiﬁcations studies,
still it is relevant in terms of general emotional gratiﬁcation since it entails the sharing of
experiences and information with other people. Tangible support (e.g., “If I needed help
ﬁxing an appliance or repairing my car, there is someone who would help me”) refers to
practical help and may be limited in the online environment since people rarely meet one
another face-to-face, which is, generally speaking, a prerequisite for the kind of
relationships that involve the provision of material aid; but, nevertheless, it is quite
possible (Walther & Boyd, 2002).

The most commonly assessed social support dimensions in uses and gratiﬁcations
research are belonging and appraisal support. Belonging support has been found to be
signiﬁcantly and consistently related to Internet use, and appraisal support was found to

be a predictor of Internet use in several studies.

18

The measures of social gratiﬁcation that have been used in uses and gratiﬁcations

research have, however, often resulted in confounding concerning the various forms of

social support and, while there are exceptions, have tended to disregard self-esteem and

tangible support. Most measures of gratiﬁcation have focused on the issues of belonging

and appraisal support. Surveillance or information seeking tends to refer to general

information seeking, news events, sports, weather, local community news, etc., and these

types of gratiﬁcation are included in the table for the sake of completeness.

Table 1

Social Support Dimensions of Internet Gratiﬁcation Factors

 

Dimensions of Social Support

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appraisal Self-esteem Belonging
Kaye (1998) Information Social
interaction“
Korgaonkar & Socialization*
Wolin (1999)
McCain et al. Information Maintaining
(1999) seeking Social
interaction“
Chamey & To stay To maintain
Greenberg informed* communication*
goon
Ferguson & Social Social
Perse (2000) Information° Information°
Papacharissi Information Interpersonal“ Interpersonal*
and Rubin seeking (affection) (Inclusion)
(2000) Media (social
Interaction)
Parker & Plank Surveillance Companionship
(2000) and and Social
Excitement“ relationships
Lin (2001) Surveillance; Companionship;
Learning“ Interpersonal
Communication*
LaRose et al. Novel sensory* Social“
(2001b)

 

* Denotes that gratiﬁcation factors were a signiﬁcant predictor of Internet usage

° Denotes that gratiﬁcation factors overlapped through 2 categories

19

Hypotheses

The Internet allows individuals with shared experiences and needs to easily
exchange information and/or opinions. Electronic groups may serve to provide people
with social support that they might otherwise have attained from attending and
participating in a support group for people with shared needs or shared experiences in the
real world (Walther & Boyd, 2002). There is substantial variation, however, among
electronic social groups. Those joining online support groups may seek social support
from the Internet; many visit newsgroups that have a particular focus on support such as
alt. support newsgroups. Incidental social support also occurs within electronic groups,
participants often remaining nameless, yet sharing common interests with others.
Sexually oriented boards, for example, act as a support group for people who merely post
notices, especially individuals whose sexual orientations are marginalized, as can be seen
on alt.sex-related Usenet groups (Shade, 1996). There are signiﬁcant differences,
however, between support groups and general user groups in terms of intensity or amount
of support, as well as users’ expectations concerning social support. We would expect
those who seek social support gratiﬁcations to naturally gravitate to those places that are
clearly labeled as sources of fulﬁllment of the need in question, and, consequently, this
would entail an anticipation of encountering various types of online support; personal
advice, moral support, companionship, etc. Tangible support refers to support that comes
in the form of actual physical assistance in the provision of the goods and services that
are needed (Walther & Boyd, 2002). Braithwaite, Waldron, and Firm (1999) found that
tangible aid was the one of the least frequently exchanged forms of support. Walter and

Boyd (2002), however, argue that even if tangible help is uncommon, it may indeed be

20

mobilized via electronic networks. Rheingold (1993) described how one online
community mobilized expertise and ﬁnances for injured colleagues. On can conclude,
therefore, that:

H10) Online support group users will expect to encounter more personal advice

than general users.

H 1 b) Online support group users will expect to encounter more moral support than

general users. '

H1 c) Online support group users will expect to encounter more companionship

than general users.

HId) Online support group users can expect to encounter more tangible help than

general users.

Media choices are dependent on the availabilities of the media and the perceived
value of receiving potential gratiﬁcations. Cummings, Sproull, and Kiesler (2002), for
example, found that a lack of real world social support was one of the two factors that
predicted active participation in an online support group. Papacharissi and Rubin (2000)
suggest that those who are less satisﬁed with the quality of social interaction in their lives,
and who use the Internet for social contact, tend to think of the Internet as being more
important to them. We assume, therefore, that those people who seek online social
support do so as a result of the fact that their needs for social support are not fully met
through face-to-face communication; therefore, they turn to the Internet as a functional
alternative to face-to-face channels, not necessarily as a replacement but, at least, as a
way to augment their level and forms of social contact. It is understandable, therefore,

that online support group users perceive all types of online support as more important

21

than general users because participants in online support groups depend on those
channels to fulﬁll their emotional or social needs, leading to the following hypotheses:

H2a) Online support group users will perceive online personal advice to be more

important than general users.

HZb) Online support group users will perceive online moral support to be more

important than general users.

H2a) Online support group users will perceive online companionship to be more

important than general users.

H2d) Online support group users will perceive online tangible help to be more

important than general users.

Online social support can help to satisfy those needs that remain unfulﬁlled by
non-mediated relationships (Egdorf & Rahoi, 1994; Walther & Boyd, 2002). Accessing
social support through CMC offers a potent alternative to face-to-face communication for
those with little access to real world support or those who have dual dependencies
(Walther & Boyd, 2002). Social support groups offer a system of beliefs that allow
people to feel valued and loved with a sense of belonging to a network of communication
and mutual obligation (Cobb, 1976); social support is closely related to social interaction,
companionship, and the construction of social relationships. A lack of social support or
the need for greater levels of social support drives people to seek companionship and
social relationships in virtual communities. One study reported that a vast majority
(75%) of participants in mental-health-related online discussion forums found it easier to
discuss personal problems online than face-to-face (Kummervold, Gammon, Bergvik,

Johnsen, Hasvold, and Rosenvinge, 2002). These groups offer an opportunity for

22

relaxation and the fulﬁllment of escape gratiﬁcations, getting away from school and work
and the use of the Internet to relax and unwind (Parker & Plank, 2000). Participants in
online support groups are assumed to have problems or life issues that they wish to
discuss. These users may also turn to the Internet to escape from real-world stress, and
relax. Parker and Plank (2000) found that the need for companionship and other social
needs were related to the need to alleviate boredom and to escape from one’s relationship
with family members and others. However, learning needs, surveillance and excitement
gratiﬁcations are not necessarily greater for online support group users. Since
informative and emotional needs might ﬁnd gratiﬁcation as a result of participation in
online groups, it seems reasonable to suggest that:

H3a) Online support group users will use the Internet for companionship and

social relationship gratification more than general users.

H3b) Online support group users will use the Internet for relaxation and escape

gratiﬁcations more than general users.

Studies of the Internet paradox have probed the question of the effects of the
amount of Internet usage on social involvement and psychological well-being (Kraut et
al., 1998; Kraut et al., 2002). Some researchers have posited a negative association
between social involvement and Interent use (Riphagen & Kanfer, 1997; Cole, 2000).
Kraut et a1. (2002) reported a positive relationship between one’s Internet use and the size
of one’s local as well as distant social circles. However, they also found that heavy
Internet use was associated with declining commitment to living in one’s local area as
well as being less knowledge about that area. This might imply that heavy Internet use

may tend to make social relationships available outside of the local area. This point may

23

also resolve what might appears on the surface to be a contradiction, that heavier Internet
use results from less-than-satisfactory social ties in the real world, as Internet use itself
leads to new and/or additional real-world ties, serving to broaden and enrich one’s
(previously deﬁcient) social life. Haythomthwaite (2000), for example, found that
participants who communicated more frequently on the Internet tended to be more
successful in maintaining relationships and enjoyed more socially supportive interactions.
This may well be, however (and this is precisely the point), a result of their heavy use of
the Internet for social communication. McKenna and Bargh (1998) suggest that
participants in online groups tend to lack opportunities to join real world groups and that
they take advantage of online opportunities to form connections with people and obtain
support that would otherwise be unavailable on a local level. Clearly, it is also important
to point out that many types of groups are simply unavailable on a local level. It is
suggested, therefore, that:

H4a) The amount of Internet usage will be positively related to the size of one :9

personal network.

H4b) The amount of Internet usage will be positively related to the size of one Is

online personal network.

H4c) The amount of Internet usage will be positively related to the perceived level

of social support.

Email may play a particularly important role in providing social support. Berg and
McQuinn (1989) found that electronic mail has positive effects on people’s social
networks, and that Internet use did not decrease the size of a users’ social network.

Researchers have also examined the selection of communication media as they relate to

24

speciﬁc tasks (e. g., receiving work, giving work, collaborative writing, and emotional
support) within an organization (Haythomthwaite, Wellman, & Mantei, 1995). They
found that face-to-face encounters were used most frequently, followed by email; and
email was chosen over face-to-face meetings for both professional proposals and social
support. LaRose et al. (2001a) also found that email use was positively related to social
support. These results suggest that email is in fact a very rich medium in terms of its
ability to provide prompt feedback and reduce social pressure. Therefore:

H50) The amount of email use will be positively related to the size of one :9

personal network.

H5b) The amount of email use will be positively related to the size of one s online

personal network.

H50) The amount of email use will be positively related to the perceived level of

social support.

Perceived levels of social support have a direct relationship to amount of mutual
interaction. A lack of social support is characterized by a deﬁcient social network and/or
deﬁcient social participation, with a high risk factor for one’s psychological well-being.
As suggested above, in general, online interaction provides people with the kinds of
support that they might otherwise get from attending and participating in a real world
support group for people with shared needs and/or shared experiences grounded in the
‘real’ world. These online groups could even ﬁrlﬁll the same basic function as an
evening outwith ones’ friends and, sometimes, the social support that people get from
such groups does entail a great deal of socializing with other people. Many of these

people, perhaps, do derive real beneﬁts from participating in these groups. Those people

25

who had difficulty fulﬁlling their needs for social support in the real world, in particular,
may be drawn to the Internet, motivated by their need for companionship and social
gratiﬁcation. People who feel a lack with respect to their level of social relations and
social support will proﬁt most from using the lntemet. People with fewer social
resources are able to take advantage of these new communication opportunities to
connect with like-minded others and ﬁnd supportive communication (McKenna & Bargh,
1998). For those who are already fulﬁlled, however, in terms of supportive relationships,
using the Internet may tend to interfere with these real world relationships (Kraut et al.,
2002). Thus:

H6) Companionship and social relationship gratiﬁcation seeking online will be

negatively related to the perceived level of social support.

As noted previously, the size of the network is especially important, because size
implies differential resources and relationships built into the network (Burt & Minor,
1983). The number of people that one has contact with or builds a relationship with is
directly related to the chances that one has for ﬁnding the resources or fulﬁllment that are
needed (Burt & Minor, 1983). Online networks, like real—world networks, seldom
represent a sole source of social support, typically, they represent one source among
various sources of community or relationship. Online relationship building can be
understood from the uses and gratiﬁcations perspectives as a search for multiple channels
for gratifying one’s needs in the form of multiple interpersonal relationships. The more
‘others’ with whom an individual shares a personal relationship, the more people they
have to call on in times of stress and the greater the number of potential providers of

support (Haines & Hurlbert, 1992). Thus, the size of one’s personal network may have a

26

direct impact on one’s health and happiness, providing a sense of belonging to a
community. Thus, it is proposed that:

H 7a) The size of one :9 personal network will be positively related to perceived level

of social support.

H 7b) The size of one :9 online personal network will be positively related to

perceived level of social support.

There has been no systematic research, however, concerned with precisely how
social gratiﬁcation seeking is related to levels of social support. Uses and gratiﬁcations
theorists have tried to identify the social and psychological origins of needs that generate
expectations for media use (Katz et al., 1974). Nevertheless, they have not consistently
or adequately distinguished between the four principal different types of social support
discussed above and they have tended to omit self-esteem and tangible support from their
discussions. For example, ‘perceived social support’ in this study refers to the perceived
availability of social support from various communicative channels. A deﬁcit with
respect to certain dimensions of social support implies a need to ﬁnd greater support
along those lines, resulting in a search for available channels or sources commensurate
with the need for gratiﬁcation in question. We ask, therefore:

RQI. What are the relationships between gratiﬁcations and dimensions of

perceived social support?

27

Chapter 3: Research Method

Participants

A total of 372 (52.4% male, 42.7% female) newsgroup users completed surveys
for this study. Participants ranged in age between 13 and 73 years old, but half of them
were between 31 and 50 (M = 43.5, SD = 17.8). Nearly half of the respondents (48.1%)
were currently married, and 34.1% had never been married. A sizable minority (9.9%)
were divorced. Respondents had completed an average of 15 years of education (M =
15.1, SD = 4.64). 40.1% of respondents’ family income was over $50,000. A relatively
small percentage of respondents (13.2%) earned less than $20,000. The average amount
of time since respondents began using the Internet was approximately 6 years (M = 6.14,
SD = 5.25). The average amount of time using the Internet on a daily basis was about 4-
and-a-half years (M = 4.61, SD = 3.39). A majority of respondents (68.3%) went on the
lntemet everyday during a typical week (M = 6.23, SD = 1.53), 82% on a typical
weekday, and 78% on a typical weekend spent more than one hour on the lntemet. Table
2 summarizes the characteristics of the respondents and compares the characteristics of
general users with those who attended online support groups. The Pew lntemet project
(2000) was added in order to compare a general sample of lntemet users with the sample
for this study.

Signiﬁcant differences were found between online group users and general users
in terms of gender, age, marital status, and race. 62% (124) of online support group users
were female, as compared to only 15% (18) of general users, p < .001. The mean age for
online support group users was 42.35 (s = 13.39) as compared to 40.45 (s = 14.41),

p<.05, for general users. With respect to marital status, 54 (27. 4%) online support group

28

users were currently married, 31 (15.7%) divorced, and 104 (52.8%) never married.
Among general users, however, 51 (44.3%) were currently married, 4 (3.5%) divorced,
and 54 (47%) were never married, p = .001. The overwhelming majority of online
support group users were Caucasian (94.4%), but the percentage of black/Africans (3.5%)
and Asians (3.5%) was higher in the population of general users, p < .05. There were no

signiﬁcant differences with respect to education and income.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for Support Group Users (N =197) and General Users (N=115)

29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Support General users Chi- p Pew
group users Freq. or square lntemet
Freq. or Mean (SD) Project
Mean (SD) (2000)
Gender 66.753 .000
Female 124 (62%) 18 (15%) 52.2%
Age 42.35 40.45 75.846 .021 45.76
(13.39) (15.41) (19.07)
Education 15.45 15.63 25.739 .935 12to
(3.58) (4.51) 16yr:60%
Marital 19.832 .001
Status Married 54 (27.4%) 51 (44.3%) 55.8%
Widowed 5 (2.5%) 3 (2.6%) 8.2%
Divorced 31 (15.7%) 4 (3.5%) 11.1%
Separated 2 (1%) 0 (0%) 2.1%
Never 104 (52.8%) 54 (47%) 21.9%
married
Race 12 .444 .029
(Mulitple Black or 0 (0%) 4 (3.5%) 11.1%
choice) African
American
White 186 (94.4%) 98 (85.2%) 83%
Asian 2 (1%) 4 (3.5%) 1.1%
Paciﬁc 0 0
Islander
Native 4 (2%) 3 (2.6%)
American or
Alaskan
native
Something 9 (4.6%) 12 (10.4) 4.9%
else
Income 6.051 .195
Under 77 (39.1%) 58 (50.4%) Under
$20,000 20,000 —
$20,000 to 36 (18.3%) 13 (11.3%) 17.2%
$34.999 20,000 to
$35,000 to 35 (17.8%) 17 (14.8%) 50,000~
$49,999 34.8%
$50,000 or 22 (11.2%) 14 (12.2%) 50,000 or
more more —
48%
Procedure

30

The members of newsgroups were selected through a three-stage sampling
procedure. Similar sampling methods were used by Parks and Floyd (1996) and Walter
and Boyd (2002). In the ﬁrst stage, newsgroups were identiﬁed on the basis of their
apparent appropriateness for the general topic of social support. The researchers
constructed two separate sampling frames based on the names of the newsgroup;
alt.support.* and soc.support.* were identiﬁed as support newsgroups and the rest of the
groups were identiﬁed as general newsgroups representing a general lntemet population.
This procedure yielded 10,159 general newsgroups and 63 support newsgroups.

In the second stage, 150 general newsgroups were randomly selected, due to the
limitation of the total number of support groups, all of the support newsgroups in the
frame were included. In the ﬁnal stage, up to 35 unique E-mail addresses were randomly
chosen from the lists of those that had posted messages to these groups within the past
several days preceding the survey. This yielded 4,187 email addresses for the general
newsgroups, and 1,527 email addresses for the support newsgroups. After ﬁltering and
deleting email addresses that had the word “no spam” and duplicated email addresses,
2,790 email addresses remained (1,395 email addresses for each group) for use in the
survey. Random selection from among the general newsgroups yielded an equivalent
sample size.

First, a pre-notiﬁcation of the survey email was sent to notify subjects of the
survey and its purpose, inviting them to ‘opt out’ if they chose not to participate. Three
days later, the researchers sent out the second email with the URL of the questionnaires.
Four-digit ID numbers were assigned to each respondent to monitor responses and

control for duplicate follow-up mailings. Three days later, an email was sent to those

31

who had not yet ﬁlled out the survey. 486 people completed the survey. All of the data
from the respondents were sent directly to a database.

Responses were received from 372 of the 2,790 (13.3 %) perspective participants,
but the response rates from the two groups were quite different. 248 participants in
support groups and 124 participants in general groups completed the survey. A response
was received from 25% of the participants in support newsgroups, and 11% from the
participants in general newsgroups.

One great drawback or problem associated with web-based or email surveys is
the dropping response rate, nowadays, between 10% — 15% (Cobanoglu, Warde, & Moreo,
2001). Recently, Klassen & Hacobs (2001) reported a 14% response rate among an
lntemet population in the industrial sector. Smith (1997) reported a 13.3% response rate
for a general Internet population. Thus, the response rate obtained in this study was

consistent with current practice at the time the study was completed.

Operational Measures

The survey is located in Appendix A. The type of online support that was
anticipated by using the lntemet was measured by four distinct items: personal advice,
moral support, tangible help, and companionship (“very likely” = 5 to “very unlikely” =
1). The importance of social support found on the lntemet, in comparison to real-world
social support, was measured by the same four items (rated “more important”: 5,
“equally important” = 4, and “less important” = 3). Self-report measures were used to
assess the size of overall personal networks and online-only personal networks.

The overall amount of lntemet use was also measured by self-report, ranging

32

from “none” = 1, “less than an hour” = 2, “1 — 2 hours’ = 3, “over 2 up to 5 hours” = 4, to
“over 5 hours” = 5, on a typical weekday. Email use was measured by a combination of
two factors, e-mail messages sent and received, rated as “none” = 1, “l — 5” = 2, “6 — 10”
= 3, “1 1-45” = 4, and “26 or more” = 5) over the last two days (a = .85).

To measure the size ofparticipants' overall personal network, we asked them to
estimate “the number of people, including relatives and friends, whom you socialize with
at least once a month, including the socializing you do online and in the real world” (M =
17.33, s = 2.90). The size of an online personal network was deﬁned as “the number of
people whom you communicate with only on the lntemet” (M = 6.33, s = 7.66). No
response categories were provided.

Perceived social support is a self-reported measure of social resources. To measure
participants' levels of social support, sixteen (out of 40) representative items were chosen
from the ISEL (Cohen, et al., 1985, a = .81), which were also used by Kraut et al. (1998)
and LaRose et al. (2001a). The ISEL tries to assess the perceived availability of four
separate functions of social support as well as providing an overall support measure. Each
dimension of social support consisted of four items, using dichotomous questions (“true”
= 2, “false” = l). The four subscales and the total scale of ISEL found to be reliable
(appraisal support; M = 7.25, s = .96, a = .61, belonging support; M = 7.19, s = 1.10, a
= .71, self-esteem support; M = 7.10, s = .91, a = .72, tangible support; M = 7.39, s = 1.0,
a = .73, and total scale; M = 28.88, s = .3.01, a = .91). The responses were coded so that
high scores represent a high level of perceived social support.

The lntemet gratiﬁcation factors examined by Parker and Plank (2000) were also

included in this study. Three out of ﬁve representative items were chosen for each factor,

33

assessed on a ﬁve-point Likert-type scale, and found to be reliable (companionship &
social relationship; M = 5.26, s = 2.90, a = .74, surveillance & excitement; M = 9.87, s =
3.25, a = .83, and relaxation & escape; M = 9.46, s = 3.68, a = .64).
Data analysis

The Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 10.0 (SPSS, Inc.,
2000) was used to analyze the data. An independent sample t-test (one-tailed) was used
to compare the means of general group and support group members. Pearson product-
moment correlations were used to determine whether associations existed between the
independent variables and social support. Multiple regression analysis was used to
predict the dependent variable by examining a set of independent or predictor variables.
Missing values were eliminated in pairs. For demographic control variables, this research
included gender (l=male; 2=female), race (l=White; 2=non-White), marital status
(l=now married; 2=widowed, divorced, separated, and never married), age (calculated by
2002 minus one’s year of birth), education (number of years of formal education), and
household income (4=$50,000 or more; 3=$35,000 to &49,999; 2=$20,000 to $34,999;
1: under $20,000). Social support was examined with regard to the following predictor
variables: personal network size, online personal network size, email messages, and level

of companionship and social relationship gratiﬁcation.

34

Chapter 4: Results and Discussion
Results

Chi-square analyses indicated that there signiﬁcant differences in the demographic
composition of the online support group users, on the one hand, and general users, on the
other, when the variables of sex, age, marital status, and race are taken into account; X
2(2)=66.75,p<.001;X2(53)=75.85,p<.05; X2(2)=l9.83,p<.01;X2(2)=12.44,p<.05.

An independent sample t-test was completed for the online support group and the
general group (Table 3). Comparisons between the two groups supported hypotheses la,
lb, 1c, and 1d. Online support group users’ expectations of encountering personal advice
(M = 3.44, s = 1.47), moral support (M = 3.37, s = 1.41, and companionship (M = 3.04, s
= 1.45) were higher than that of general users, with respect to personal advice (M = 2.81,
s = 1.51), t(370) = 4.00, p<.001, one-tailed, moral support (M = 2.30, s = 1.31), t(372) =
7.05, p<.001, one-tailed, and companionship (M = 2.59, s = 1.41), t(373) = 2.83, p<.01,
one-tailed, as a result of lntemet use. Online support group users expected to encounter
more tangible support (M = 3.18, s = 1.28) than general users (M = 2.16, s = 1.25), t(372)
= 7.28, p<.001, one-tailed.

Online support group users perceived higher levels of social support obtained from
the Internet along all dimensions as opposed to real-world social support, and saw this
support as more important than did general users; supporting Hypotheses 2: online
support group users (M = 3.66, s = .65) and general users (M = 3.52, s = .62) for personal
advice, t(362) = 1.84, p<.05, one-tailed; online support group users (M = 3.67, s = .64)
and general users (M = 3.40, s = .57) for moral support, t(358) = 3.95, p<.001, one-tailed;

online support group users (M = 3.50, s = .63) and general users(M = 3.38, s = .58) for

35

companionship, t(358) = 1.70, p<.05, one-tailed; online support group users (M = 3.78, s
= .68) and general users (M = 3.44, s = .56) for tangible support, t(360) = 4.82, p<.001,
one-tailed.

Hypotheses 3a and 3b were also supported. The support group used the lntemet for
companionship & social relationship (M = 5.55, s = 2.79) more than general users (M =
4.92, s = 2.73), t(360) = 2.03, p<.05, one-tailed. The support group also used the lntemet
for relaxation and escape (M = 10.40, s = 2.85) more than general users (M = 9.82, s =
2.57), t(355) = 1.89, p<.05, one-tailed. The two groups showed no difference with
respect to lntemet use for surveillance and excitement (t (359) =.12, ns).

Table 3

Independent Sample t-tests Comparing Support Group and General Newsgroup Users

 

Variables N M SD SEM t df p

 

Expectation Personal SG 248 3.44 1.47 .09 4.00 370 **
of online advice GG 124 2.81 1.52 .14
support Moral SG 250 3.37 1.41 .09 7.05 372 **
support GG 124 2.30 1.31 .12
Tangible SG 250 3.18 1.28 .09 ~7.28 372 **
help GG 124 2.16 1.25 .11
Compan- SG 250 3.04 1.45 .08 2.83 373 **
ionship GG 125 2.59 1.42 .11

 

Importance Personal SG 244 3.66 .65 .04 1.84 362 *
of online advice GG 120 3.52 .62 .06
support Moral SG 242 3.67 .64 .04 3.95 358 **
support GG 1 18 3 .40 .57 .05
Tangible SG 241 3.78 .68 .04 4.82 358 **
help .GG 119 3.44 .56 .05
Compan- SG 242 3.50 .63 .04 1.70 360 *
ionship GG 120 3 .38 .58 .05

 

 

 

CS SG 239 5.55 2.79 .18 2.03 360 *
GG 120 4.92 2.73 .25 -

SE SG 242 9.76 3.40 .22 .12 359
GG 119 9.71 3.20 .29

RE SG 237 10.40 2.85 .19 1.89 355 *

GG 120 9.82 2.57 .24

 

Note. SG = Support group; GG = General group; CS = Companionship & social

36

relationship gratiﬁcation; SE = Surveillance & Excitement gratiﬁcation; RE = Relaxation
& Escape gratiﬁcation.

** is signiﬁcant at the 0.01 level (one-tailed)

* is signiﬁcant at the 0.05 level (one-tailed).

A matrix showing the Pearson, product-moment, correlation coefﬁcients between
variables, based upon the combined total sample, is presented in Table 4, including means
and standard deviations for each variable. All signiﬁcant correlations reported are based
on two-tailed tests.

Hypothesis 4 received mixed support. The amount of lntemet usage did have a
positive effect on the size of personal network (r = .22, p < .001). The size of the online
personal network was also positively related to the amount of lntemet usage (r = .21, p
< .001). There was no relationship, however, between level of perceived social support
and amount of Internet use (r = .004, ns).

The amount of email use was positively related to the size of personal network (r
=.32, p<.001) and the size of online personal network (r =.33, p<.001). In addition, the
number of email messages had a positive effect on social support (r =. 130, p<.05),
supporting Hypothesis 5.

Hypothesis 6, positing a negative relationship between Companionship and
social relationship gratiﬁcation and social support was also supported. The
Companionship and social relationship gratiﬁcation had a signiﬁcant negative
relationship to social support (r = -.297, p< .001).

Hypothesis 7 received mixed support. The size of overall personal network was

positively related to social support (Hypothesis 4a, r = .29, p< .001). However, the size

37

of online personal network was not signiﬁcantly related to social support (Hypothesis 4b,

r = -.03, ns).

Table 4

Pearson Product Moment Correlation C oeﬂicients based on Total Sample

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 M SD
SUP .29** -.03 .13* -.26** ~04 -.09 .004 28.89 3.01

1. PN .44** .32** .12* .24“ .23“ .22“ 17.33 7.87
2. ON .33** .22“ .14* .19* .21** 6.33 7.66
3. EM .24** .34** .31** .52” 5.97 2.33
4. CS .54** .57" .32** 5.26 2.90
5. SE .62** .43" 9.87 3.25
6. RE .41** 9.46 3.68
7. 1U 3.45 1.14

 

Note. SUP = Social Support; PN = Size of Personal Network; ON = Size of Online
Personal Network; EM = Email Use; CS = Companionship & social relationship
gratiﬁcation; SE = Surveillance & Excitement gratiﬁcation; RE = Relaxation & Escape
gratiﬁcation; [U = Amount of lntemet usage.

** Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Missing values were excluded pairwise.

This exploratory study has attempted to clarify the relationships between lntemet
gratiﬁcation and perceived availability of social support (Table 5). The results show a
negative relationship between companionship and social relationship gratiﬁcation seeking,
on the one hand, and all of the dimensions of perceived social support: appraisal (r =.-15,
p<.01), belonging (r = -.22, p<.001), self-esteem (r = -.l7, p<.001), tangible (r = -.29,

p<.001). Relaxation and escape gratiﬁcation seeking was also negatively related to

perceived tangible support (r = -.15, p<.01).

38

Table 5

Relationships between Internet gratifications and perceived social support based on total

 

 

 

sample
2 3 4 5 6 7 M SD
Variables
Perceived 1, Appraisal .37" .36" .32" -.15** .01 -.02 7.25 .96
social support 2. Belonging .45" .59" -.22*"' -.04 -.10 7.19 1.10
(ISEL) 3. Self-Esteem .38" -.l7*"‘ -.06 -.10 7.10 .91
4. Tangible -.29" —.10 -.l5*"' 7.39 1.0
lntemet 5. CS .49" .51" 5.26 2.90
gratiﬁcation 6. SE .52" 9.87 3.25
7. RE 9.46 3.18

 

Note. CS = Companionship & social relationship gratiﬁcation; SE = Surveillance &
Excitement gratiﬁcation; RE = Relaxation & Escape gratiﬁcation.
** Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Missing values were excluded pairwise.

Finally, a multiple regression analysis was performed to enhance our overall
understanding of the relationship between all of the independent variables as well as the
control variables, on the one hand, and perceived level of social support, on the other.

Table 6 presents the results of this analysis. Perceived level of social support was

associated with increases in the size of personal network ([3 = .302, p < .001), the number
of email messages ([3 = .104, p < .10), and companionship & social relationship

gratiﬁcation (B = -.265, p < .001). However, in contrast to expectations, the size of

online personal network was negatively associated with perceived level of social support

(a = -.O60, p < .05).

39

Table 6

Multiple Regression: Predicting Perception of Social Support based on Total Sample

 

Social Support

 

Independent Variables

 

 

B t P
Gender (l=male; 2=female) -.01 -.11 .91
Race (l=White; 2=others) —. 1 8 -3.34 .00
Marital Status .09 1 .41 .16
(l=now married; 2=others)
Age -.09 -1.42 .16
Education .06 1 .1 3 .26
Income .06 .94 .36
Amount of lntemet usage .04 .74 .46
Size of personal network .31 5.11 .00
Size of online personal network -.16 -2.56 .01
Email use .11 1.83 .07
CS -.25 -3.83 .00
SE .07 1.09 .28
RE -.03 -.39 .70
R .496
R2 .246
F (12, 276) 7.359 .000

 

Note. Table reports standardized Betas
C & S gratiﬁcation = Companionship and social relationship gratiﬁcation
S & E gratiﬁcation = Surveillance and excitement gratiﬁcation
R & E gratiﬁcation = Relaxation and escape gratiﬁcation
Discussion
The results of the present study are consistent with the uses and gratiﬁcations

perspective. The results show that different users seek different forms of gratiﬁcation

through CMC, just as with the gratiﬁcations that they seek from other forms of media.

40

This research has attempted to elucidate differences between online group members’ and I
general lntemet users’ perceptions of the social support provided by the lntemet as well
as the gratiﬁcations that they seek. The ﬁndings show that there are, in fact, meaningful
differences between these two groups. Support group users have higher expectations of
obtaining social support from the lntemet than do general users.

Among the four different dimensions of social support, tangible help is generally
considered to be a practical aid that takes place in the real world (Cohen et al., 1985);
therefore, it may be difﬁcult to obtain through online interaction. Interestingly, however,
online support group users had a higher expectation of ﬁnding tangible support than the
general users in this study consistent with Walther and Boyd’s (2002) suggestion. Many
researchers have found that online interactions often become transformed into to face-to-
face interactions in the real world environment and that intimate relationships often
develop through continuous, reciprocal message exchanges (Parks & Floyd, 1996;
Walther, 1996; Walther & Boyd, 2002). According to the uses and gratiﬁcations
perspective, expectations or predicted gratiﬁcations are a reﬂection of the perceived
consequences of behavior (Palmgreen & Rayburn, 1982; Rosengren, 1985), in other
words, in this case, the experiences of online support group users. This suggests that
certain kinds of online interactions, in certain ‘places’, have greater potential for building
lasting, intimate, and reciprocal relationships than do others.

The users of online support groups tend to attribute more importance to social
support, including tangible help, provided via the lntemet than do general users. This
may indicate the greater availability of or access to social support systems on the Web,

for some users, than is the case in the real world. If a user has limited or insufﬁcient

41

access to supportive communications in real life, the support obtained from alternative
channels is, quite logically, often seen as more important. Therefore, the relative
importance of online support would tend to imply fewer supportive social ties, relatively
speaking, in the real world. However, this study did not ﬁnd a signiﬁcant difference
between online support group users and general users with respect to the size of their
personal or online social networks. There are several possible explanations for this result.
First, an initial deﬁciency of network size may have been compensated for by
participation in online support groups. Second, general users may tend to lose some
social ties as a result of lntemet use, and, furthermore, levels of perceived social support
cannot be measured by or explained by the mere size of networks. Those who turn to
online support groups may also be especially needy people who tend to perceive low
levels of social support, both on or off line.

Online support group users seek the companionship and social relationship
gratiﬁcation, as well as the relaxation & escape gratiﬁcation, more than did the general
users. Social support is closely related to social interaction. In accordance with the uses
and gratiﬁcations model, social integration, socialization, social interaction, and/or
companionship (December, 1996;; Kaye, 1998; LaRose et al, 2001b; Lin, 2000;; Parker
& Plank, 2000) have been identiﬁed as basic gratiﬁcations sought from the lntemet. This
need for social interaction is a deﬁnitive part of human nature. An insufﬁcient amount of
social interaction and/or social support drives an individual to fulﬁll this need, and, often,
to fulﬁll it through alternative, available channels (Kraut et al., 2001). Relaxation and
escape gratiﬁcations are especially interesting in this regard since these gratiﬁcations do

not seem to be more sought out by online support group than non-online-support-group

42

users.

However, we need to take into consideration the fact that online support group
users may ﬁnd themselves to be especially challenged by issues of face-to-face personal
contact in the real world. In addition, the desire to ‘unwind’ often involves a certain
retreat from obligations or responsibilities in terms of providing mutual support, a
reduction, therefore, in one’s dependency on others, or the extent to which one is
disposed to seek the advice of others (Walther & Boyd, 2002). Studies dealing with
correlations between social gratiﬁcations and relaxation/escape gratiﬁcation, however,
are virtually absent in the literature concerned with lntemet gratiﬁcation. Yet, this line of
study could well provide most useful insights as to how to better explain the
characteristics of online support seekers.

The positive relations found between email use and personal network size, online
- personal network size, and perceived social support are consistent with the ﬁndings of
previous investigations (LaRose eta1., 2001a; McQuinn, 1988). These results strengthen
our appreciation of the fact that, contrary to outward appearances, email is an especially
rich medium. However, the sheer volume of lntemet usage does not necessarily translate
into high levels of perceived social support. This seemingly contradictory result is
consistent, at least in part, with the research of Swickert, Hitter, Harris, and Herring’s
(2002), which found only marginal relationships between computer use and perceived
levels of social support. Ofosu (2001), however, found that heavy lntemet users did tend
to perceive greater levels of social support from their close lntemet friends than did light .
users, which may shed some light on this seeming contradiction. Social support is most

likely to be provided by intimate relationships and rich media forms.

43

However, the level of richness attributed to a medium should not be seen as
either static or objective. While theories developed with respect to the relative richness
of traditional media do present seemingly objective descriptions of the different levels of
ability of different mediums to transfer more-or-less rich vs. lean communication
(Trevino, Daft, & Lengel, 1990), it is important to remember that media richness is, at
bottom, a social construction, and not objectively determined solely on the basis of
technological development. It is also important to account for the way in which media
can be used in ways that differ from its intended uses (Poole & DeSanctis, 1990). The
effects, therefore, of the level of one’s lntemet usage may be moderated by the level of
perceived richness of the medium in question or the degree of intimacy of online
relationships.

The companionship and social relationship gratiﬁcation is of special importance
due to its unique relationship to perceived levels of social support. Companionship and
social relationship suggest a social connectedness that involves schemata of
belongingness and cognitive representation of the degree of emotional closeness that is
experienced by or results from participation in social venues (Lee, 1997). It is natural for
people to seek expression and conﬁrmation of a sense of belonging, in order to promote
an afﬁrmation of self and protect against potential threats to one’s self-esteem (Kohut,
1984). The human need for companionship and social relationships is logically related to
all dimensions of the ISEL, such as appraisal, belonging, and self-esteem support, with
the exception of tangible support. However, as mentioned previously, because tangible
support is generally obtained on the basis of intimate, interpersonal relationships, it is

also empirically related to companionship and social relationships.

44

The negative relationship between perceived levels of social support and
perceived need for companionship and social relationship gratiﬁcation helps to explain
the attraction of the lntemet in terms of social support. This is consistent with the ﬁnding
that different types of people, categorized according to lifestyle or other social and/or
psychological factors, manifest different motivations for using the lntemet. This study,
however, failed to conﬁrm an increase in perceived social support resulting from
participation in online support groups. Unfortunately, like Kraut et al. (1998), we are left
with the original paradox in this regard. That is, seeking support online may be both a
cause and result of perceptions of insufﬁcient social support. What is most important to
note in this regard is that this interpretation contrasts runs into profound tension with the
basic logic of the uses and gratiﬁcations perspective, since, instead of people having their
needs satisﬁed by the media, media use may actually serve to increase their need.

The negative relationship between tangible support, on the one hand, and
relaxation and escape gratiﬁcations, on the other, is also somewhat problematic. A
deﬁciency of economic or material aid does not seem to be directly related to the quest
for relaxation and escape gratiﬁcation. In fact, in the ﬁnal regression model, this
negative relationship completely disappeared. Therefore, we assume this relationship to
be spurious, judging that it may be the result, at least in part, of unidentiﬁed variables
such as education and income.

The attempt to explain perceived levels of social support according to the size of
one’s personal network resulted in a surprise. It was found that the size of personal
network had a strong positive relation to perceived social support. However, there was

no relationship between the size of online personal network and perceived level of social

45

support. This may be a result of the way in which the beneﬁts of an increase in the size
of one’s online personal network may be counter-balanced by loss of contact with people
in the real world. This points to an important avenue for future research, since a
longitudinal study would be able to trace the relationship, over time, between the size of
one’s online versus ofﬂine personal networks.

The lntemet may be changing the conventional ways in which people handle
problems or obtain social support. The results conceming expectations and perceptions
of the importance of online social support are commensurate with the idea that online
support might provide an alternative vehicle of social support, especially for peOple in
distress, by linking people together who are concerned with similar issues. The Internet
has the potential to improve the access and delivery of support to a broad range of people,
including some who would be unlikely or unable to seek face-to-face support (Walther &
Boyd, 2002). The ﬁndings suggest that online support group users tend to perceive
online support groups as effective alternatives to traditional face-to-face interactions,
with users acknowledging the potential beneﬁts of online support.

Limitations

By using only three general measures of gratiﬁcations, this study may have lacked
the speciﬁcity for uncovering the distinct motivations underlying participation in online
groups. For example, the combination of surveillance and excitement gratiﬁcations
seems to compound distinct constructs, and, consequently, this loosely combined measure
might tend to ignore or overlook an important motivation for participation in support
groups: information seeking. This ﬂaw may have had a continuous inﬂuence on the

detection of relationships between gratiﬁcations and the dimensions of social support. In

46

addition, as suggested by LaRose et al (2001a), the measurement of perceived social
support (ISEL) can be somewhat problematic given the way in which tangible real world
support tends to used as a point of reference or comparison. In addition, informational
support may prove to be one of the most important forms of support provided by the
lntemet, and this variable was not included. The appraisal subscale was represented by
the measure of the perceived availability of someone to talk to about one's problems. Yet,
as mentioned above, measures of social gratiﬁcation tend to reﬂect only the belonging
dimension of social support, and this can be a serious weakness that serves to greatly
restrict the extent to which uses and gratiﬁcation research is able to predict lntemet use.

The measure of online personal network size employed in this study was also
problematic. The question: “Of those, how many do you communicate with only through
the lntemet?” appeared below the question regarding the size of one’s local social circle;
therefore, the respondents could have interpreted this question in different ways, within
the local social circle or within the totality of social circles.

In addition, the possibility also exists that differences between online support
group users and general users could be a function of demographic differences rather than
differences in terms of social support needs. In this study, for example, the composition
of online support group vs. general users was different in terms gender, ethnicity, and
marital status.

The generalizability of this research is somewhat limited by the very nature of
web surveys. The problem of representativeness caused by self-selection is also present
here as it is with quantitative investigations generally speaking. However, a 13.3 percent

response rate may not be that low and the sampling method employed in this research

47

may not have had a negative impact on its ability to discover relationships among the
variables in question. One thing that is clear is that any comparison of the demographic
characteristics of general vs. online support group users should be evaluated in light of
the Pew Internet Project sample (2000). As suggested here, participants in online support
groups tend to resemble the general sample of the Pew Interent Project with respect to
gender composition, mean age, and the percentage of currently married people. For our
purposes, the relatively lower response rate of general vs. online support group users
might have served to color the results of the study. Clearly, further research is called for
so. as to better understand the differences between general vs. online support group users
in this regard.
Implications for and Directions for Future Research

This research demonstrates the possibility of linking dimensions of perceived
social support to uses and gratiﬁcations. It provides some compelling evidence in
support of the suggestion that needs that remain unmet through the use of traditional
communication channels may serve as motivations for Internet use, but also those needs
continue to be unmet. Thus, further identiﬁcation of lntemet gratiﬁcations and the
dimensions of online social support is called for in order to paint a clearer picture of the
relationship between gratiﬁcations and online social support, as well as perceived social
support. Uses and gratiﬁcation research has frequently been criticized for its very limited
ability to predict media behavior (LaRose et al, 2001b). The application of conventional
media gratiﬁcation models to new media forms, in particular, has tended to yield low
correlations between lntemet use and gratiﬁcation factors. Including two commonly

ignored dimensions of social support, however, namely self-esteem and tangible support,

48

as well as differentiating between appraisal and informational supports, might serve to
enhance the utility of gratiﬁcations research for explaining and predicting lntemet use
behavior.

More companionship and social relationship gratiﬁcation seeking activity,
perceptions of the increasing importance of online social support, and higher expectations
concerning online social support by online support group users seem to imply the
possibility of CMC serving as an adequate or highly functional alternative to face-to-face
interpersonal communication. However, the negative relationship between
companionship and social relationship gratiﬁcation, on the one hand, and levels of
perceived social support on the other, as well as the failure to establish any relationship
between the size of one’s personal online network and one’s level of Internet use, tend to
call into question the viability of functional online alternatives to real-world social
interaction. According to Flaherty et al. (1998), a positive relationship between motives
for lntemet use and face-to-face interaction is a necessary although insufficient condition
for functional alternatives.“ Therefore, we have to show that one medium can serve as a
substitute for another, depending on availability, without losing the beneﬁts provided by
any particular given medium. In this sense, the development of technologies and the
interpersonal potential of the lntemet make it especially valuable for the pursuit of
functional forms of alternative media.

The attempt to make the case for or against online communities may not be
feasible because of the complexities surrounding online interaction. Size alone does not
explain the nature of online social support. There might be some important differences

between online groups and other types of groups in terms of reduced dependency and

49

obligation (Walther & Boyd, 2002). Therefore, in many cases, online groups have a
small core of regular participants and a much larger number of people who participate
only rarely or who visit only once or twice and then do not visit again for a long time, if
at all. This means that the extent to which such groups provide social support or social
companionship might be quite limited, unless one is part of the group of regular
participants. Moreover, some groups concentrate on providing informational support,
above all else, while others are much more concerned with social companionship as
demonstrated by this investigation. Future research, therefore, could help to describe the
network structure of online groups, in terms of range, density, and centrality (Wellman &
Berkowitz, 1998; Lin, 1999) as well as the content of online interaction. We are also in
need of time series or experimental studies to determine the direction of causation here.
Does a need for social support result in lntemet use, especially among online support
group users, or does lntemet use result in a greater need for social support? This is a
fundamentally difficult problem that calls for further investigation.

Finally, this research raised numerous ethical questions for the research team. A
number of people reacted in a very hostile way to the postings that we made on some
newsgroups, telling people about the research and inviting those who were interested to
completing the questionnaire or take part in an interview. Some saw this research as a
gross invasion of their privacy, even though newsgroups are public and open to anyone
who has an lntemet connection. There appears to be no ready or easy solution to this
dilemma, although it is important to always be certain to rigorously follow any relevant
ethical guidelines. In this case, it may well be advisable to seek ofﬁcial permission from

the newsgroup in question.

50

APPENDIX A: Survey Questionnaire

The lntemet is changing many people’s lives by giving them a new way to seek social
support. Social support includes advice, moral support, companionship and tangible aid
that we receive from others. In this survey we explore how you use the Internet for social
support and how it impacts your life. It will only take about 15 minutes to complete.
Please indicate your answers to the questions below by clicking in the appropriate circle
and then click once on the submit button at the end when you are done. So that we can
record your response and remove your name from the contact list, please enter the four-
digit code we gave you here:

 

 

 

 

In the last week have you participated in an on-line discussion group?

0 Yes
0 No

When you use the lntemet how likely are you encounter each of the following types of
social support?

Please provide your answers on a scale of l to 5 where 5 is very likely and l is very
unlikely.

Type of Online Very Very
Support Likely Unlikely
Personal advice 0 5 O 4 O 3 O 2 O 1
Moral support that O 5 O 4 O 3 O 2 O 1

makes me feel
more valued as a

person
Tangible help to O 5 O 4 O 3 O 2 O I
resolve a stressful

life problem

Companionship O 5 O 4 O 3 O 2 O 1

51

How important are each of the following lntemet activities as sources of social support
for you? Use a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means very important and 1 means very

unimportant.

lntemet Activity

Email

Chat rooms

Online discussion areas
like newsgroups and
listserves

Multi-user
communities like
MUDs and MOOs
Personal advice
Thinking just of the
lntemet activities that
are important sources
of social support for
you, about how much
time do you spend on

them in a typical week?

Importance for Providing Social Support

Very

Likely

O 5 O 4

O 5 O 4

O 5 O 4

O 5 O 4

O 5 O 4

0 None 0 Less
thanan
hour

000
www

03

O 3
0 1-2
hours

Very
Unlikely
O 2 O 1
O 2 O 1
O 2 O 1
O 2 O 1
O 2 O 1
O Over2 0 Over
Up to 5hours
5hours

Estimate the size of your social circle. Deﬁne this as the number of people, including
relatives and friends, whom you socialize with at least once a month, including the
socializing you online and in the real world.

 

 

 

 

People

Of the people in your local social circle, approximately how many do you communicate
with via the lntemet, including e-mail, group mailings (listserves), chat rooms, discussion
groups and multi-user environments.

 

 

 

 

People

Of those, how many do you communicate with ONLY through the lntemet?

 

 

 

 

People

52

 

How important is the social support you get from the Internet compared to the real world

social support you receive in each of the following areas?

Type of Support
Very Likely

Personal advice 0 More Important

Moral support that 0 More Important

makes me feel

more valued as a

person

Tangible help to 0 More Important

resolve a stressful

life problem

Companionship 0 More Important

0 Equally Important
0 Equally Important

O Equally Important

0 Equally Important

Compared to real world sources, Internet support is...
Very Unlikely
0 Less Important
0 Less Important

0 Less Important

0 Less Important

Whether or not you use the lntemet to obtain social support now, we would like to know
how much conﬁdence you have in your ability to use the Internet that way if you wanted
to. Use a scale of 1 to 5 where Smeans strongly agree and 1 means strongly disagree.

I am confident I can Strongly

use the Internet to Agree

Find an old ﬁiend O 5 O 4
Meet new people 0 5 O 4
Find companionship O 5 O 4
Obtain advice about my 0 5 O 4
personal problems

Contact people who 0 5 O 4
help me feel more

valued

Sustain an online 0 5 O 4
relationship

Get help with stressful O 5 O 4
situations

I can ﬁnd people who 0 5 O 4
help me cope with

rejection

Keep in contact with O 5 O 4
distant friends

Help me with the daily 0 5 O 4
hassles in my life

Help me cope with a O 5 O 4
major life crisis

Help me deal with a O 5 O 4

stressful situation in my
life

53

O 0000
wwww

O
L»

O
O.)

O 0000
NNNN

N

02

02

02

02

02

Strongly
Disagree
1

1
1
l

O 0000

O

O

0000

Help me understanda O 5 O 4 O 3 O 2 O 1
major problem in my
life

Please brieﬂy describe what you consider to be the most important instance of social
support you ever obtained from the lntemet:

 

 

 

 

Now a few question about your lntemet use

About how long have you been using the lntemet, in years and months?

 

Years

 

 

 

 

Months

 

About how long has it been since you started using the lntemet on a daily basis?

 

Years

 

 

 

 

Months (ENTER 0 IF YOU HAVE NEVER USED THE
INTERNET DAILY)

 

About how long has it been since you formed your ﬁrst new relationship through the
lntemet?

 

Years

 

 

Months (ENTER 0 IF YOU HAVE NEVER FORMED A
RELATIONSHIP ON THE INTERNET)

 

 

 

Onatypical weekday, 0 Over 0 Over2 0 1-2 0 Less 0 None

about how much time 5hours Up to hours than an
do you spend on the 5hours hour
lntemet?

54

Onatypical weekend, 0 Over 0 Over2 0 1-2 0 Less 0 None

about how much time 5hours Up to hours than an
do you spend on the 5hours hour
lntemet?

 

In a typical week, about
how many days do you
do on the lntemet

 

 

 

Inthelasttwodays, 026or 011-25 O6-10 O 1-5 ONone
about how many email more

messages did you send

to people you know?

Inthelasttwodays, O26or 011-25 06-10 01-5 ONone
about how many email more

messages did you

receive from people

you know?

Below are reasons some people give for using the lntemet. Tell us how much each one is
a reason you use the Internet on a scale of 1 to 5 where Smeans strongly agree and 1
means strongly disagree.

I use the Internet... Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree

Solwon’thaveto be 0 5 O 4 O 3 O 2 O 1

alone

Because it’s something 0 5 O 4 O 3 O 2 O l

to do when ﬁiends

come over

When there’s no one 0 5 O 4 O 3 O 2 O 1

else to talk with or be

with

Solcanleamhowto 05 O4 O3 02 01

do things which I

haven’t done before

Because it’s exciting O 5 O 4 O 3 O 2 O 1

It helps me learn things 0 5 O 4 O 3 O 2 O 1

about myself and others

Because it gives me O 5 O 4 O 3 O 2 O l

something to occupy

my time

Because it relaxes me O 5 O 4 O 3 O 2 O 1

Because it amuses me O 5 O 4 O 3 O 2 O 1

55

Next, we want to know about the amount of social support you get in your life in general,
including that which you ﬁnd on the lntemet and in real life. For each statement we
would like to click TRUE if the statement is true about you or FALSU if the statement is
not true about you. You may ﬁnd that many of the statements are neither clearly true nor
clearly false. In these cases, try to decide quickly whether probably TRUE or probably
FALSE is most descriptive of you.

There is at least one person I know whose advice I 0 True 0 False
really trust.

There is really no one who can give me objective 0 True 0 False
feedback about how I'm handling my problems.

There is someone who I feel comfortable going to for 0 True 0 False
advice about sexual problems.

I feel that there is no one with whom I can share my 0 True 0 False
most private worries and fears.

No one I know would throw a birthday party for me. 0 True 0 False
There are several different people with whom I enjoy 0 True 0 False
spending time.

Most people I know don't enjoy the same things that I 0 True 0 False
do.

I feel that I’m on the fringe in my circle of ﬁiends. 0 True 0 False
If I were sick and needed someone to drive me to the 0 True 0 False
doctor, I would have trouble ﬁnding someone.

There is no one I could call on if I needed to borrow a O True 0 False
car for a few hours

If I needed a quick emergency loan of $100, there is 0 True 0 False
someone I could get it from.

If I needed some help in moving to a new home, I O True 0 False
would have a hard time ﬁnding someone to help me.

In general, people don't have much conﬁdence in me. 0 True 0 False
Most of my ﬁiends are more successful at making 0 True 0 False
changes in their lives than I am.

I think that my friends feel that I'm not very good at 0 True 0 False
helping them solve problems.

I am closer to my friends than most other people. 0 True 0 False

Sex
0 Male
O Female

Marital status

0 Now married
0 Widowed

O Divorced

56

 

O Separated
0 Never Married

 

What is your year of birth? 19

 

 

 

Are you (CHECK AS MANY AS APPLY)
[:1 Black or African American

E] White
[1 Asian (including Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Southeast Asians)
E] Paciﬁc Islander

[11 Native American or Alaskan native

 

 

 

[3 Something else?

 

Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino origin, including Mexican-American, Chicano,
Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Hispanic.

0 Yes
0 No

Which of the following best describes your household?

0 Married couple with children under 18
0 Father living with children under 18

0 Mother living with children under 18
0 Family with no children under 18

O Unrelated people living together

0 Single person

What is your family’s total household income, before taxes?

0 Under $20,000

0 $20,000 to $34,999
0 $35,000 to $49,999
0 $50,000 or more

Excluding kindergarten, how many years of formal education have you completed?

 

Years

 

 

 

57

 

In the last month, which of the following has been a hassle in your life? Hassle can
range from minor annoyances to major pressures or difﬁculties in your life

Hassel In the last month

Problems with upkeep of the inside of my home 0 Yes 0 No
Not seeing enough people 0 Yes 0 No
Bothered by noise 0 Yes 0 No
Trafﬁc hassles 0 Yes 0 No
To little money for entertainment and recreation 0 Yes 0 No
Concerns about being dependent on other people O Yes 0 No

To help us understand your need for social support, we would like to know which of
the following have happened to you in the last year?

Hassel In the last year

Substantial decrease in income 0 Yes 0 No
Legal problems 0 Yes 0 No
Death of a family member 0 Yes 0 No
Death of a close friend 0 Yes 0 No
Divorce in my family 0 Yes 0 No
Separation in my family 0 Yes 0 No
Serious illness or injury in my family 0 Yes 0 No
Incurred a large debt 0 Yes 0 No

As there any other recent events in your life that made desire social support?

 

 

 

 

 

58

References

Allen, B. J. (1995). Gender and computer-mediated communication. Sex Roles 32(7-8),
557-563.

Aronson, E. (1995). The Social Animal. New York, WH. Freeman and Co.

Baym, N. K. (1998). The emergence of online community. In S. Jones (Ed.),
Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated communication and community
(pp 35-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Berg, J., & McQuinn, R. (1989). Loneliness and aspects of social support networks.
Journal of Social and Personal relationships, 6, 359-372.

Bimie, S. A., & Horvath, P. (2002). Psychological predictors of lntemet social
communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(4). Retrieved
from http://wwwascusc.org/icmc/vol7/issue4/horvath.html.

Blumer, J ., & Katz, E. (1974). The uses of Mass Communications. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Braithwaite, D. C., Waldron, V. R., & F inn, J . (1999). Communication of social support
in computer-mediated groups for persons with disabilities. Health
Communication, 1 1, 123-151.

Burt, R. S., & Minor, M. J (1983). Applied Network Analysis. London: Sage.

Casey, J. (2000). Managing technology wisely: A new counselor competency. In J. W.

Bloom, & G. R. Walz (Eds), Cybersounseling and cyberlearning: Strategies and
Resources for The Millennium (pp17-28). Alexandria VA: American Counseling
Association.

Chamey, T. R. (1996). Uses and gratiﬁcations of the lntemet (Masters thesis, Michigan
State University, 1996). Masters Abstracts International, 35, 0612.

Chamey, T. R., & Greenberg, B. S. (2001). Uses and Gratiﬁcations of the Internet. In C.
Lin & D. Atkin (Eds.), Communication, Technology and Society: New Media Adoption
and Uses. Cresskill, NJ :Hampton Press.

Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 5,
300—3 14.

59

Cohen, S. (1988). Psychological models of the role of social support in the etiology of
physical disease. Health Psychology, 7, 269-297.

Cohen, S., Mermelstein, R., Kamarck, T., & Hoberrnan, H. M. (1985) Measuring the
Functional Components of Social Support. In I. G. Sarason & B. R. Sarason
(Eds), Social Support: Theory, Research and Applications (pp73-94). Dordrecht:
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Cole, J. I. (2000). UCLA Internet Report: Surveying the Digital Future. UCLA Center
for Communication Policy. Retrieved October 25, 2000, from
www.ccp.ucla.edu/ucla-intemet.pdf.

Cummings, J ., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (2002). Beyond Hearing: Where real world and
online support meet. Group Dynamics, 6, 78-88.

Cullen, M., & Whiteford, N. (In Press). The Interrelations of Social Capital with Health
and Mental Health: Discussion Papaer. Commonwealth of Australia.

Cutrona, C., & Suhr, J. A. (1992). Controllability of stressful events and satisfaction
with spouse support behaviors. Communication Research, 19, 154-174.

Cutrona, C., & Troutrnan, B. R. (1986). Social support, infant temperament, and
parenting self-efﬁcacy: A mediational model of postpartum depression. Child
Development, 5 7, 1507-1518.

Dahlberg, L. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A
critical analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(1). Retrieved
from http://www.ascusc.org/ jcmc/ vol7/ issue 1 /dahlberg.html.

December, J. (1996). Units of analysis for lntemet communication. Journal of
Communication, 46(1), 14-38.

Donath, J. S. (1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In M. A. Smith &
P. Kollock (Eds), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29-59). London: Routledge.

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

Eastin, M., & LaRose, R. (2000) lntemet self-efﬁcacy and the psychology of the digital
divide. Journal of Computer-Mediated—Communication, 6(1). Retrieved October
2, 2000, from http://www.ascusc.org/icmc/vol6/issue1/eastin.html

Egdorf, K., & Rahoi, R. L. (1994, November). Finding a Place Where “We All Want To

Here It E-Mail as a Source of Social Support. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Speech Communication Association, New Orleans.

60

Evans, 1. M. (1993). Constructional perspectives in clinical assessment. Psychological
Assessment, 5, 264-272.

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.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

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.

Frank, K. A., & Yasumoto, J. Y. (1998). Linking action to social structure within a
system: Social capital within and between subgroups. American Journal of
Sociology, 104(3), 642-686.

Frey, L. R., Adelman, M. B., Flint, L. J., & Query, J. L. (2000). Weaving meanings
together in an AIDS residence: Communicative practices, perceived health
outcomes, and the symbolic construction of community. Journal of Health
Communication: International Perspectives, 5, 53-72.

Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R. H. (1974). Type A Behavior and Your Heart. New York,
NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Garton, L., Haythomthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1997). Studying online social
networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(1). Retrieved from
http://www.ascusc.org/icmc/vol3/issue1/garton.html

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78,
1 360-1 3 80.

Greenberg, B. S. (1974). Gratiﬁcations of television viewing and their correlates for
British children. In J. G. Blumler, & E. Katz (Eds.), The Uses of Mass
Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratiﬁcations Research (pp. 71-92).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gross, E. F., Juvonen, J ., & Gable, S. L. (2002). lntemet use and well-being in
adolescence. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 75-90.

Haines, V. A., & Hurlbert, J. S. (1992). Network range and health. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 33, 254-266.

Haythomthwaite, C. (2001). Tie strength and the impact of new Media. Paper presented

61

at The Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii.

Haythomthwaite, C., Wellman, B., & Mantei, M. (1995). Work relationships and media
use: A social network analysis. Group Decision and Negotiation, 4, 193-211.

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by
the individual. In J. G. Blumler, & E. Katz (Eds), The uses of mass
communications: Current perspectives on gratiﬁcations research (pp. 20-30).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

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

Kaye, B. K. (1998). Uses and gratiﬁcations of the World Wide Web: From couch potato
to Web potato. The New Jersey Journal of communication, 6(1), 21-40.

Kiesler, S. (Ed.) (1997). Culture of the Internet. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

King, S. A. (1994). Analysis of electronic support groups for recovering addicts. An
Electronic Journal for the let Century, 2(3), 47-56.

Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure? Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

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

Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W.
(1999). lntemet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement
and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53, 1017-1031.

Kummervold, P. E., Gammon, D., Bergvik, S., Johnson, J. A. K., Hasvold, T., &
Rosenvinge, J. H. (2002). Social support in wired world: Use of online mental health
forums in Norway. Nordik Journal of Psychiatry, 56, 59-65.

LaRose, R., Mastro, D., & Eastin, M. (2001b). Understanding lntemet usage: A social-
cognitive approach to uses and gratiﬁcations. Social Science Computer Review,
19(4), 395-413.

LaRose, R., Eastin, M. S., & Gregg, J. (20013). Reforrnulating the lntemet paradox:
social cognitive explanations of lntemet use and depression. Journal of Online

Behavior, 1 (2). Retrieved May 21, 2002, from
http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1@aradoxhtml

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York, NT:
Springer.

Leatham, G., & Duck, S. (1990). Conversations with friends and the dynamics of social

62

support. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal Relationships and Social Support (ppl-29).
London: Sage.

Lee, C. C. (2000). Cybercounseling and empowerment: Bridging the digital divide. In J.
W. Bloom, & G. R. Walz (Eds), Cybercounseling and Cyberlearning: Strategies
and Resources for The Millennium (pp. 85-93). Alexandria, VA: American
Counseling Association.

Lee, R. M. (1997). The role of social connectedness in the social support process and
small group interactions. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 1997),
Dissertation Abstracts International, 5 7, 5390.

Levy, M. R., & Windahl, S. (1984). Audience Activity and Gratiﬁcations: A conceptual
Clariﬁcation and Exploration. Communication Research, 11(1), 51-78.

Lin, C. A. (2001). Audience attributes, media supplementation and likely online service
adoption. Mass Communication and Society, 4(1), 19-38.

Lin, N. (1997). The stress buffering role of social support: Problems and prospects for
systematic investigation. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 165, 403-417.

Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28-51.
Locke, J. L. (1998). The de-voicing of society: Why we don ’t talk to each other anymore.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

McCain, T., Morris, 8., Green, C., & Al-Najran, T. (1999, November). T 0 Do is to
Empower: Relationships between Experience with Networked Computing,
Efficacy, and Attitudes toward Life Online. Paper presented at the National
Communication Association National Conference, Chicago, IL.

McGuire, W. J. (1974). Psychological motives and communication gratiﬁcations. In J.
G. Blumler, & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current
perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 167-196). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Coming out in the age of the lntemet:
Identity “demarginalization” through virtual group participation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 681-694.

Monroe, S. M., Connell, M. M., Bromet, E. J ., & Steiner, S. C. (1986). Social support,
life events, and depressive symptom: A one-year prospective study. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 424-431.

Morris, M., & Ogan, C. (1996). The lntemet as mass medium. Journal of Computer-

Mediated Communication, 1 (4). Retrieved from
http://icmc.huii.ac.il/vol1/issue4/morris.html

63

Narayan, D. (1999). Bonds and bridges: Social capital and poverty. Policy Research
Working Paper 2167. World Bank. Poverty Reduction and Economic
Management Network, Washington DC. Retrieved September 5, 2000, from
www.worldbank.org/povertv/scapital/librarv/naravan

Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York, NY: Rinehard &
Winston.

Ofosu, H. B. (2001). Heavy lntemet use: A proxy for social interaction. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Windsor, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International,
61, 5058.

Palrngreen, P. (1984). Uses and gratiﬁcations: A theoretical perspective.
Communication Yearbook, 8, 20-55.

Palrngreen, P., & Rayburn, J. D. (1982). Gratiﬁcation sought and media exposure.
Communication Research, 9, 561-580.

Paolillo, J. (1999). The virtual speech community: Social network and language
variation on IRC, Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 4(4).
Retrieved from http://www.ascusc.org/icmc/vol4/issue4/paolillo.html

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

Parker, B. J ., & Plank R. E. (2000). A uses and gratiﬁcations perspective on the lntemet
as a new information source. American Business Review, 18(2), 43-49.

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

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

Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G (1990). Understanding the Use of Group Decision
Support Systems: The Theory of Adaptive Structuration . In J. Fulk & C.
Steinﬁeld (Eds.) Organizations and Communication Technology (pp. 173-193).
Newbury Park, Saga.

Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1988). The breaching and building social
boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication.
Communication Research, 25, 689-715.

Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-

mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26, 342-371.
Putnam, R. D. (1996). The strange disappearance of civic America. The American

64

 

Prospect, 24, 34-48.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American

Community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Rafaeli, S. & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Network interactivity. Journal of Computer-

Mediated Communication, 2(4). Retrieved from
htng/wwwascusc.org/icmc/volZ/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html

Rahe, R. H., & Arthur, R. J. (1978). Life change and illness studies: Past history and
future directions. Journal of Human Stress, 4, 3-15.

Reid, E. (1995). Towards a communication dialectic: Embedded technology and the
enhancement of place. Sociological Inquiry, 67(1), 101-112.

Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier.

Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Rierdan, J. (1999). Internet-depression Link? American Psychologist, 54(9), 781-782.

Riphagen, J ., & Kanfer, A. (1997). How does e-mail affect our lives? Campaign-Urbana,
IL: National Center for Supercomputing Applications.

Rosengren, K. E. (1985). Growth of a research tradition: Some concluding remarks. In
K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratification
research: Current perspectives (pp. 275-284). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rubin, A. M. (1981). An examination of television viewing motivations.
Communication Research, 8(2), 141-165.

Rubin, A. M. (1994). Media uses and effects: A uses-and-gratiﬁcations perspective. In J.
Bryant, & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research
(pp. 417-436). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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

36-53.
Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and Gratiﬁcations Theory in the let Century. Mass
Communication & Society, 3(1), 3-37.

Sanders, C. E., Field, T. M., Diego, M., & Kaplan, M. (2000). The relationship of
Internet use to depression and social isolation among adolescents. Adolescence,

35 (138), 237-242.
Schwartzer, R., & Leppin, A. (1992). Social support and mental health: A conceptual

65

and empirical overview. In L. Montada, S. H. Filipp, & M. J. Lerner (Eds), Life
Crises and Experiences of Loss in Adult Life (pp. 43 5-458). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Shah, D. V. (1998). Civic engagement, interpersonal trust and television use: An
individual assessment of social capital. Political Psychology, 19, 469-496.

Shapiro, J. S. (1999). Loneliness: Paradox or artifact. The American Psychologist, 54(9),
782-783.

Short, J ., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The Psychology of Telecommunication.
London: Wiley.

Sproull, L. S., & Kiesler S. B. (1991). Connections: New Ways of Working in the
Networked Organization. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Strobe, W., & Strobe, M. (1996). The social psychology of social support. In E. T.
Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Handbook of basic principles (pp. 779-799).
New York: Guilford Press.

Swanson, D. L. (1992). Understanding Audiences: Continuing Contributions of
Gratiﬁcations Research. Poetics, 21 , 305-328.

Swickert, R. J ., Hittner, J. B., Harris, J. L., & Herring, J. A. (2002). Relationship among
lntemet use, personality, and social support. Computers in Human Behavior,
18(4), 437-451.

Tajifel, H. (1978). Interindividual behavior and intergroup Behavior. London:
Academic Press.

Tajifel, H., Ed. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge: University
Press.

Thomsen, S. R. (1996). @Work in cyberspace: Exploring practitioner use of the PR
forum. Public Relatiohs Review, 22(2), 1 15-132.

Trevino, L. K., Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1990). Understanding Managers’ Media
Choices: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective. In J. Fulk & C. Steinﬁeld (Eds.),
Organizations and Communication Technology (pp. 71-94). Thousand Oakes:
Sage.

Troits, P. A. (1995). Stress, coping, and social support processes: Where are we? What
next? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, (extra issue), 53-79.

Turner, J. C. (1983). Direct, indirect and moderating effects of social support on

66

 

psychological distress and associated conditions. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.),
Psychological stress: trends in theory and research. New York, NY: Academic
Press.

Turner, J. C. (1985). A self-categorization theory. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J.
Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the Social Group
(pp. 42-67). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

UCLA Center for Communication Policy (2000). The UCLA Internet Report:
"Surveying the Digital Future Retrieved from
http://www.ccp.ucla.edu/pages/intemet-rgnortasp

Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A
relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.

Walther, J. B. (1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on
relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human
Communication Research, 20(4), 473-501.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal,
and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.

Walther, J. B., & Boyd, S. (2002). Attraction to computer-mediated social support. In C.
A. Lin, & D. Atkin (Eds.), Communication technology and society: Audience
adoption and uses (pp. 153-188). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
B.
Weinberg, N., Schmale, J ., Ukan, J ., & Wessel, K. (1995). Computer-mediated support
groups. Social Work with Groups, 1 7(4), 43—54.

Wellman, B. (1981). Applying network analysis to the study of support. In B. H.
Gottlieb (Ed.), Social networks and social support (pp. 43-68). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.

Wellman, B., & Berkowitz, S. D. (Eds) (1998). Social Structures: A Network Approach.
Cambrige: Carnbrige University Press.

Wellman, B., & Frank, K. (2001). Network capital in a multi-level world: Getting
support from personal communities. In N. Lin, R. Burt, & K. Cook (Eds.), Social
Capital (pp. 233-273). Chicago, IL: Aldine De Gruyter.

Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Net surfers don't ride alone: Virtual community as
community. In P. Kollock, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace
(pp. 167-194). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Wellman, B., Quan Haase, A., Witte, J ., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the lntemet

increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation,
and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 437-456.

67

 

Williams, T. H., & Boyes, M. C. (1986). Television-viewing patterns and use of other
media. In T. H. Williams (Ed.), The Impact of Television. A Natural Experiment
in Three Communities (pp. 215-263). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Young, K. S., & Rogers, R. C. (1998). The relationship between depression and Internet
addiction. CyberPsychology and Behavior, [(1), 25-28.

Zillmann, D. and J. Bryant (1985). Selective exposure to communication. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

 

68

CG

liiilililiiijillgijiiiijil

3129