SOCIAL INTEGRATION: TESTING ANTECEDENTS OF TIME SPENT ONLINE

Abstract

The literature on the relationship of social integration and time spent online provides conflicting evidence of the relationship of social integration with time spent online. The study identifies and highlights the controversy and attempts to clarify the relationship of social integration with time spent online by decomposing the construct social integration into its affective and behavioral dimensions . Thestudy tests antecedents and effects of time spent online in a random sample of senior level undergraduate students at a public university in Malaysia. The findings indicated that while self-report measures of behavioral social integration did not predict time spent online, and, the affective social integration had an inverse relationship with time spent online

Keywords

• Social Integration, Time spent online

References

1. Brissette, I. Cohen, S., & Seeman, T. E. (2000). Measuring social integration and social networks. In S.Cohen, L. Underwood, & B. Gottlieb (Eds.), Support measurements and interventions: A guide for social and health scientists. NY: Oxford Press.
2. Berkman, L. F., & Glass, T. (2000). Social integration, social networks social support, and health. In L. F. Berkman & Kawachi (Eds.) Social epidemiology
3. (pp.137-173). New York: Oxford Press. Cohen, S., Gottlieb, B., & Underwood, L. (2000). Social relationships and health. In S. Cohen, L. Underwood, & B. Gottlieb (Eds.), Measuring an intervening in social support. New York: Oxford Press.
4. Cohen, S., Doyle, W. J., Turner, R.B., Alper, C.M., & Skoner, D. P. (2003).
5. Sociability and susceptibility to the common cold. Psychological science, 14, 389- Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary media environment. Human Communication Research, 27(1), 153-181.
6. Ferguson, D., & Perse, E. (2000). The World Wide Web as a functional alternative to television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(2), 174.
7. Gibson, C. L., Zhao, J., Lovrich, N. P., & Gaffney, M. J. (2002). Social integration, individual perceptions of collective efficacy, and fear of crime in three cities. Justice Quarterly, 19(3), 537-548.
8. Griffiths, M. D. (1999). Internet Addiction. Psychologist, 12(5),246-50.

9. Katz, J. E., & Aspden, P. (1997). Communications of the ACM, 40(12), 81-86.
10. Katz, J. E. & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement and Interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
11. Kilian, R., Lindenbach, I., Lobig, U., Uhle, M., angermeyer, Mc. C. (2001). Self- perceived social integration and the use of day centers of persons with severe and persistent schizophrenia living in the community: A qualitative analysis. Soc
12. Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol, 36, 545-552. Kling, R. (1996). Social relationships in electronic forum: Hangouts, salons, workplaces and communities. In R. Kling (Ed.) Computerization and controversy (pp. 426-54). San Diego, Calif.: Academic.
13. Kraut, R. E., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukhopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017
14. Kraut, R. E., Keisler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49-74.
15. LaRose, R. , & Eastin, M. (2004). A social cognitive theory of Internet uses and gratifications: Toward a new model of media attendance. Journal of Broadcasting
16. & Electronic Media, 48(3), 358-377. McLeod, J. M.., Daily, C., Guo, Z. Eveland, W. P., Bayer, J., Yang, S., & Wang, H. (1996). process. Communication Research, 23,179-209.
17. Mesch, G. S. (2001). Social relationships and Internet use among adolescents in
18. Israel. Social Science Quarterly, 82(2), 329-339. Parker, B. J., & Plank, R. E. (2000). A uses and gratifications perspective on the Internet as a new information source. American Business Review, 18, 43-49.
19. Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. (2000). Predictors of Internet Use. Journal of
20. Broadcasting & Electronic Media 44(2), 175-196. Perse, E. M., & Courtright, J. A. (1993). Normative images of communication media: Mass and interpersonal channels in the new media environment. Human
21. Communication Research, 19, 485-503. Price, V., & Allen, S. (1990). Opinion spirals, silent or otherwise: Applying small-group research to public opinion phenomena. Communication Research, 17, 392.
22. Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research, 19, 45 1-484.
23. Shah, D. V., Kwak, N.; Holbert, R. L., &. (2001a). “Connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18, 141-162.
24. Shah, D. V., McLeod, J. M., & Yoon, S. (2001b). Communication, contexts, and community: an exploration of print, broadcast, and Internet influences.
25. Communication Research, 28(4), 464 -506. Shah, D. V., Schmierbach, M., Hawkins, J., Espino, R., and Donavan, J. (2002).
26. Nonrecursive models of Internet use and community engagement: Questioning whether time spent online erodes social capital. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(4), 964-987. Weiser, E. B. (2001). The functions of Internet use and their social and psychological consequences. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 4(6), 723-743.
27. Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. (1999). Net surfers don’t ride alone: virtual communities as communities. In B. Wellman (Ed.) Networks in the global village (pp. 331-66). Boulder, Col: Westview Press.