The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships: Personal Relationships: On and Off the Internet

That the internet is a communication medium for personal relationships is obvious. That the nature of the internet affects the nature of personal relationships has often been proclaimed – recall McLuhan’s “the medium is the message” – but less often proven, especially in field studies. How might the internet have an impact? Although the internet has captured popular attention as a communication and information medium, a substantial body of research has only developed recently. This chapter discusses the role of the internet in personal relationships. It starts with a brief description of the socially relevant characteristics of internet technology and a summary of the debate between utopian and dystopian accounts of internet use on personal relationships. Both of these accounts are inadequate because they take a technologically deterministic approach that ignores the causal role of the individual’s need to maintain offline social relationships. Research that examines the internet’s role in facilitating communication between family and friends, forming new social ties and neighboring relations shows that the internet is neither destroying nor radically altering society for the better. Rather, research results point to the need for a more holistic account of internet use that places internet use in the broader context of all personal relationships. They suggest that the interpersonal patterns associated with internet use are the continuations of a shift in the nature of personal networks that began well before the advent of the internet. This shift toward “networked individualism” involves the transition from spatially proximate and densely-knit communities in which people belong to more spatially dispersed and sparsely-knit personal networks in which people maneuver.

[1]  R. Merton Social Theory and Social Structure , 1958 .

[2]  Mark S. Granovetter The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[3]  L. Coser The Tasks of Sociology. (Book Reviews: The Idea of Social Structure. Papers in Honor of Robert K. Merton) , 2017 .

[4]  B. Wellman The Community Question: The Intimate Networks of East Yorkers , 1979, American Journal of Sociology.

[5]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[6]  Marshall McLuhan,et al.  The Global Village: Transformations in World Life and Media in the 21st Century , 1989 .

[7]  S. D. Berkowitz,et al.  Social Structures: A Network Approach , 1989 .

[8]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Evaluating video as a technology for informal communication , 1992, CHI.

[9]  Rudi Volti,et al.  America Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940 , 1992 .

[10]  Michael A. Weinstein,et al.  Data trash : the theory of the virtual class , 1994 .

[11]  Clifford Stoll,et al.  Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway , 1995 .

[12]  John Perry Barlow,et al.  Property and speech: who owns what you say in cyberspace? , 1995, CACM.

[13]  T. Peters Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices (2nd Ed.), edited by Rob Kling , 1996, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[14]  Malcolm R. Parks Making Friends in Cyberspace , 1996, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[15]  Lindsy Van Gelder The Strange Case of the Electronic Lover , 1991, Computerization and Controversy, 2nd Ed..

[16]  Mark Dery,et al.  Escape Velocity: Cyberculture at the End of the Century , 1996 .

[17]  D. Kerckhove Connected Intelligence: The Arrival of the Web Society , 1997 .

[18]  James E. Katz,et al.  A nation of strangers? , 1997, CACM.

[19]  S. Turkle Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet , 1997 .

[20]  J. Walther Group and Interpersonal Effects in International Computer-Mediated Collaboration , 1997 .

[21]  B. Wellman,et al.  Work, friendship, and media use for information exchange in a networked organization , 1998 .

[22]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Internet paradox. A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? , 1998, The American psychologist.

[23]  David Bell,et al.  The Cybercultures Reader , 2000 .

[24]  Axel Franzen Does the Internet make us lonely , 2000 .

[25]  B. Anderson,et al.  Digital Living , 2001 .

[26]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Internet Paradox Revisited , 2002 .

[27]  R. Rice,et al.  Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement, and Interaction , 2002 .

[28]  Katelyn Y. A. McKenna,et al.  Relationship formation on the Internet: What's the big attraction? , 2002 .

[29]  L. Kendall Hanging Out in the Virtual Pub: Masculinities and Relationships Online , 2002 .

[30]  B. Wellman,et al.  The Internet in everyday life , 2002 .

[31]  M. Chayko Connecting: How We Form Social Bonds and Communities in the Internet Age , 2002 .

[32]  Gustavo S. Mesch,et al.  Community Networking and Locally‐Based Social Ties in Two Suburban Localities , 2003 .

[33]  Keith N. Hampton,et al.  Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet Supports Community and Social Capital in a Wired Suburb , 2003 .

[34]  R. Rice,et al.  Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement, and Interaction , 2002 .

[35]  Axel Franzen Social Capital and the Internet: Evidence from Swiss Panel Data , 2003 .

[36]  A. Lenhart,et al.  Music Downloading and Listening: Findings from the Pew Internet and American Life Project , 2004 .

[37]  Irina Shklovski,et al.  The Internet and Social Interaction: A Meta-analysis and Critique of Studies, 1995-2003 , 2006, Computers, Phones, and the Internet.

[38]  Keith N. Hampton,et al.  The not so Global Village of Netville , 2008 .

[39]  Keith N. Hampton,et al.  Capitalizing on the Net: Social Contact, Civic Engagement, and Sense of Community , 2008 .