Upload
rachel-ann-batayola
View
223
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 129
copy2002 by Stanford University
ITampSOCIETY VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1 SUMMER 2002 PP 1-20httpwwwITandSocietyorg
THE IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ONSOCIABILITY TIME-DIARY FINDINGS
NORMAN H NIE D SUNSHINE H ILLYGUS
ABSTRACT
This article explores the complex ways in which the Internet affects
int erpersonal comm uni cation and sociabi l i t y Dynam ic new t im e-diary data identi f y wh en and where I nt ern et use im pacts face-to-face interacti ons I nt ern et use at home
has a str ong negative im pact on t im e spent wit h fr iends and fami ly as wel l as tim e spent
on social acti vi t ies but I nt ernet use at w ork h as no such effect Simil arly I nt er net use
dur ing w eekend days is more st rongly r elat ed t o decr eased ti me spent wi th fr i ends and
famil y and on social activi t i es than I nt ern et use dur ing weekdays
These fin din gs offer support for a ldquodisplacementrdquo theor y of In ter net usemdashti me
onl ine is largely an asocial activi ty t hat competes wi th rath er t han compl ement s face-
to-face social ti me H owever i t is the location and tim ing of In ternet use th at
determ in es how in t er personal r elati onshi ps are affected
________________________
Norman H Nie is research professor of political science and director of the Institute forthe Quantitative Study of Society at Stanford University
D Sunshine Hillygus is a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science and
senior research assistant of the Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society
Acknowl edgement s to John Robinson and Lu tz Er bri ng for th eir comm ents and suggestions on t he
art icle and t o the out standin g team of graduat e assistant s at SI QSS especiall y Sunny N iu for
th eir r esearch analyses and cont ri but ions to this art icle
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 229
2IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
Recent studies about the affect of I nternet use on sociability havepolarized into an overly simplistic ldquobad Internetrdquo versus ldquogood Internetrdquo debateIn one corner are the utopians who believe that the Internet leads to more and
better social relationships by creating another medium of communication tofriends and family and establishing new relationships through Internetintroductions In the other are the doomsayers who conclude that Internet usecan be socially isolating because time on the Internet is often taken at theexpense of social activities and face-to-face interpersonal interactions Clearlythe overall effect of the Internet is not so simplemdashthere are both instances inwhich the Internet can enhance and inhibit sociabil ity Using more detailedreliable and definitive diary data one is better able to explain the complicatedand particular ways in which the Internet affects interpersonal communicationand sociability This article is an attempt to identify when where and howmuch Internet use has an impact on measures of sociability
At the heart of this debate are definitions of sociability What exactly is
meant by sociability and personal interaction In examining the socialconsequences of the Internet the analysis in this article focuses on the primarysocial environment and face-to-face interactions This is not meant to trivialize
the utility of email (or phone conversations) for staying in touch with bothimmediate and distant friends and relatives but it is not yet known how thesesocial benefits compare to primary personal interactions 1 The benefits of face-to-face social networks for personal well-being are well documented (Wellmanand Wortley 1990 Kadushin 1982 among others) To some extent the Internetand email have transformed definitions of sociability and this calls attention tothe need to understand the qualitative differences between face-to-faceinteractions and online interactions as scholars explore the tensions betweenthe potential benefits and possible dangers of new information technologiesHowever the concern in this article is with the effect of Internet use on justface-to-face interactions and social activities This article extends the researchof Nie Erbring and Hil lygus (2002) by considering measures of sociability basedon (1) the type of activities in which the respondent was engaged as well as (2)with whom the respondent participated in an activity2
The hypothesis is quite simple the Internet has created a shift inpeoplersquos time allocation The more time they sit in front of a computer screen
the less time they have for interacting directly with family and friends Thisldquodisplacementrdquo model holds that time on one activity simply cannot be spent onanother activity since time is a zero-sum phenomenon Because there are only24 hours in a day time spent on one activity must often be traded off against
time spent on other activities Like any activity time online fundamentallycompetes with rather than complements face-to-face social time
The alternate hypothesis is that the Internet offers an additionaltechnology for both engaging in social interaction and coordinating socialactivities This efficiency hypothesis contends that the Internet makes otheractivities more efficient resulting in less stress and more time for social
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 329
3IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
activities (for example Franzen 2000) For instance if an individual is able toshop online more quickly than shopping at a store it may free up time to spendwith friends or family The data in this article can be used to test whether the
net effect of Internet use on sociability more closely adheres to this efficiencyhypothesis or to the displacement hypothesis I f the relationship between timeon the Internet and time socializing is positive the results will support theefficiency hypothesis The present hypothesis however is that the relationshipis negative thus supporting the displacement hypothesis
PREVIOUSRESEARCH
Existing empirical support can be found for both sides of the debate Oneof the earliest surveys examining the social consequences of the Internet wasthe ldquoInternet and Societyrdquo study conducted through the Stanford Institute forthe Quantitative Study of Society (SIQSS) in February 2000 (Nie and Erbring
2000) and reprinted in this issue of I Tamp Society This nationally representativestudy revealed that Internet users (especially heavy Internet users) reportspending less time with friends and family shopping in stores reading
newspapers and watching televisionmdashand more time working for theiremployers at home (without cutting back on hours in the office)3 That findingconcerning the quantity and quality of interpersonal communications andsociability promptly became the focus of further scholarly attention andcontroversy4
Following this study at least three other groupsmdashPew UCLA andNPRKaiserHarvardrsquos Kennedy Schoolmdashconducted nationally representativesurveys that also addressed the social implications of increased Internet useWithin the media the lines of battle were hastily drawn between the twoperspectives the SIQSS and Harvard studies which find that the Internet canbe socially isolating were pitted against the Pew and UCL A studies whichconclude that Internet use has mainly a positive impact on sociabilityNumerous other scholars have jumped into this battle especially on the side of defending the Internet as a solely positive medium for communication (Uslaner2000 Robinson et al 2000a and 2000b Hampton and Wellman 2000 Cole et al 2000 Kraut et al 2001)
There are three main criticisms of much of the existing researchhowever First many ignore the amount of Internet use5 They simply dividethe population into users and nonusers and then make comparisons of sociability along these lines I t seems inappropriate to assume that users
spending one hour per week on the Internet are equivalent to those spending 20hours on the Internet Few people would deny the affects of Internet use at theextremesmdashusing the Internet just minutes a day should have little affect onsociability while spending most of the day online undoubtedly harms offlinerelationships Ignoring this variation in an analysis will conceal or dilute thepossible effects of Internet use
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 429
4IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
A second criticism of these studies is that they are largely limited tobivariate analyses ignoring the importance of controlling for demographicfactors such as education age marital status or work status As argued in Nie
(2001) and Franzen (2000) any analysis examining the relationship betweenInternet use and sociabil ity must include multivariate controls Bivariateanalyses ignore the possibility of spurious correlations between Internet use andsociabil ity A simple bivariate analysis for example could not clarify whetherInternet users have more social contacts because of the Internet or because theyare more highly educated (given that more highly educated individuals tend tohave more social contacts an d are more likely to be Internet users)
Finally previous research has been criticized for not adequatelymeasuring Internet use Most surveys rely on respondent estimates of daily orweekly Internet use but such estimates are undoubtedly fraught with error(Robinson 2000a) Respondents may give their best guess but in addition toerrors of judgment such estimates are prone to distortion by social desirability
concerns (eg individuals might not want to admit watching too much TV orthey might want to overestimate time spent on charitable and civic causes)Respondent time estimates may be problematic because individuals do not keep
a running tally of the number of minutes or hours spent on particular activitiesand certainly not for the specific periods (dayweekmonth) requested by theresearcher
The analysis reported in this article utilizes a new dataset thatovercomes most of these problems by using time diaries to measure Internet usetime and other daily activities more directly and thus may help to reconcile thecompeting hypotheses by identifying the specific conditions under whichInternet use affects sociabil ity
RESEARCH DESIGN
A unique new survey methodology is used to differentiate amountlocation and type of Internet use thus producing more accurate measurementsof respondentsrsquo time use The present research design addresses the problemsdiscussed above through an improved survey instrument and a more completeanalysis Multivariate analyses are used to clarify the relationships between
time spent online and time spent socializing The survey is based on a time-diary approach Robinson and Godbey
(1997) argue that a judiciously administered time-diary study is necessary toaccurately measure time spent on various activities The diary procedure avoids
the problems of a ldquotime estimaterdquo approach by preventing ldquoguesstimaterdquo errorsand by helping to prevent respondents from purposefully distorting activityestimates Respondents can no longer easily manipulate survey responses toportray themselves in a particular l ight (eg as only moderate TV viewers or asbeing particularly socially active) With a time-diary approach respondents
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 529
5IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
would have to manipulate their entire diary not just one report of time spent ona particular activity
SIQSS therefore developed a research design that combines the best of
both worldsmdashthe detailed time-use estimates of the diary approach without therespondent burden of a 24-hour diary While closely following the basicmethodology of phone implemented diary studies such as those at theUniversity of Maryland these techniques were adapted to take advantage of theunique methods of Knowledge Networksrsquo survey instrument for online surveyadministration conducted via the Microsoft Web-TV set top box In May 2001Knowledge Networks fielded the first SI QSS Time-Diary Study with arepresentative sample of approximately 6000 Americans between the ages of 18and 64 Appendix A contains a more detailed description of the KnowledgeNetworks survey
METHODOLOGY
Like the University of Maryland time diary studies the SIQSS modifiedtime-diary study asked respondents about their activities ldquoyesterdayrdquo Rather
than covering the entire day however the focus was on six randomly selectedhours of the daymdashone in each of six time blocks (strata) night early morninglate morning afternoon early evening and late evening The sampling designwas structured to collect an even distribution of days of the week across thetotal sample and of hours over the course of the day for each respondent6
With a six-hour design the survey is less monotonous than a 24-hourdesign Thus the SIQSS diary is able to go into great detail about the socialcontext of each activity without fatiguing respondents This also permits morefollow-up questions including information on social context and interaction foreach and every primary activity7 Engaging a larger sample (n gt6000) provideshigh quality comparable data for each hour of the day That allows moredetailed data about each specific activity developing a more fine-grained pictureof time use that becomes the backbone of this study
THE DATA
This survey design provides ideal data for examining the fundamentalquestions regarding the relationship between Internet use and time spent ininterpersonal relationships and on social activities This data allowscomparison of when and where the Internet is used while controlling for various
demographic background factors such as education age work hours householdcomposition and for other key activities that might affect the relationshipbetween time online and time on sociability
Given the detailed diary design the survey collects much improved dataon the main independent variable time spent on the Internet Respondents areable to identify Internetemail use as an activity associated with a number of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 629
6IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
different main activities (work education social time etc) and were evenprompted about whether some of their activities (reading newspaperscorresponding) were done online
About one respondent in seven (13) report using Internetemail as amain activity on the diary day This percentage is larger than the 8 reportedby the University of Maryland study but it is much less than the 50 thatreport having used the Internetemail at some point yesterday in the usualrecall studies8 This may be because unfortunately the time estimate used inthis analysis does not include Internetemail use that occurs incidentally andtherefore is coded as a secondary activ i ty It misses for instance individualswho reported talking on the phone as a main activity but who checked theiremail briefly at the same time Examining the secondary activities in the SIQSSdata is a substantial task and is planned for future research
Given the rich and fine-grained nature of the data there are a variety of different ways to measure sociability Three measures of sociability are
constructed (1) the number of minutes spent actively engaging or participatingin an activity with friends (2) the number of minutes spent actively engaging orparticipating in an activity with family9 and (3) the number of minutes spent on
socializing activities (eg visiting parties etc) These variables are quitedifferent measures of sociability The active engagement measures of timespent with friends or family incorporates any time together whether going todinner doing chores tending to children or anything it only requires that therespondent was doing the activity with a friend (or family member) The socialactivity variable on the other hand includes only those activities thatrespondents define as socializing activities (visiting parties and the like) sothat this measure may omit social interactions that occur while say watchingtelevision traveling etc In other words the active engagement measure isdefined by information about wi th w hom the respondent did an activity whilethe socializing variable is defined by the information about what activity therespondent did While there is undoubtedly some overlap this providesmeasures of sociability from different angles The active engagement (withwhom) measure should be the most general and complete definition of interpersonal interaction but the activity-based measure of sociability providesmore comparability with previous research These two types of measures of
interpersonal interaction thus serve as the main dependent variables in theanalysis of the relationship between Internet use and sociabil ity that follows
Time use for each of these measures was computed by summing thenumber of minutes spent on each as a main acti v i t y across the six diary hours10
Table 1 presents the basic distributional characteristics of the main independentvariable (time spent using the Internetmdashat home and at work) and the threemain dependent variables (time spent with friends time spent with family timeon social activities) The mean median and standard deviation of each measureare shown in extrapolated minutes spent over 24 hours11
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 729
7IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 1 DIARY TIMES FOR INTERNET USE SOCIAL ACTIVITIES AND SOCIAL CONTACTS (IN MINUTES PER DAY )
Mean Median Std Deviation N
Activities Time online at home 214 169 198 6146
Time online at work 33 29 84 6146
Time spent on social activities 575 315 411 6146
With Whom
Active time with family 2814 2641 988 6146
Active time with friends 873 543 546 6146
DATAANALYSIS
Before moving to the multivariate analysis it is useful to examine the
bivariate comparison of the sociability measures between Internet users andInternet nonusers (noting of course that this ignores variation in Internet useand fails to control for important demographic characteristics) Table 2 showsthat Internet users spend less time on most ldquotypicalrdquo social activities as well asless time doing activities with friends and family
This basic cross comparison of the data suggests that Internet users arespending less time on social activities and personal interactions but it isnecessary to explore this relationship in a multivariate setting before drawingany conclusions Moreover to advance an understanding of the complex affectsof the Internet on sociabil ity it is important to look more closely at type of Internet time It is overly simplistic to look for one effect for al l Internet useWhere and when an individual uses the Internet may be as important as how
much he or she uses it For instance does time spent using the Internet athome have a greater impact on face time with family members than time spenton the Internet at work
While the ldquodisplacementrdquo hypothesis predicts that Internet use at homehas a negative affect on social time with friends and family the ldquoefficiencyrdquohypothesis predicts no relationship or even a positive relationship betweenInternet use and sociability regardless of time or location The followingmultivariate regression analysis will help to identify which hypothesis onaverage more closely reflects the observed relationships between I nternet useand sociabil ity
Numerous control variables are included in the analysis to identify the
independent effect of Internet use (at home and at work) on the three measuresof sociability Measures of time spent on sleep and time spent on work areincluded in the analysis because these portions of daily life are fairly fixed It isexpected that Internet use comes disproportionately at the expense of discretionary time that could otherwise be spent in face-to-face socialengagement Time spent on sleep is important because it defines the length of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 829
8IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 2 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERNETUSERS AND NONUSERS
(IN MINUTES PER DAY FROM YESTERDAY DIARY DATA)Non-Internet
User
(n =5388)
Internet User
(n =757) Differenc
Social Activitie
Parties 67 11 -56
Socialize 130 126 -04
Conversation 140 96 -44
Telephone calls 13 20 07
Sports event 21 01 -20
Culture event 18 07 -11
Total 495 369 -126
Religious servicegroup 19 12 -07
All organizations 66 61 -05
All child care 351 195 -156
With Whom
Time spent with family 2874 1850 -1024
Time spent with friends 942 598 -343
the conscious daymdashit expands or contracts the day In terms of the displacementmodel time on sleep reduces the denominator of time available Work time isan important control because of the potential spurious relationship betweentime spent working and sociability For instance it can be expected that
individuals who work more are likely to spend more time on the Internet (atwork) Those who work more can also be expected to spend less time with theirfriends and family Thus work hours should be included in the regression modelin order to identify the direct affect of I nternet use on sociability independent of time spent working
Time spent watching TV is included in the regression model as aninteresting comparison because Internet and TV use have often been thought of as equivalent or substitutable uses of time Most previous studies have found anegative relationship between TV time and Internet time (which is alsoobserved in this datamdashcorrelation of -027) This in and of itself casts somedoubt on the efficiency hypothesis I f Internet use has the effect of giving people
mor e leisure time (to spend with friends and family) then it should also givepeople more time to watch TVmdashthe number one leisure activity of AmericansAt the same time it is necessary to control for basic demographic
characteristics which might be related to both I nternet use and sociabil ity andcould thus distort the observed relationship The regression models thereforecontrol for marital status gender age education raceethnicity number of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 929
9IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
children single parenthood and living alone Table 3 presents the findings fromthe multivariate regression analysis of effect of Internet use differentiated byuse at home and use at work on time spent with friends family and on social
activities12
I t is immediately apparent from Table 3 that time spent on the Internetldquoat homerdquo is significantly negatively related to time spent with family andfriends and on social activities However the amount of I nternet use at workdoes not have a significant impact on sociability once the number of hours spentat work (for pay) has been taken into account This is consistent with thedisplacement hypothesis Home is the critical environment where users face thedirect tradeoff between Internetemail use and actually ldquobeing withrdquo family Forevery hour spent on the Internet at home the model suggests individuals arespending an average of almost 30 fewer minutes with their family This meansthat time online at home is coming at the expense of time with family not justtime on sleep TV or other asocial activities The relationship is identical
though substantively weaker for time spent with friends and for time spent onsocial activities
The results also verify that the statistical controls while predictable and
interesting in their own right do not eliminate the underlying ldquodisplacementrdquorelationships between amount of Internet use yesterday and the amount of active face-to-face time As might be expected men are significantly less likelyto spend time with family than women (and more time with friends and onsocial activities) Married people and single parents spend more time withfamily but less time with friends and on social activities Moreover individualsliving alone are less likely to spend time with family friends and on socializingEven though the analysis is limited to those under age 65 age still reduces face-to-face interactions with family members friends and social activities Turningto the other time controls time spent on sleep work and TV watching asexpected has a negative relationship with all measures of sociability
These findings concur with the earlier findings of the SIQSS and theKennedy School studies However they are now based on more detailed androbust data Time can be reallocatedmdashfrom time spent with friends family or onsocial activities to time spent on the Internetmdashbut not expanded it is indeedlike a hydraulic system where increases in activity in one area reduce time
available for other activities
INTERNET USE AND LEISURE WEEKDAYS VERSUS WEEKENDS
While the above analysis provides new insights regarding the impact of location of Internet use on sociability when the Internet is used may alsoprovide an important distinction For most people the weekend typically holdsmany more discretionary moments in the day in which individuals can choosehow they wish to spend their time and with whom they wish to spend it I f the
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1029
10IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 3 HOMEWORK INTERNET USE AND SOCIAL CONTACTACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 21968 2910 59690 3928 29947 2712 Background FactorsEducation 010 061 036 110 003 013
Male 200 235 -824 -480 550 441
Married -577 -456 2765 1086 -852 -461
African-American -256 -188 -564 -205 164 082
Hispanic -046 -031 -211 -071 -260 -121
Asian and other -143 -074 -503 -130 -149 -053
Age -036 -145 083 168 -112 -311
Age square 000 073 -001 -228 001 222
Number of children -170 -330 108 104 -215 -286
Weekday -3419 -2473 -8943 -3215 -3422 -1693
Living alone -166 -117 -2385 -833 -485 -233
Single parents -322 -182 876 246 -149 -058
Time Factors TV time -018 -1877 001 039 -019 -1351
Sleep time -013 -1322 -036 -1783 -021 -1395
Work time -014 -2219 -040 -3078 -013 -1397
ONLINE AT HOME -013 -574 -048 -1094 -018 -567
ONLINE AT WORK 005 096 018 171 -003 -034
Adjusted R Square 044 060 026
F 26124 49953 11963
N 5738 5738 5738
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
displacement model is correct the amount of home use of the Internet shouldhave its strongest impact on time spent with both friends and family on
weekends when people have more freedom to choose what they wish to do andwith whom if anyone they wish to spend their time 13 Table 4 reports theregression results for the weekend analysis and Table 5 reports the regressionresults for the weekday analysis
The relationship between time spent on Internetemail at home on theweekend and time spent with family is the strongest observed so far thecoefficient is -069 (see Table 5) This means that for every hour spent onlinethere is a corresponding 41 minutes less spent with family members While thisnumber is substantively small for the average respondent (with an average of only 25 minutes spent on the Internet it results in 15 fewer minutes withfamily) it is quite easy to see that for heavy Internet users this effect is quiteprofound The weekday regressions too find that time spent on the Internet at
home has a strong significant and negative influence on time spent with familymembers but the strength of the relationship is only about half of what it is onweekends once again offering support for the displacement hypothesis14
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1129
11IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 4 ANALYSIS OF WEEKDAY INTERNET USE
Diary Minutesβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 15092 1927 44972 2608 22567 1880 Background Factor
Education 012 074 044 124 -011 -044
Male 229 264 -809 -424 447 337
Married -543 -426 2506 893 -674 -345 African-American -189 -132 -493 -157 151 069
Hispanic -183 -120 -312 -093 -191 -081Asian and other -257 -133 -498 -117 -318 -107
Age -022 -086 044 080 -068 -176
Age square 000 057 -001 -139 000 105Number of children -096 -185 097 085 -214 -269
Living alone -076 -054 -2266 -727 -348 -160
Single parents -331 -184 1020 258 100 036
Time Factor TV time -015 -1434 009 408 -017 -1091 Sleep time -011 -1003 -031 -1329 -017 -1045
Work time -011 -1702 -031 -2168 -010 -1024
ONLINE AT HOME -010 -469 -039 -832 -012 -370
ONLINE AT WORK 004 087 011 105 -004 -056
Adjusted R Square 010 023 007
F 2961 7671 1912
N 4092 4092 4092
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
CONCLUSION
Results from Americarsquos first online time diary survey offer strong supportfor the ldquohydraul icrdquo or displacement hypothesismdashand no evidence to support the
efficiency hypothesis On average the more time spent on the Internet at homethe less time spent with friends family and on social activities in contrastInternet use at work has little effect on sociability Similarly Internet useduring the weekends is more strongly related to decreased time interacting andsocializing than Internet use during weekdays for it is during this time whenInternet and email use competes most directly with time spent in face-to-faceinteractions with others
Internet use and sociability were examined from a number of differentangles with invariable support for the displacement hypothesis Of the different
measures of sociability the active engagement measure appears to best capture
interpersonal interaction The social activity variable is just one subset of face-to-
face interaction and it likely captures time with friends more than time with familyFor instance parents undoubtedly spent less time on ldquosocializingrdquo activities such as
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1229
12IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 5 ANALYSIS OF WEEKEND INTERNET USE
Diary Minuteβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 29194 1671 71013 2311 38464 1573 Background Factor
Education -007 -017 -024 -035 038 068
Male 027 013 -1142 -321 710 251
Married -702 -231 3301 616 -1413 -331
African-American -319 -105 -896 -168 257 060
Hispanic 230 069 -054 -009 -450 -097
Asian and other 154 033 -444 -054 322 049
Age -089 -155 101 100 -242 -303
Age square 001 078 -002 -126 002 250
Number of children -310 -251 289 133 -176 -102
Living alone -320 -091 -2678 -432 -840 -170
Single parents -397 -095 370 050 -925 -158
Time Factor TV time -026 -1164 -013 -337 -024 -754
Sleep time -020 -857 -048 -1198 -029 -911
Work time -023 -1442 -063 -2271 -021 -940
ONLINE AT HOME -016 -265 -069 -665 -036 -437
ONLINE AT WORK -003 -014 019 047 -018 -057
Adjusted R Square 018 034 011
F 2348 5339 1379
N 1645 1645 1645
Note
p lt05 p lt 01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
parties or theatre but that hardly means thatthey are spending less time in
interpersonal interactions In fact most studies of social networks find thatmarried individuals have stronger social support systems than single people
These findings confirm that the quantity of face-to-face interpersonalinteraction is affected by how an individual uses and distributes his or her timeduring the day Future research should compare traditional interactions withcyber interactions to evaluate the extent to which the social value of this newform of communication compensates for the potential negative consequencesBut in studying these social benefits researchers must acknowledge that theInternet al so has the potential to hold social detriments
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1329
13IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
REFERENCES
Cole J I Suman M Schramm P Van Bel D Lunn B Maguire P
Hanson K Singh R and Aquino J S 2000 The UCL A I nternet Report Sur veying t he Digita l Fut ur e Los Angeles UCLA Center forCommunication Policy
Franzen A 2000 Does the Internet Make Us Lonely European Sociological
Review 16(4) p 427-438Hafner K 2000 Working at Home TodayNew York Tim es November 2Hampton K N and Wellman B 1999 Netville On-Line and Off-L ine
Amer ican Behavioral Scient ist 43(3) p 478-495Kadushin C 1982 Social Density and Mental Health In Marsden P V and
Lin N (eds) Social Str uctur e and Netw or k A nalysis Beverly Hi lls CASage
National Public Radio Kaiser Family Foundation and Kennedy School of
Government 2000 Survey Shows Widespread Enthusiasm for High TechnologyNPR Onli ne Repor t 3 (February)
Nie N 1999 Tracking Our Techno Future Am er ican Demograph ics 21(7) p
50-52Nie N 2001 Sociabil ity Interpersonal Relations and the Internet Reconciling
Conflicting Findings Am eri can Behavioral Scienti st 45(3) p 420-435Nie N and Erbring L 2000 I nt ern et and Society A Prel imi nary Report
Stanford CA Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society
Repr in ted in t hi s issue
Nie N and Sackman H 1970 The Information U ti l i t y and Social Choice Montvale NJ AFIPS
PEW Internet and American Life Project 2000 Tracking Online Life HowWomen Use the Internet to Cultivate Relationships with Family andFriends Onli ne Int ern et L ife Report May 10
Putnam R 1995 Bowling Alone Americarsquos Declining Social Capital Journ al of Democracy 6 p 65-78
Putnam R 2000 Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival of American
Communi ty New York Simon and SchusterRobinson J and Godbey G 1997 Time for Life The Surpris ing Ways
Am er icans U se Their T im e University Park PA Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press
Robinson J P Kestnbaum M Neustadtl A and Alvarez A 2001Information Technology the Internet and Time Displacement Revision
of paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Associationof Public Opinion Research in Portland OR May 2000 Next ar t i cle in
t hi s issue
Salaff J Wellman B and Dimitrova D 1998 There is a Time and Place for Teleworking In R Suomi P J ackson L Hollman M Aspnas (eds)Teleworking Environments Proceedings of the Third International
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1429
14IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
Work shop on Telework Turku Finland Turku Center for ComputerScience General Publication 8 p 11-31
Steiner G A 1963 The People Look at Television A Study of Audience
Att i tudes New York KnopfUCLA Internet Report 2000 Surveying th e Dig i ta l Fut ur e (SDF) Los AngelesCA October
Ulsaner E 2000 Social Capital and the Net Proceedings of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) 43 (December) p 60-64
Wellman B Haase A Q Witte J and Hampton K 2001 Does the InternetIncrease Decrease or Supplement Social Capital Social NetworksParticipation and Community Commitment American Behavioral
Scientist 45(3) p 437-456Wellman B and Wortley S 1990 Different Strokes from Different Folks
Community Ties and Social Support Am er ican Jour nal of Sociology 96p 558-588
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1529
15IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX AK NOWLEDGE NETWORKS METHODOLOGY
The data used in this analysis were collected by Knowledge Networksusing a new time-diary methodology that needs further explanation In order toovercome the fact that close to half of all Americans did not have access to theInternet at the time of the study Knowledge Networks provides representativenational samples with Internet equipment in exchange for participation insurveys Respondents in the Knowledge Networks (KN) panel are randomlyrecruited through Random Digit Dial (RDD) sampling methods on a quarterly-updated sample frame consisting of the entire US telephone population and areprovided with WebTV equipment All telephone numbers have an equalprobability of selection and sampling is done without replacement Although
this sampling technique entails the coverage error of excluding householdswithout telephones (less than 5 of population) this approach has significantlybroader coverage than sampling techniques that draw only from computersusers with I nternet access (eg Harris I nteractive)
Before the initial telephone calls are made households in the RDDsample with listed addresses are sent letters describing the proposed exchangerelationship During the initial RDD telephone interview respondents are toldthey have been selected to participate in an important national study and theywill be given a WebTV receiver that will allow them free access to the Internet if they will answer brief surveys on their television I t is emphasized thatconfidentiality and privacy are always upheld and that no other household canreplace theirs Respondents are immediately polled regarding the extent towhich members of their households are experienced with the Internet andproficient with computers
Once the WebTV equipment is installed in their homes respondents areasked to respond to some profile surveys that record the key attributes of eachhousehold member For example respondents are asked about their genderdate of birth ethnicity education income etc All adults (aged 18 and older) of the selected household are asked to respond to surveys via WebTV Eachmember is sent one short survey per week usually not taking more than 15minutes to complete In rare instances when panel members are asked torespond to longer surveys they would be given a week off or some other form of incentive Respondents can respond to the surveys at any time at their
convenience and are permitted to stop before they complete the survey andreturn to it at a later time Respondents who fail to respond to eight consecutivesurveys will have the WebTV receiver removed from their homes Detailedinformation on the methodology can be found at wwwknowledgenetworkscom
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1629
16IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX BDIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 6
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activitycategorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity they were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking Kitchen Cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard WorkInternetEmail Telephone Calls PlantPet Care Paperwork OrganizeUnpackOther (user defined)
For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone and ComputerWork were included as options This picks up Internet use whether that usewas say educational professional or simply recreational
The respondents were then asked how longthe activity lasted (10 min to20 min to 1 hour or more) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whetheralone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother)
Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the same
time as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a check list of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked toidentify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown their completeddiary form based on their answers to ensure that their results were accurate
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of I nternet use the content and number of emails (personal vs work related) their types of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed) their amount of TV watching sleep and social interactionsBesides providing supplemental information these follow-up questions provided
an additional measure of the independent and dependent variables (andanalysis were replicated using these measures with identical results)mdashas wellas proving an accuracy check for their time-diary estimates For sample diaryscreens see NieHillygusAppendixBdoc
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1729
17IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 6 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activitiesHousework Cleaning chores cooking home financesChild Care Feeding clothing playing with childrenErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail readSocial Outing Socializing parties events moviesRecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies gamesOrganizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacksDressWash Dress shower bathe groomSleep Sleep nap or dozeOther User Defined
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1829
18IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX CREPL ICATION WITH ldquoESTIMATEDrdquo INTERNET USE
For comparabil ity with the first Internet study the results are replicated usingthe follow-up measure of Internet use in which respondents are asked toestimate the number of hours and minutes spent on the Internet and Emailyesterday The results are reported in Table 7 The relationship betweenestimated time online and time spent with family friends and on socialactivities remains negative and significant though the relationship is not quiteas crisp as those reported in Table 3 (generally weaker relationships on thecoefficients and slightly smaller R -squared values)
TABLE 7 ANALYSIS WITH ESTIMATED INTERNET TIME (FOLLOW-UP MEASURE)
Diary Minute
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 53254 1370 37296 1323 20805 1182
Background Factor
Education 190 158 026 030 064 116
Male -3211 -502 1915 413 815 282
Married 10085 1065 -2782 -405 -1533 -357
African-American -1905 -186 706 095 -490 -106
Hispanic -1156 -105 -861 -107 -1178 -235
Asian and other -2198 -152 -619 -059 -248 -038
Age 221 120 -441 -330 -176 -210
Age square -004 -180 004 239 001 148
Number of children 477 123 -775 -277 -637 -364
Weekday -9346 -1290 -3681 -701 -3279 -999
Living alon -8228 -771 -1755 -227 -225 -047Single parents 3098 233 -129 -013 -493 -082
Time Factors
TV time 000 005 -018 -1187 -015 -1528
Sleep time -032 -1819 -017 -1308 -008 -1015
WORK TIME -037 -3091 -012 -1345 -010 -1914
ONLINE TIME (EST) -029 -777 -013 -487 -004 -219
Adjusted R Square 029 009 013
F 15060 3644 5320
N 5738 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Active Time wFamil Active Time wFriend Time on Social Activitie
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1929
19IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX DREPL ICATION FOR TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND TIME ON CHILD CARE
The analysis was also replicated for two other measures of sociabilitytime spent on organization activities and time spent on child care The resultsfor this analysis can be found in Table 8 Once again the results find asignificant negative relationship between time spent on the Internet at homeand the dependent variables The results are substantively smaller than theresults found in previous analysis but they nonetheless offer support for thedisplacement hypothesis
TABLE 8 TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 4238 1090 8562 1303
Background FactorsEducation 019 231 013 092
Male 068 155 -570 -769
Married 188 289 681 619
African-American 348 495 002 002
Hispanic -105 -138 128 099
Asian and other -011 -011 -010 -006
Age 005 040 022 104
Age square 000 -009 -001 -249
Number of children 007 025 247 551
Weekday -757 -1064 2643 2198
Living alone 041 056 167 135
Single parents 055 060 329 213 Time Factor
TV time -004 -744 -008 -942
Sleep time -003 -661 -007 -751
Work time -003 -981 -009 -1636
ONLINE AT HOME -004 -337 -010 -510
ONLINE AT WORK 006 210 -001 -029
Adjusted R Square 013 014
F 5150 5634
N 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Organization Time on Child Car
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 229
2IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
Recent studies about the affect of I nternet use on sociability havepolarized into an overly simplistic ldquobad Internetrdquo versus ldquogood Internetrdquo debateIn one corner are the utopians who believe that the Internet leads to more and
better social relationships by creating another medium of communication tofriends and family and establishing new relationships through Internetintroductions In the other are the doomsayers who conclude that Internet usecan be socially isolating because time on the Internet is often taken at theexpense of social activities and face-to-face interpersonal interactions Clearlythe overall effect of the Internet is not so simplemdashthere are both instances inwhich the Internet can enhance and inhibit sociabil ity Using more detailedreliable and definitive diary data one is better able to explain the complicatedand particular ways in which the Internet affects interpersonal communicationand sociability This article is an attempt to identify when where and howmuch Internet use has an impact on measures of sociability
At the heart of this debate are definitions of sociability What exactly is
meant by sociability and personal interaction In examining the socialconsequences of the Internet the analysis in this article focuses on the primarysocial environment and face-to-face interactions This is not meant to trivialize
the utility of email (or phone conversations) for staying in touch with bothimmediate and distant friends and relatives but it is not yet known how thesesocial benefits compare to primary personal interactions 1 The benefits of face-to-face social networks for personal well-being are well documented (Wellmanand Wortley 1990 Kadushin 1982 among others) To some extent the Internetand email have transformed definitions of sociability and this calls attention tothe need to understand the qualitative differences between face-to-faceinteractions and online interactions as scholars explore the tensions betweenthe potential benefits and possible dangers of new information technologiesHowever the concern in this article is with the effect of Internet use on justface-to-face interactions and social activities This article extends the researchof Nie Erbring and Hil lygus (2002) by considering measures of sociability basedon (1) the type of activities in which the respondent was engaged as well as (2)with whom the respondent participated in an activity2
The hypothesis is quite simple the Internet has created a shift inpeoplersquos time allocation The more time they sit in front of a computer screen
the less time they have for interacting directly with family and friends Thisldquodisplacementrdquo model holds that time on one activity simply cannot be spent onanother activity since time is a zero-sum phenomenon Because there are only24 hours in a day time spent on one activity must often be traded off against
time spent on other activities Like any activity time online fundamentallycompetes with rather than complements face-to-face social time
The alternate hypothesis is that the Internet offers an additionaltechnology for both engaging in social interaction and coordinating socialactivities This efficiency hypothesis contends that the Internet makes otheractivities more efficient resulting in less stress and more time for social
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 329
3IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
activities (for example Franzen 2000) For instance if an individual is able toshop online more quickly than shopping at a store it may free up time to spendwith friends or family The data in this article can be used to test whether the
net effect of Internet use on sociability more closely adheres to this efficiencyhypothesis or to the displacement hypothesis I f the relationship between timeon the Internet and time socializing is positive the results will support theefficiency hypothesis The present hypothesis however is that the relationshipis negative thus supporting the displacement hypothesis
PREVIOUSRESEARCH
Existing empirical support can be found for both sides of the debate Oneof the earliest surveys examining the social consequences of the Internet wasthe ldquoInternet and Societyrdquo study conducted through the Stanford Institute forthe Quantitative Study of Society (SIQSS) in February 2000 (Nie and Erbring
2000) and reprinted in this issue of I Tamp Society This nationally representativestudy revealed that Internet users (especially heavy Internet users) reportspending less time with friends and family shopping in stores reading
newspapers and watching televisionmdashand more time working for theiremployers at home (without cutting back on hours in the office)3 That findingconcerning the quantity and quality of interpersonal communications andsociability promptly became the focus of further scholarly attention andcontroversy4
Following this study at least three other groupsmdashPew UCLA andNPRKaiserHarvardrsquos Kennedy Schoolmdashconducted nationally representativesurveys that also addressed the social implications of increased Internet useWithin the media the lines of battle were hastily drawn between the twoperspectives the SIQSS and Harvard studies which find that the Internet canbe socially isolating were pitted against the Pew and UCL A studies whichconclude that Internet use has mainly a positive impact on sociabilityNumerous other scholars have jumped into this battle especially on the side of defending the Internet as a solely positive medium for communication (Uslaner2000 Robinson et al 2000a and 2000b Hampton and Wellman 2000 Cole et al 2000 Kraut et al 2001)
There are three main criticisms of much of the existing researchhowever First many ignore the amount of Internet use5 They simply dividethe population into users and nonusers and then make comparisons of sociability along these lines I t seems inappropriate to assume that users
spending one hour per week on the Internet are equivalent to those spending 20hours on the Internet Few people would deny the affects of Internet use at theextremesmdashusing the Internet just minutes a day should have little affect onsociability while spending most of the day online undoubtedly harms offlinerelationships Ignoring this variation in an analysis will conceal or dilute thepossible effects of Internet use
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 429
4IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
A second criticism of these studies is that they are largely limited tobivariate analyses ignoring the importance of controlling for demographicfactors such as education age marital status or work status As argued in Nie
(2001) and Franzen (2000) any analysis examining the relationship betweenInternet use and sociabil ity must include multivariate controls Bivariateanalyses ignore the possibility of spurious correlations between Internet use andsociabil ity A simple bivariate analysis for example could not clarify whetherInternet users have more social contacts because of the Internet or because theyare more highly educated (given that more highly educated individuals tend tohave more social contacts an d are more likely to be Internet users)
Finally previous research has been criticized for not adequatelymeasuring Internet use Most surveys rely on respondent estimates of daily orweekly Internet use but such estimates are undoubtedly fraught with error(Robinson 2000a) Respondents may give their best guess but in addition toerrors of judgment such estimates are prone to distortion by social desirability
concerns (eg individuals might not want to admit watching too much TV orthey might want to overestimate time spent on charitable and civic causes)Respondent time estimates may be problematic because individuals do not keep
a running tally of the number of minutes or hours spent on particular activitiesand certainly not for the specific periods (dayweekmonth) requested by theresearcher
The analysis reported in this article utilizes a new dataset thatovercomes most of these problems by using time diaries to measure Internet usetime and other daily activities more directly and thus may help to reconcile thecompeting hypotheses by identifying the specific conditions under whichInternet use affects sociabil ity
RESEARCH DESIGN
A unique new survey methodology is used to differentiate amountlocation and type of Internet use thus producing more accurate measurementsof respondentsrsquo time use The present research design addresses the problemsdiscussed above through an improved survey instrument and a more completeanalysis Multivariate analyses are used to clarify the relationships between
time spent online and time spent socializing The survey is based on a time-diary approach Robinson and Godbey
(1997) argue that a judiciously administered time-diary study is necessary toaccurately measure time spent on various activities The diary procedure avoids
the problems of a ldquotime estimaterdquo approach by preventing ldquoguesstimaterdquo errorsand by helping to prevent respondents from purposefully distorting activityestimates Respondents can no longer easily manipulate survey responses toportray themselves in a particular l ight (eg as only moderate TV viewers or asbeing particularly socially active) With a time-diary approach respondents
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 529
5IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
would have to manipulate their entire diary not just one report of time spent ona particular activity
SIQSS therefore developed a research design that combines the best of
both worldsmdashthe detailed time-use estimates of the diary approach without therespondent burden of a 24-hour diary While closely following the basicmethodology of phone implemented diary studies such as those at theUniversity of Maryland these techniques were adapted to take advantage of theunique methods of Knowledge Networksrsquo survey instrument for online surveyadministration conducted via the Microsoft Web-TV set top box In May 2001Knowledge Networks fielded the first SI QSS Time-Diary Study with arepresentative sample of approximately 6000 Americans between the ages of 18and 64 Appendix A contains a more detailed description of the KnowledgeNetworks survey
METHODOLOGY
Like the University of Maryland time diary studies the SIQSS modifiedtime-diary study asked respondents about their activities ldquoyesterdayrdquo Rather
than covering the entire day however the focus was on six randomly selectedhours of the daymdashone in each of six time blocks (strata) night early morninglate morning afternoon early evening and late evening The sampling designwas structured to collect an even distribution of days of the week across thetotal sample and of hours over the course of the day for each respondent6
With a six-hour design the survey is less monotonous than a 24-hourdesign Thus the SIQSS diary is able to go into great detail about the socialcontext of each activity without fatiguing respondents This also permits morefollow-up questions including information on social context and interaction foreach and every primary activity7 Engaging a larger sample (n gt6000) provideshigh quality comparable data for each hour of the day That allows moredetailed data about each specific activity developing a more fine-grained pictureof time use that becomes the backbone of this study
THE DATA
This survey design provides ideal data for examining the fundamentalquestions regarding the relationship between Internet use and time spent ininterpersonal relationships and on social activities This data allowscomparison of when and where the Internet is used while controlling for various
demographic background factors such as education age work hours householdcomposition and for other key activities that might affect the relationshipbetween time online and time on sociability
Given the detailed diary design the survey collects much improved dataon the main independent variable time spent on the Internet Respondents areable to identify Internetemail use as an activity associated with a number of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 629
6IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
different main activities (work education social time etc) and were evenprompted about whether some of their activities (reading newspaperscorresponding) were done online
About one respondent in seven (13) report using Internetemail as amain activity on the diary day This percentage is larger than the 8 reportedby the University of Maryland study but it is much less than the 50 thatreport having used the Internetemail at some point yesterday in the usualrecall studies8 This may be because unfortunately the time estimate used inthis analysis does not include Internetemail use that occurs incidentally andtherefore is coded as a secondary activ i ty It misses for instance individualswho reported talking on the phone as a main activity but who checked theiremail briefly at the same time Examining the secondary activities in the SIQSSdata is a substantial task and is planned for future research
Given the rich and fine-grained nature of the data there are a variety of different ways to measure sociability Three measures of sociability are
constructed (1) the number of minutes spent actively engaging or participatingin an activity with friends (2) the number of minutes spent actively engaging orparticipating in an activity with family9 and (3) the number of minutes spent on
socializing activities (eg visiting parties etc) These variables are quitedifferent measures of sociability The active engagement measures of timespent with friends or family incorporates any time together whether going todinner doing chores tending to children or anything it only requires that therespondent was doing the activity with a friend (or family member) The socialactivity variable on the other hand includes only those activities thatrespondents define as socializing activities (visiting parties and the like) sothat this measure may omit social interactions that occur while say watchingtelevision traveling etc In other words the active engagement measure isdefined by information about wi th w hom the respondent did an activity whilethe socializing variable is defined by the information about what activity therespondent did While there is undoubtedly some overlap this providesmeasures of sociability from different angles The active engagement (withwhom) measure should be the most general and complete definition of interpersonal interaction but the activity-based measure of sociability providesmore comparability with previous research These two types of measures of
interpersonal interaction thus serve as the main dependent variables in theanalysis of the relationship between Internet use and sociabil ity that follows
Time use for each of these measures was computed by summing thenumber of minutes spent on each as a main acti v i t y across the six diary hours10
Table 1 presents the basic distributional characteristics of the main independentvariable (time spent using the Internetmdashat home and at work) and the threemain dependent variables (time spent with friends time spent with family timeon social activities) The mean median and standard deviation of each measureare shown in extrapolated minutes spent over 24 hours11
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 729
7IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 1 DIARY TIMES FOR INTERNET USE SOCIAL ACTIVITIES AND SOCIAL CONTACTS (IN MINUTES PER DAY )
Mean Median Std Deviation N
Activities Time online at home 214 169 198 6146
Time online at work 33 29 84 6146
Time spent on social activities 575 315 411 6146
With Whom
Active time with family 2814 2641 988 6146
Active time with friends 873 543 546 6146
DATAANALYSIS
Before moving to the multivariate analysis it is useful to examine the
bivariate comparison of the sociability measures between Internet users andInternet nonusers (noting of course that this ignores variation in Internet useand fails to control for important demographic characteristics) Table 2 showsthat Internet users spend less time on most ldquotypicalrdquo social activities as well asless time doing activities with friends and family
This basic cross comparison of the data suggests that Internet users arespending less time on social activities and personal interactions but it isnecessary to explore this relationship in a multivariate setting before drawingany conclusions Moreover to advance an understanding of the complex affectsof the Internet on sociabil ity it is important to look more closely at type of Internet time It is overly simplistic to look for one effect for al l Internet useWhere and when an individual uses the Internet may be as important as how
much he or she uses it For instance does time spent using the Internet athome have a greater impact on face time with family members than time spenton the Internet at work
While the ldquodisplacementrdquo hypothesis predicts that Internet use at homehas a negative affect on social time with friends and family the ldquoefficiencyrdquohypothesis predicts no relationship or even a positive relationship betweenInternet use and sociability regardless of time or location The followingmultivariate regression analysis will help to identify which hypothesis onaverage more closely reflects the observed relationships between I nternet useand sociabil ity
Numerous control variables are included in the analysis to identify the
independent effect of Internet use (at home and at work) on the three measuresof sociability Measures of time spent on sleep and time spent on work areincluded in the analysis because these portions of daily life are fairly fixed It isexpected that Internet use comes disproportionately at the expense of discretionary time that could otherwise be spent in face-to-face socialengagement Time spent on sleep is important because it defines the length of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 829
8IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 2 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERNETUSERS AND NONUSERS
(IN MINUTES PER DAY FROM YESTERDAY DIARY DATA)Non-Internet
User
(n =5388)
Internet User
(n =757) Differenc
Social Activitie
Parties 67 11 -56
Socialize 130 126 -04
Conversation 140 96 -44
Telephone calls 13 20 07
Sports event 21 01 -20
Culture event 18 07 -11
Total 495 369 -126
Religious servicegroup 19 12 -07
All organizations 66 61 -05
All child care 351 195 -156
With Whom
Time spent with family 2874 1850 -1024
Time spent with friends 942 598 -343
the conscious daymdashit expands or contracts the day In terms of the displacementmodel time on sleep reduces the denominator of time available Work time isan important control because of the potential spurious relationship betweentime spent working and sociability For instance it can be expected that
individuals who work more are likely to spend more time on the Internet (atwork) Those who work more can also be expected to spend less time with theirfriends and family Thus work hours should be included in the regression modelin order to identify the direct affect of I nternet use on sociability independent of time spent working
Time spent watching TV is included in the regression model as aninteresting comparison because Internet and TV use have often been thought of as equivalent or substitutable uses of time Most previous studies have found anegative relationship between TV time and Internet time (which is alsoobserved in this datamdashcorrelation of -027) This in and of itself casts somedoubt on the efficiency hypothesis I f Internet use has the effect of giving people
mor e leisure time (to spend with friends and family) then it should also givepeople more time to watch TVmdashthe number one leisure activity of AmericansAt the same time it is necessary to control for basic demographic
characteristics which might be related to both I nternet use and sociabil ity andcould thus distort the observed relationship The regression models thereforecontrol for marital status gender age education raceethnicity number of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 929
9IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
children single parenthood and living alone Table 3 presents the findings fromthe multivariate regression analysis of effect of Internet use differentiated byuse at home and use at work on time spent with friends family and on social
activities12
I t is immediately apparent from Table 3 that time spent on the Internetldquoat homerdquo is significantly negatively related to time spent with family andfriends and on social activities However the amount of I nternet use at workdoes not have a significant impact on sociability once the number of hours spentat work (for pay) has been taken into account This is consistent with thedisplacement hypothesis Home is the critical environment where users face thedirect tradeoff between Internetemail use and actually ldquobeing withrdquo family Forevery hour spent on the Internet at home the model suggests individuals arespending an average of almost 30 fewer minutes with their family This meansthat time online at home is coming at the expense of time with family not justtime on sleep TV or other asocial activities The relationship is identical
though substantively weaker for time spent with friends and for time spent onsocial activities
The results also verify that the statistical controls while predictable and
interesting in their own right do not eliminate the underlying ldquodisplacementrdquorelationships between amount of Internet use yesterday and the amount of active face-to-face time As might be expected men are significantly less likelyto spend time with family than women (and more time with friends and onsocial activities) Married people and single parents spend more time withfamily but less time with friends and on social activities Moreover individualsliving alone are less likely to spend time with family friends and on socializingEven though the analysis is limited to those under age 65 age still reduces face-to-face interactions with family members friends and social activities Turningto the other time controls time spent on sleep work and TV watching asexpected has a negative relationship with all measures of sociability
These findings concur with the earlier findings of the SIQSS and theKennedy School studies However they are now based on more detailed androbust data Time can be reallocatedmdashfrom time spent with friends family or onsocial activities to time spent on the Internetmdashbut not expanded it is indeedlike a hydraulic system where increases in activity in one area reduce time
available for other activities
INTERNET USE AND LEISURE WEEKDAYS VERSUS WEEKENDS
While the above analysis provides new insights regarding the impact of location of Internet use on sociability when the Internet is used may alsoprovide an important distinction For most people the weekend typically holdsmany more discretionary moments in the day in which individuals can choosehow they wish to spend their time and with whom they wish to spend it I f the
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1029
10IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 3 HOMEWORK INTERNET USE AND SOCIAL CONTACTACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 21968 2910 59690 3928 29947 2712 Background FactorsEducation 010 061 036 110 003 013
Male 200 235 -824 -480 550 441
Married -577 -456 2765 1086 -852 -461
African-American -256 -188 -564 -205 164 082
Hispanic -046 -031 -211 -071 -260 -121
Asian and other -143 -074 -503 -130 -149 -053
Age -036 -145 083 168 -112 -311
Age square 000 073 -001 -228 001 222
Number of children -170 -330 108 104 -215 -286
Weekday -3419 -2473 -8943 -3215 -3422 -1693
Living alone -166 -117 -2385 -833 -485 -233
Single parents -322 -182 876 246 -149 -058
Time Factors TV time -018 -1877 001 039 -019 -1351
Sleep time -013 -1322 -036 -1783 -021 -1395
Work time -014 -2219 -040 -3078 -013 -1397
ONLINE AT HOME -013 -574 -048 -1094 -018 -567
ONLINE AT WORK 005 096 018 171 -003 -034
Adjusted R Square 044 060 026
F 26124 49953 11963
N 5738 5738 5738
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
displacement model is correct the amount of home use of the Internet shouldhave its strongest impact on time spent with both friends and family on
weekends when people have more freedom to choose what they wish to do andwith whom if anyone they wish to spend their time 13 Table 4 reports theregression results for the weekend analysis and Table 5 reports the regressionresults for the weekday analysis
The relationship between time spent on Internetemail at home on theweekend and time spent with family is the strongest observed so far thecoefficient is -069 (see Table 5) This means that for every hour spent onlinethere is a corresponding 41 minutes less spent with family members While thisnumber is substantively small for the average respondent (with an average of only 25 minutes spent on the Internet it results in 15 fewer minutes withfamily) it is quite easy to see that for heavy Internet users this effect is quiteprofound The weekday regressions too find that time spent on the Internet at
home has a strong significant and negative influence on time spent with familymembers but the strength of the relationship is only about half of what it is onweekends once again offering support for the displacement hypothesis14
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1129
11IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 4 ANALYSIS OF WEEKDAY INTERNET USE
Diary Minutesβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 15092 1927 44972 2608 22567 1880 Background Factor
Education 012 074 044 124 -011 -044
Male 229 264 -809 -424 447 337
Married -543 -426 2506 893 -674 -345 African-American -189 -132 -493 -157 151 069
Hispanic -183 -120 -312 -093 -191 -081Asian and other -257 -133 -498 -117 -318 -107
Age -022 -086 044 080 -068 -176
Age square 000 057 -001 -139 000 105Number of children -096 -185 097 085 -214 -269
Living alone -076 -054 -2266 -727 -348 -160
Single parents -331 -184 1020 258 100 036
Time Factor TV time -015 -1434 009 408 -017 -1091 Sleep time -011 -1003 -031 -1329 -017 -1045
Work time -011 -1702 -031 -2168 -010 -1024
ONLINE AT HOME -010 -469 -039 -832 -012 -370
ONLINE AT WORK 004 087 011 105 -004 -056
Adjusted R Square 010 023 007
F 2961 7671 1912
N 4092 4092 4092
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
CONCLUSION
Results from Americarsquos first online time diary survey offer strong supportfor the ldquohydraul icrdquo or displacement hypothesismdashand no evidence to support the
efficiency hypothesis On average the more time spent on the Internet at homethe less time spent with friends family and on social activities in contrastInternet use at work has little effect on sociability Similarly Internet useduring the weekends is more strongly related to decreased time interacting andsocializing than Internet use during weekdays for it is during this time whenInternet and email use competes most directly with time spent in face-to-faceinteractions with others
Internet use and sociability were examined from a number of differentangles with invariable support for the displacement hypothesis Of the different
measures of sociability the active engagement measure appears to best capture
interpersonal interaction The social activity variable is just one subset of face-to-
face interaction and it likely captures time with friends more than time with familyFor instance parents undoubtedly spent less time on ldquosocializingrdquo activities such as
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1229
12IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 5 ANALYSIS OF WEEKEND INTERNET USE
Diary Minuteβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 29194 1671 71013 2311 38464 1573 Background Factor
Education -007 -017 -024 -035 038 068
Male 027 013 -1142 -321 710 251
Married -702 -231 3301 616 -1413 -331
African-American -319 -105 -896 -168 257 060
Hispanic 230 069 -054 -009 -450 -097
Asian and other 154 033 -444 -054 322 049
Age -089 -155 101 100 -242 -303
Age square 001 078 -002 -126 002 250
Number of children -310 -251 289 133 -176 -102
Living alone -320 -091 -2678 -432 -840 -170
Single parents -397 -095 370 050 -925 -158
Time Factor TV time -026 -1164 -013 -337 -024 -754
Sleep time -020 -857 -048 -1198 -029 -911
Work time -023 -1442 -063 -2271 -021 -940
ONLINE AT HOME -016 -265 -069 -665 -036 -437
ONLINE AT WORK -003 -014 019 047 -018 -057
Adjusted R Square 018 034 011
F 2348 5339 1379
N 1645 1645 1645
Note
p lt05 p lt 01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
parties or theatre but that hardly means thatthey are spending less time in
interpersonal interactions In fact most studies of social networks find thatmarried individuals have stronger social support systems than single people
These findings confirm that the quantity of face-to-face interpersonalinteraction is affected by how an individual uses and distributes his or her timeduring the day Future research should compare traditional interactions withcyber interactions to evaluate the extent to which the social value of this newform of communication compensates for the potential negative consequencesBut in studying these social benefits researchers must acknowledge that theInternet al so has the potential to hold social detriments
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1329
13IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
REFERENCES
Cole J I Suman M Schramm P Van Bel D Lunn B Maguire P
Hanson K Singh R and Aquino J S 2000 The UCL A I nternet Report Sur veying t he Digita l Fut ur e Los Angeles UCLA Center forCommunication Policy
Franzen A 2000 Does the Internet Make Us Lonely European Sociological
Review 16(4) p 427-438Hafner K 2000 Working at Home TodayNew York Tim es November 2Hampton K N and Wellman B 1999 Netville On-Line and Off-L ine
Amer ican Behavioral Scient ist 43(3) p 478-495Kadushin C 1982 Social Density and Mental Health In Marsden P V and
Lin N (eds) Social Str uctur e and Netw or k A nalysis Beverly Hi lls CASage
National Public Radio Kaiser Family Foundation and Kennedy School of
Government 2000 Survey Shows Widespread Enthusiasm for High TechnologyNPR Onli ne Repor t 3 (February)
Nie N 1999 Tracking Our Techno Future Am er ican Demograph ics 21(7) p
50-52Nie N 2001 Sociabil ity Interpersonal Relations and the Internet Reconciling
Conflicting Findings Am eri can Behavioral Scienti st 45(3) p 420-435Nie N and Erbring L 2000 I nt ern et and Society A Prel imi nary Report
Stanford CA Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society
Repr in ted in t hi s issue
Nie N and Sackman H 1970 The Information U ti l i t y and Social Choice Montvale NJ AFIPS
PEW Internet and American Life Project 2000 Tracking Online Life HowWomen Use the Internet to Cultivate Relationships with Family andFriends Onli ne Int ern et L ife Report May 10
Putnam R 1995 Bowling Alone Americarsquos Declining Social Capital Journ al of Democracy 6 p 65-78
Putnam R 2000 Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival of American
Communi ty New York Simon and SchusterRobinson J and Godbey G 1997 Time for Life The Surpris ing Ways
Am er icans U se Their T im e University Park PA Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press
Robinson J P Kestnbaum M Neustadtl A and Alvarez A 2001Information Technology the Internet and Time Displacement Revision
of paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Associationof Public Opinion Research in Portland OR May 2000 Next ar t i cle in
t hi s issue
Salaff J Wellman B and Dimitrova D 1998 There is a Time and Place for Teleworking In R Suomi P J ackson L Hollman M Aspnas (eds)Teleworking Environments Proceedings of the Third International
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1429
14IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
Work shop on Telework Turku Finland Turku Center for ComputerScience General Publication 8 p 11-31
Steiner G A 1963 The People Look at Television A Study of Audience
Att i tudes New York KnopfUCLA Internet Report 2000 Surveying th e Dig i ta l Fut ur e (SDF) Los AngelesCA October
Ulsaner E 2000 Social Capital and the Net Proceedings of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) 43 (December) p 60-64
Wellman B Haase A Q Witte J and Hampton K 2001 Does the InternetIncrease Decrease or Supplement Social Capital Social NetworksParticipation and Community Commitment American Behavioral
Scientist 45(3) p 437-456Wellman B and Wortley S 1990 Different Strokes from Different Folks
Community Ties and Social Support Am er ican Jour nal of Sociology 96p 558-588
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1529
15IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX AK NOWLEDGE NETWORKS METHODOLOGY
The data used in this analysis were collected by Knowledge Networksusing a new time-diary methodology that needs further explanation In order toovercome the fact that close to half of all Americans did not have access to theInternet at the time of the study Knowledge Networks provides representativenational samples with Internet equipment in exchange for participation insurveys Respondents in the Knowledge Networks (KN) panel are randomlyrecruited through Random Digit Dial (RDD) sampling methods on a quarterly-updated sample frame consisting of the entire US telephone population and areprovided with WebTV equipment All telephone numbers have an equalprobability of selection and sampling is done without replacement Although
this sampling technique entails the coverage error of excluding householdswithout telephones (less than 5 of population) this approach has significantlybroader coverage than sampling techniques that draw only from computersusers with I nternet access (eg Harris I nteractive)
Before the initial telephone calls are made households in the RDDsample with listed addresses are sent letters describing the proposed exchangerelationship During the initial RDD telephone interview respondents are toldthey have been selected to participate in an important national study and theywill be given a WebTV receiver that will allow them free access to the Internet if they will answer brief surveys on their television I t is emphasized thatconfidentiality and privacy are always upheld and that no other household canreplace theirs Respondents are immediately polled regarding the extent towhich members of their households are experienced with the Internet andproficient with computers
Once the WebTV equipment is installed in their homes respondents areasked to respond to some profile surveys that record the key attributes of eachhousehold member For example respondents are asked about their genderdate of birth ethnicity education income etc All adults (aged 18 and older) of the selected household are asked to respond to surveys via WebTV Eachmember is sent one short survey per week usually not taking more than 15minutes to complete In rare instances when panel members are asked torespond to longer surveys they would be given a week off or some other form of incentive Respondents can respond to the surveys at any time at their
convenience and are permitted to stop before they complete the survey andreturn to it at a later time Respondents who fail to respond to eight consecutivesurveys will have the WebTV receiver removed from their homes Detailedinformation on the methodology can be found at wwwknowledgenetworkscom
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1629
16IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX BDIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 6
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activitycategorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity they were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking Kitchen Cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard WorkInternetEmail Telephone Calls PlantPet Care Paperwork OrganizeUnpackOther (user defined)
For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone and ComputerWork were included as options This picks up Internet use whether that usewas say educational professional or simply recreational
The respondents were then asked how longthe activity lasted (10 min to20 min to 1 hour or more) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whetheralone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother)
Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the same
time as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a check list of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked toidentify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown their completeddiary form based on their answers to ensure that their results were accurate
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of I nternet use the content and number of emails (personal vs work related) their types of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed) their amount of TV watching sleep and social interactionsBesides providing supplemental information these follow-up questions provided
an additional measure of the independent and dependent variables (andanalysis were replicated using these measures with identical results)mdashas wellas proving an accuracy check for their time-diary estimates For sample diaryscreens see NieHillygusAppendixBdoc
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1729
17IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 6 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activitiesHousework Cleaning chores cooking home financesChild Care Feeding clothing playing with childrenErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail readSocial Outing Socializing parties events moviesRecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies gamesOrganizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacksDressWash Dress shower bathe groomSleep Sleep nap or dozeOther User Defined
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1829
18IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX CREPL ICATION WITH ldquoESTIMATEDrdquo INTERNET USE
For comparabil ity with the first Internet study the results are replicated usingthe follow-up measure of Internet use in which respondents are asked toestimate the number of hours and minutes spent on the Internet and Emailyesterday The results are reported in Table 7 The relationship betweenestimated time online and time spent with family friends and on socialactivities remains negative and significant though the relationship is not quiteas crisp as those reported in Table 3 (generally weaker relationships on thecoefficients and slightly smaller R -squared values)
TABLE 7 ANALYSIS WITH ESTIMATED INTERNET TIME (FOLLOW-UP MEASURE)
Diary Minute
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 53254 1370 37296 1323 20805 1182
Background Factor
Education 190 158 026 030 064 116
Male -3211 -502 1915 413 815 282
Married 10085 1065 -2782 -405 -1533 -357
African-American -1905 -186 706 095 -490 -106
Hispanic -1156 -105 -861 -107 -1178 -235
Asian and other -2198 -152 -619 -059 -248 -038
Age 221 120 -441 -330 -176 -210
Age square -004 -180 004 239 001 148
Number of children 477 123 -775 -277 -637 -364
Weekday -9346 -1290 -3681 -701 -3279 -999
Living alon -8228 -771 -1755 -227 -225 -047Single parents 3098 233 -129 -013 -493 -082
Time Factors
TV time 000 005 -018 -1187 -015 -1528
Sleep time -032 -1819 -017 -1308 -008 -1015
WORK TIME -037 -3091 -012 -1345 -010 -1914
ONLINE TIME (EST) -029 -777 -013 -487 -004 -219
Adjusted R Square 029 009 013
F 15060 3644 5320
N 5738 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Active Time wFamil Active Time wFriend Time on Social Activitie
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1929
19IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX DREPL ICATION FOR TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND TIME ON CHILD CARE
The analysis was also replicated for two other measures of sociabilitytime spent on organization activities and time spent on child care The resultsfor this analysis can be found in Table 8 Once again the results find asignificant negative relationship between time spent on the Internet at homeand the dependent variables The results are substantively smaller than theresults found in previous analysis but they nonetheless offer support for thedisplacement hypothesis
TABLE 8 TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 4238 1090 8562 1303
Background FactorsEducation 019 231 013 092
Male 068 155 -570 -769
Married 188 289 681 619
African-American 348 495 002 002
Hispanic -105 -138 128 099
Asian and other -011 -011 -010 -006
Age 005 040 022 104
Age square 000 -009 -001 -249
Number of children 007 025 247 551
Weekday -757 -1064 2643 2198
Living alone 041 056 167 135
Single parents 055 060 329 213 Time Factor
TV time -004 -744 -008 -942
Sleep time -003 -661 -007 -751
Work time -003 -981 -009 -1636
ONLINE AT HOME -004 -337 -010 -510
ONLINE AT WORK 006 210 -001 -029
Adjusted R Square 013 014
F 5150 5634
N 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Organization Time on Child Car
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 329
3IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
activities (for example Franzen 2000) For instance if an individual is able toshop online more quickly than shopping at a store it may free up time to spendwith friends or family The data in this article can be used to test whether the
net effect of Internet use on sociability more closely adheres to this efficiencyhypothesis or to the displacement hypothesis I f the relationship between timeon the Internet and time socializing is positive the results will support theefficiency hypothesis The present hypothesis however is that the relationshipis negative thus supporting the displacement hypothesis
PREVIOUSRESEARCH
Existing empirical support can be found for both sides of the debate Oneof the earliest surveys examining the social consequences of the Internet wasthe ldquoInternet and Societyrdquo study conducted through the Stanford Institute forthe Quantitative Study of Society (SIQSS) in February 2000 (Nie and Erbring
2000) and reprinted in this issue of I Tamp Society This nationally representativestudy revealed that Internet users (especially heavy Internet users) reportspending less time with friends and family shopping in stores reading
newspapers and watching televisionmdashand more time working for theiremployers at home (without cutting back on hours in the office)3 That findingconcerning the quantity and quality of interpersonal communications andsociability promptly became the focus of further scholarly attention andcontroversy4
Following this study at least three other groupsmdashPew UCLA andNPRKaiserHarvardrsquos Kennedy Schoolmdashconducted nationally representativesurveys that also addressed the social implications of increased Internet useWithin the media the lines of battle were hastily drawn between the twoperspectives the SIQSS and Harvard studies which find that the Internet canbe socially isolating were pitted against the Pew and UCL A studies whichconclude that Internet use has mainly a positive impact on sociabilityNumerous other scholars have jumped into this battle especially on the side of defending the Internet as a solely positive medium for communication (Uslaner2000 Robinson et al 2000a and 2000b Hampton and Wellman 2000 Cole et al 2000 Kraut et al 2001)
There are three main criticisms of much of the existing researchhowever First many ignore the amount of Internet use5 They simply dividethe population into users and nonusers and then make comparisons of sociability along these lines I t seems inappropriate to assume that users
spending one hour per week on the Internet are equivalent to those spending 20hours on the Internet Few people would deny the affects of Internet use at theextremesmdashusing the Internet just minutes a day should have little affect onsociability while spending most of the day online undoubtedly harms offlinerelationships Ignoring this variation in an analysis will conceal or dilute thepossible effects of Internet use
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 429
4IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
A second criticism of these studies is that they are largely limited tobivariate analyses ignoring the importance of controlling for demographicfactors such as education age marital status or work status As argued in Nie
(2001) and Franzen (2000) any analysis examining the relationship betweenInternet use and sociabil ity must include multivariate controls Bivariateanalyses ignore the possibility of spurious correlations between Internet use andsociabil ity A simple bivariate analysis for example could not clarify whetherInternet users have more social contacts because of the Internet or because theyare more highly educated (given that more highly educated individuals tend tohave more social contacts an d are more likely to be Internet users)
Finally previous research has been criticized for not adequatelymeasuring Internet use Most surveys rely on respondent estimates of daily orweekly Internet use but such estimates are undoubtedly fraught with error(Robinson 2000a) Respondents may give their best guess but in addition toerrors of judgment such estimates are prone to distortion by social desirability
concerns (eg individuals might not want to admit watching too much TV orthey might want to overestimate time spent on charitable and civic causes)Respondent time estimates may be problematic because individuals do not keep
a running tally of the number of minutes or hours spent on particular activitiesand certainly not for the specific periods (dayweekmonth) requested by theresearcher
The analysis reported in this article utilizes a new dataset thatovercomes most of these problems by using time diaries to measure Internet usetime and other daily activities more directly and thus may help to reconcile thecompeting hypotheses by identifying the specific conditions under whichInternet use affects sociabil ity
RESEARCH DESIGN
A unique new survey methodology is used to differentiate amountlocation and type of Internet use thus producing more accurate measurementsof respondentsrsquo time use The present research design addresses the problemsdiscussed above through an improved survey instrument and a more completeanalysis Multivariate analyses are used to clarify the relationships between
time spent online and time spent socializing The survey is based on a time-diary approach Robinson and Godbey
(1997) argue that a judiciously administered time-diary study is necessary toaccurately measure time spent on various activities The diary procedure avoids
the problems of a ldquotime estimaterdquo approach by preventing ldquoguesstimaterdquo errorsand by helping to prevent respondents from purposefully distorting activityestimates Respondents can no longer easily manipulate survey responses toportray themselves in a particular l ight (eg as only moderate TV viewers or asbeing particularly socially active) With a time-diary approach respondents
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 529
5IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
would have to manipulate their entire diary not just one report of time spent ona particular activity
SIQSS therefore developed a research design that combines the best of
both worldsmdashthe detailed time-use estimates of the diary approach without therespondent burden of a 24-hour diary While closely following the basicmethodology of phone implemented diary studies such as those at theUniversity of Maryland these techniques were adapted to take advantage of theunique methods of Knowledge Networksrsquo survey instrument for online surveyadministration conducted via the Microsoft Web-TV set top box In May 2001Knowledge Networks fielded the first SI QSS Time-Diary Study with arepresentative sample of approximately 6000 Americans between the ages of 18and 64 Appendix A contains a more detailed description of the KnowledgeNetworks survey
METHODOLOGY
Like the University of Maryland time diary studies the SIQSS modifiedtime-diary study asked respondents about their activities ldquoyesterdayrdquo Rather
than covering the entire day however the focus was on six randomly selectedhours of the daymdashone in each of six time blocks (strata) night early morninglate morning afternoon early evening and late evening The sampling designwas structured to collect an even distribution of days of the week across thetotal sample and of hours over the course of the day for each respondent6
With a six-hour design the survey is less monotonous than a 24-hourdesign Thus the SIQSS diary is able to go into great detail about the socialcontext of each activity without fatiguing respondents This also permits morefollow-up questions including information on social context and interaction foreach and every primary activity7 Engaging a larger sample (n gt6000) provideshigh quality comparable data for each hour of the day That allows moredetailed data about each specific activity developing a more fine-grained pictureof time use that becomes the backbone of this study
THE DATA
This survey design provides ideal data for examining the fundamentalquestions regarding the relationship between Internet use and time spent ininterpersonal relationships and on social activities This data allowscomparison of when and where the Internet is used while controlling for various
demographic background factors such as education age work hours householdcomposition and for other key activities that might affect the relationshipbetween time online and time on sociability
Given the detailed diary design the survey collects much improved dataon the main independent variable time spent on the Internet Respondents areable to identify Internetemail use as an activity associated with a number of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 629
6IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
different main activities (work education social time etc) and were evenprompted about whether some of their activities (reading newspaperscorresponding) were done online
About one respondent in seven (13) report using Internetemail as amain activity on the diary day This percentage is larger than the 8 reportedby the University of Maryland study but it is much less than the 50 thatreport having used the Internetemail at some point yesterday in the usualrecall studies8 This may be because unfortunately the time estimate used inthis analysis does not include Internetemail use that occurs incidentally andtherefore is coded as a secondary activ i ty It misses for instance individualswho reported talking on the phone as a main activity but who checked theiremail briefly at the same time Examining the secondary activities in the SIQSSdata is a substantial task and is planned for future research
Given the rich and fine-grained nature of the data there are a variety of different ways to measure sociability Three measures of sociability are
constructed (1) the number of minutes spent actively engaging or participatingin an activity with friends (2) the number of minutes spent actively engaging orparticipating in an activity with family9 and (3) the number of minutes spent on
socializing activities (eg visiting parties etc) These variables are quitedifferent measures of sociability The active engagement measures of timespent with friends or family incorporates any time together whether going todinner doing chores tending to children or anything it only requires that therespondent was doing the activity with a friend (or family member) The socialactivity variable on the other hand includes only those activities thatrespondents define as socializing activities (visiting parties and the like) sothat this measure may omit social interactions that occur while say watchingtelevision traveling etc In other words the active engagement measure isdefined by information about wi th w hom the respondent did an activity whilethe socializing variable is defined by the information about what activity therespondent did While there is undoubtedly some overlap this providesmeasures of sociability from different angles The active engagement (withwhom) measure should be the most general and complete definition of interpersonal interaction but the activity-based measure of sociability providesmore comparability with previous research These two types of measures of
interpersonal interaction thus serve as the main dependent variables in theanalysis of the relationship between Internet use and sociabil ity that follows
Time use for each of these measures was computed by summing thenumber of minutes spent on each as a main acti v i t y across the six diary hours10
Table 1 presents the basic distributional characteristics of the main independentvariable (time spent using the Internetmdashat home and at work) and the threemain dependent variables (time spent with friends time spent with family timeon social activities) The mean median and standard deviation of each measureare shown in extrapolated minutes spent over 24 hours11
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 729
7IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 1 DIARY TIMES FOR INTERNET USE SOCIAL ACTIVITIES AND SOCIAL CONTACTS (IN MINUTES PER DAY )
Mean Median Std Deviation N
Activities Time online at home 214 169 198 6146
Time online at work 33 29 84 6146
Time spent on social activities 575 315 411 6146
With Whom
Active time with family 2814 2641 988 6146
Active time with friends 873 543 546 6146
DATAANALYSIS
Before moving to the multivariate analysis it is useful to examine the
bivariate comparison of the sociability measures between Internet users andInternet nonusers (noting of course that this ignores variation in Internet useand fails to control for important demographic characteristics) Table 2 showsthat Internet users spend less time on most ldquotypicalrdquo social activities as well asless time doing activities with friends and family
This basic cross comparison of the data suggests that Internet users arespending less time on social activities and personal interactions but it isnecessary to explore this relationship in a multivariate setting before drawingany conclusions Moreover to advance an understanding of the complex affectsof the Internet on sociabil ity it is important to look more closely at type of Internet time It is overly simplistic to look for one effect for al l Internet useWhere and when an individual uses the Internet may be as important as how
much he or she uses it For instance does time spent using the Internet athome have a greater impact on face time with family members than time spenton the Internet at work
While the ldquodisplacementrdquo hypothesis predicts that Internet use at homehas a negative affect on social time with friends and family the ldquoefficiencyrdquohypothesis predicts no relationship or even a positive relationship betweenInternet use and sociability regardless of time or location The followingmultivariate regression analysis will help to identify which hypothesis onaverage more closely reflects the observed relationships between I nternet useand sociabil ity
Numerous control variables are included in the analysis to identify the
independent effect of Internet use (at home and at work) on the three measuresof sociability Measures of time spent on sleep and time spent on work areincluded in the analysis because these portions of daily life are fairly fixed It isexpected that Internet use comes disproportionately at the expense of discretionary time that could otherwise be spent in face-to-face socialengagement Time spent on sleep is important because it defines the length of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 829
8IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 2 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERNETUSERS AND NONUSERS
(IN MINUTES PER DAY FROM YESTERDAY DIARY DATA)Non-Internet
User
(n =5388)
Internet User
(n =757) Differenc
Social Activitie
Parties 67 11 -56
Socialize 130 126 -04
Conversation 140 96 -44
Telephone calls 13 20 07
Sports event 21 01 -20
Culture event 18 07 -11
Total 495 369 -126
Religious servicegroup 19 12 -07
All organizations 66 61 -05
All child care 351 195 -156
With Whom
Time spent with family 2874 1850 -1024
Time spent with friends 942 598 -343
the conscious daymdashit expands or contracts the day In terms of the displacementmodel time on sleep reduces the denominator of time available Work time isan important control because of the potential spurious relationship betweentime spent working and sociability For instance it can be expected that
individuals who work more are likely to spend more time on the Internet (atwork) Those who work more can also be expected to spend less time with theirfriends and family Thus work hours should be included in the regression modelin order to identify the direct affect of I nternet use on sociability independent of time spent working
Time spent watching TV is included in the regression model as aninteresting comparison because Internet and TV use have often been thought of as equivalent or substitutable uses of time Most previous studies have found anegative relationship between TV time and Internet time (which is alsoobserved in this datamdashcorrelation of -027) This in and of itself casts somedoubt on the efficiency hypothesis I f Internet use has the effect of giving people
mor e leisure time (to spend with friends and family) then it should also givepeople more time to watch TVmdashthe number one leisure activity of AmericansAt the same time it is necessary to control for basic demographic
characteristics which might be related to both I nternet use and sociabil ity andcould thus distort the observed relationship The regression models thereforecontrol for marital status gender age education raceethnicity number of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 929
9IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
children single parenthood and living alone Table 3 presents the findings fromthe multivariate regression analysis of effect of Internet use differentiated byuse at home and use at work on time spent with friends family and on social
activities12
I t is immediately apparent from Table 3 that time spent on the Internetldquoat homerdquo is significantly negatively related to time spent with family andfriends and on social activities However the amount of I nternet use at workdoes not have a significant impact on sociability once the number of hours spentat work (for pay) has been taken into account This is consistent with thedisplacement hypothesis Home is the critical environment where users face thedirect tradeoff between Internetemail use and actually ldquobeing withrdquo family Forevery hour spent on the Internet at home the model suggests individuals arespending an average of almost 30 fewer minutes with their family This meansthat time online at home is coming at the expense of time with family not justtime on sleep TV or other asocial activities The relationship is identical
though substantively weaker for time spent with friends and for time spent onsocial activities
The results also verify that the statistical controls while predictable and
interesting in their own right do not eliminate the underlying ldquodisplacementrdquorelationships between amount of Internet use yesterday and the amount of active face-to-face time As might be expected men are significantly less likelyto spend time with family than women (and more time with friends and onsocial activities) Married people and single parents spend more time withfamily but less time with friends and on social activities Moreover individualsliving alone are less likely to spend time with family friends and on socializingEven though the analysis is limited to those under age 65 age still reduces face-to-face interactions with family members friends and social activities Turningto the other time controls time spent on sleep work and TV watching asexpected has a negative relationship with all measures of sociability
These findings concur with the earlier findings of the SIQSS and theKennedy School studies However they are now based on more detailed androbust data Time can be reallocatedmdashfrom time spent with friends family or onsocial activities to time spent on the Internetmdashbut not expanded it is indeedlike a hydraulic system where increases in activity in one area reduce time
available for other activities
INTERNET USE AND LEISURE WEEKDAYS VERSUS WEEKENDS
While the above analysis provides new insights regarding the impact of location of Internet use on sociability when the Internet is used may alsoprovide an important distinction For most people the weekend typically holdsmany more discretionary moments in the day in which individuals can choosehow they wish to spend their time and with whom they wish to spend it I f the
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1029
10IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 3 HOMEWORK INTERNET USE AND SOCIAL CONTACTACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 21968 2910 59690 3928 29947 2712 Background FactorsEducation 010 061 036 110 003 013
Male 200 235 -824 -480 550 441
Married -577 -456 2765 1086 -852 -461
African-American -256 -188 -564 -205 164 082
Hispanic -046 -031 -211 -071 -260 -121
Asian and other -143 -074 -503 -130 -149 -053
Age -036 -145 083 168 -112 -311
Age square 000 073 -001 -228 001 222
Number of children -170 -330 108 104 -215 -286
Weekday -3419 -2473 -8943 -3215 -3422 -1693
Living alone -166 -117 -2385 -833 -485 -233
Single parents -322 -182 876 246 -149 -058
Time Factors TV time -018 -1877 001 039 -019 -1351
Sleep time -013 -1322 -036 -1783 -021 -1395
Work time -014 -2219 -040 -3078 -013 -1397
ONLINE AT HOME -013 -574 -048 -1094 -018 -567
ONLINE AT WORK 005 096 018 171 -003 -034
Adjusted R Square 044 060 026
F 26124 49953 11963
N 5738 5738 5738
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
displacement model is correct the amount of home use of the Internet shouldhave its strongest impact on time spent with both friends and family on
weekends when people have more freedom to choose what they wish to do andwith whom if anyone they wish to spend their time 13 Table 4 reports theregression results for the weekend analysis and Table 5 reports the regressionresults for the weekday analysis
The relationship between time spent on Internetemail at home on theweekend and time spent with family is the strongest observed so far thecoefficient is -069 (see Table 5) This means that for every hour spent onlinethere is a corresponding 41 minutes less spent with family members While thisnumber is substantively small for the average respondent (with an average of only 25 minutes spent on the Internet it results in 15 fewer minutes withfamily) it is quite easy to see that for heavy Internet users this effect is quiteprofound The weekday regressions too find that time spent on the Internet at
home has a strong significant and negative influence on time spent with familymembers but the strength of the relationship is only about half of what it is onweekends once again offering support for the displacement hypothesis14
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1129
11IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 4 ANALYSIS OF WEEKDAY INTERNET USE
Diary Minutesβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 15092 1927 44972 2608 22567 1880 Background Factor
Education 012 074 044 124 -011 -044
Male 229 264 -809 -424 447 337
Married -543 -426 2506 893 -674 -345 African-American -189 -132 -493 -157 151 069
Hispanic -183 -120 -312 -093 -191 -081Asian and other -257 -133 -498 -117 -318 -107
Age -022 -086 044 080 -068 -176
Age square 000 057 -001 -139 000 105Number of children -096 -185 097 085 -214 -269
Living alone -076 -054 -2266 -727 -348 -160
Single parents -331 -184 1020 258 100 036
Time Factor TV time -015 -1434 009 408 -017 -1091 Sleep time -011 -1003 -031 -1329 -017 -1045
Work time -011 -1702 -031 -2168 -010 -1024
ONLINE AT HOME -010 -469 -039 -832 -012 -370
ONLINE AT WORK 004 087 011 105 -004 -056
Adjusted R Square 010 023 007
F 2961 7671 1912
N 4092 4092 4092
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
CONCLUSION
Results from Americarsquos first online time diary survey offer strong supportfor the ldquohydraul icrdquo or displacement hypothesismdashand no evidence to support the
efficiency hypothesis On average the more time spent on the Internet at homethe less time spent with friends family and on social activities in contrastInternet use at work has little effect on sociability Similarly Internet useduring the weekends is more strongly related to decreased time interacting andsocializing than Internet use during weekdays for it is during this time whenInternet and email use competes most directly with time spent in face-to-faceinteractions with others
Internet use and sociability were examined from a number of differentangles with invariable support for the displacement hypothesis Of the different
measures of sociability the active engagement measure appears to best capture
interpersonal interaction The social activity variable is just one subset of face-to-
face interaction and it likely captures time with friends more than time with familyFor instance parents undoubtedly spent less time on ldquosocializingrdquo activities such as
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1229
12IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 5 ANALYSIS OF WEEKEND INTERNET USE
Diary Minuteβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 29194 1671 71013 2311 38464 1573 Background Factor
Education -007 -017 -024 -035 038 068
Male 027 013 -1142 -321 710 251
Married -702 -231 3301 616 -1413 -331
African-American -319 -105 -896 -168 257 060
Hispanic 230 069 -054 -009 -450 -097
Asian and other 154 033 -444 -054 322 049
Age -089 -155 101 100 -242 -303
Age square 001 078 -002 -126 002 250
Number of children -310 -251 289 133 -176 -102
Living alone -320 -091 -2678 -432 -840 -170
Single parents -397 -095 370 050 -925 -158
Time Factor TV time -026 -1164 -013 -337 -024 -754
Sleep time -020 -857 -048 -1198 -029 -911
Work time -023 -1442 -063 -2271 -021 -940
ONLINE AT HOME -016 -265 -069 -665 -036 -437
ONLINE AT WORK -003 -014 019 047 -018 -057
Adjusted R Square 018 034 011
F 2348 5339 1379
N 1645 1645 1645
Note
p lt05 p lt 01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
parties or theatre but that hardly means thatthey are spending less time in
interpersonal interactions In fact most studies of social networks find thatmarried individuals have stronger social support systems than single people
These findings confirm that the quantity of face-to-face interpersonalinteraction is affected by how an individual uses and distributes his or her timeduring the day Future research should compare traditional interactions withcyber interactions to evaluate the extent to which the social value of this newform of communication compensates for the potential negative consequencesBut in studying these social benefits researchers must acknowledge that theInternet al so has the potential to hold social detriments
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1329
13IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
REFERENCES
Cole J I Suman M Schramm P Van Bel D Lunn B Maguire P
Hanson K Singh R and Aquino J S 2000 The UCL A I nternet Report Sur veying t he Digita l Fut ur e Los Angeles UCLA Center forCommunication Policy
Franzen A 2000 Does the Internet Make Us Lonely European Sociological
Review 16(4) p 427-438Hafner K 2000 Working at Home TodayNew York Tim es November 2Hampton K N and Wellman B 1999 Netville On-Line and Off-L ine
Amer ican Behavioral Scient ist 43(3) p 478-495Kadushin C 1982 Social Density and Mental Health In Marsden P V and
Lin N (eds) Social Str uctur e and Netw or k A nalysis Beverly Hi lls CASage
National Public Radio Kaiser Family Foundation and Kennedy School of
Government 2000 Survey Shows Widespread Enthusiasm for High TechnologyNPR Onli ne Repor t 3 (February)
Nie N 1999 Tracking Our Techno Future Am er ican Demograph ics 21(7) p
50-52Nie N 2001 Sociabil ity Interpersonal Relations and the Internet Reconciling
Conflicting Findings Am eri can Behavioral Scienti st 45(3) p 420-435Nie N and Erbring L 2000 I nt ern et and Society A Prel imi nary Report
Stanford CA Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society
Repr in ted in t hi s issue
Nie N and Sackman H 1970 The Information U ti l i t y and Social Choice Montvale NJ AFIPS
PEW Internet and American Life Project 2000 Tracking Online Life HowWomen Use the Internet to Cultivate Relationships with Family andFriends Onli ne Int ern et L ife Report May 10
Putnam R 1995 Bowling Alone Americarsquos Declining Social Capital Journ al of Democracy 6 p 65-78
Putnam R 2000 Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival of American
Communi ty New York Simon and SchusterRobinson J and Godbey G 1997 Time for Life The Surpris ing Ways
Am er icans U se Their T im e University Park PA Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press
Robinson J P Kestnbaum M Neustadtl A and Alvarez A 2001Information Technology the Internet and Time Displacement Revision
of paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Associationof Public Opinion Research in Portland OR May 2000 Next ar t i cle in
t hi s issue
Salaff J Wellman B and Dimitrova D 1998 There is a Time and Place for Teleworking In R Suomi P J ackson L Hollman M Aspnas (eds)Teleworking Environments Proceedings of the Third International
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1429
14IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
Work shop on Telework Turku Finland Turku Center for ComputerScience General Publication 8 p 11-31
Steiner G A 1963 The People Look at Television A Study of Audience
Att i tudes New York KnopfUCLA Internet Report 2000 Surveying th e Dig i ta l Fut ur e (SDF) Los AngelesCA October
Ulsaner E 2000 Social Capital and the Net Proceedings of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) 43 (December) p 60-64
Wellman B Haase A Q Witte J and Hampton K 2001 Does the InternetIncrease Decrease or Supplement Social Capital Social NetworksParticipation and Community Commitment American Behavioral
Scientist 45(3) p 437-456Wellman B and Wortley S 1990 Different Strokes from Different Folks
Community Ties and Social Support Am er ican Jour nal of Sociology 96p 558-588
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1529
15IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX AK NOWLEDGE NETWORKS METHODOLOGY
The data used in this analysis were collected by Knowledge Networksusing a new time-diary methodology that needs further explanation In order toovercome the fact that close to half of all Americans did not have access to theInternet at the time of the study Knowledge Networks provides representativenational samples with Internet equipment in exchange for participation insurveys Respondents in the Knowledge Networks (KN) panel are randomlyrecruited through Random Digit Dial (RDD) sampling methods on a quarterly-updated sample frame consisting of the entire US telephone population and areprovided with WebTV equipment All telephone numbers have an equalprobability of selection and sampling is done without replacement Although
this sampling technique entails the coverage error of excluding householdswithout telephones (less than 5 of population) this approach has significantlybroader coverage than sampling techniques that draw only from computersusers with I nternet access (eg Harris I nteractive)
Before the initial telephone calls are made households in the RDDsample with listed addresses are sent letters describing the proposed exchangerelationship During the initial RDD telephone interview respondents are toldthey have been selected to participate in an important national study and theywill be given a WebTV receiver that will allow them free access to the Internet if they will answer brief surveys on their television I t is emphasized thatconfidentiality and privacy are always upheld and that no other household canreplace theirs Respondents are immediately polled regarding the extent towhich members of their households are experienced with the Internet andproficient with computers
Once the WebTV equipment is installed in their homes respondents areasked to respond to some profile surveys that record the key attributes of eachhousehold member For example respondents are asked about their genderdate of birth ethnicity education income etc All adults (aged 18 and older) of the selected household are asked to respond to surveys via WebTV Eachmember is sent one short survey per week usually not taking more than 15minutes to complete In rare instances when panel members are asked torespond to longer surveys they would be given a week off or some other form of incentive Respondents can respond to the surveys at any time at their
convenience and are permitted to stop before they complete the survey andreturn to it at a later time Respondents who fail to respond to eight consecutivesurveys will have the WebTV receiver removed from their homes Detailedinformation on the methodology can be found at wwwknowledgenetworkscom
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1629
16IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX BDIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 6
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activitycategorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity they were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking Kitchen Cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard WorkInternetEmail Telephone Calls PlantPet Care Paperwork OrganizeUnpackOther (user defined)
For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone and ComputerWork were included as options This picks up Internet use whether that usewas say educational professional or simply recreational
The respondents were then asked how longthe activity lasted (10 min to20 min to 1 hour or more) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whetheralone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother)
Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the same
time as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a check list of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked toidentify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown their completeddiary form based on their answers to ensure that their results were accurate
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of I nternet use the content and number of emails (personal vs work related) their types of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed) their amount of TV watching sleep and social interactionsBesides providing supplemental information these follow-up questions provided
an additional measure of the independent and dependent variables (andanalysis were replicated using these measures with identical results)mdashas wellas proving an accuracy check for their time-diary estimates For sample diaryscreens see NieHillygusAppendixBdoc
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1729
17IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 6 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activitiesHousework Cleaning chores cooking home financesChild Care Feeding clothing playing with childrenErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail readSocial Outing Socializing parties events moviesRecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies gamesOrganizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacksDressWash Dress shower bathe groomSleep Sleep nap or dozeOther User Defined
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1829
18IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX CREPL ICATION WITH ldquoESTIMATEDrdquo INTERNET USE
For comparabil ity with the first Internet study the results are replicated usingthe follow-up measure of Internet use in which respondents are asked toestimate the number of hours and minutes spent on the Internet and Emailyesterday The results are reported in Table 7 The relationship betweenestimated time online and time spent with family friends and on socialactivities remains negative and significant though the relationship is not quiteas crisp as those reported in Table 3 (generally weaker relationships on thecoefficients and slightly smaller R -squared values)
TABLE 7 ANALYSIS WITH ESTIMATED INTERNET TIME (FOLLOW-UP MEASURE)
Diary Minute
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 53254 1370 37296 1323 20805 1182
Background Factor
Education 190 158 026 030 064 116
Male -3211 -502 1915 413 815 282
Married 10085 1065 -2782 -405 -1533 -357
African-American -1905 -186 706 095 -490 -106
Hispanic -1156 -105 -861 -107 -1178 -235
Asian and other -2198 -152 -619 -059 -248 -038
Age 221 120 -441 -330 -176 -210
Age square -004 -180 004 239 001 148
Number of children 477 123 -775 -277 -637 -364
Weekday -9346 -1290 -3681 -701 -3279 -999
Living alon -8228 -771 -1755 -227 -225 -047Single parents 3098 233 -129 -013 -493 -082
Time Factors
TV time 000 005 -018 -1187 -015 -1528
Sleep time -032 -1819 -017 -1308 -008 -1015
WORK TIME -037 -3091 -012 -1345 -010 -1914
ONLINE TIME (EST) -029 -777 -013 -487 -004 -219
Adjusted R Square 029 009 013
F 15060 3644 5320
N 5738 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Active Time wFamil Active Time wFriend Time on Social Activitie
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1929
19IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX DREPL ICATION FOR TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND TIME ON CHILD CARE
The analysis was also replicated for two other measures of sociabilitytime spent on organization activities and time spent on child care The resultsfor this analysis can be found in Table 8 Once again the results find asignificant negative relationship between time spent on the Internet at homeand the dependent variables The results are substantively smaller than theresults found in previous analysis but they nonetheless offer support for thedisplacement hypothesis
TABLE 8 TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 4238 1090 8562 1303
Background FactorsEducation 019 231 013 092
Male 068 155 -570 -769
Married 188 289 681 619
African-American 348 495 002 002
Hispanic -105 -138 128 099
Asian and other -011 -011 -010 -006
Age 005 040 022 104
Age square 000 -009 -001 -249
Number of children 007 025 247 551
Weekday -757 -1064 2643 2198
Living alone 041 056 167 135
Single parents 055 060 329 213 Time Factor
TV time -004 -744 -008 -942
Sleep time -003 -661 -007 -751
Work time -003 -981 -009 -1636
ONLINE AT HOME -004 -337 -010 -510
ONLINE AT WORK 006 210 -001 -029
Adjusted R Square 013 014
F 5150 5634
N 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Organization Time on Child Car
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 429
4IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
A second criticism of these studies is that they are largely limited tobivariate analyses ignoring the importance of controlling for demographicfactors such as education age marital status or work status As argued in Nie
(2001) and Franzen (2000) any analysis examining the relationship betweenInternet use and sociabil ity must include multivariate controls Bivariateanalyses ignore the possibility of spurious correlations between Internet use andsociabil ity A simple bivariate analysis for example could not clarify whetherInternet users have more social contacts because of the Internet or because theyare more highly educated (given that more highly educated individuals tend tohave more social contacts an d are more likely to be Internet users)
Finally previous research has been criticized for not adequatelymeasuring Internet use Most surveys rely on respondent estimates of daily orweekly Internet use but such estimates are undoubtedly fraught with error(Robinson 2000a) Respondents may give their best guess but in addition toerrors of judgment such estimates are prone to distortion by social desirability
concerns (eg individuals might not want to admit watching too much TV orthey might want to overestimate time spent on charitable and civic causes)Respondent time estimates may be problematic because individuals do not keep
a running tally of the number of minutes or hours spent on particular activitiesand certainly not for the specific periods (dayweekmonth) requested by theresearcher
The analysis reported in this article utilizes a new dataset thatovercomes most of these problems by using time diaries to measure Internet usetime and other daily activities more directly and thus may help to reconcile thecompeting hypotheses by identifying the specific conditions under whichInternet use affects sociabil ity
RESEARCH DESIGN
A unique new survey methodology is used to differentiate amountlocation and type of Internet use thus producing more accurate measurementsof respondentsrsquo time use The present research design addresses the problemsdiscussed above through an improved survey instrument and a more completeanalysis Multivariate analyses are used to clarify the relationships between
time spent online and time spent socializing The survey is based on a time-diary approach Robinson and Godbey
(1997) argue that a judiciously administered time-diary study is necessary toaccurately measure time spent on various activities The diary procedure avoids
the problems of a ldquotime estimaterdquo approach by preventing ldquoguesstimaterdquo errorsand by helping to prevent respondents from purposefully distorting activityestimates Respondents can no longer easily manipulate survey responses toportray themselves in a particular l ight (eg as only moderate TV viewers or asbeing particularly socially active) With a time-diary approach respondents
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 529
5IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
would have to manipulate their entire diary not just one report of time spent ona particular activity
SIQSS therefore developed a research design that combines the best of
both worldsmdashthe detailed time-use estimates of the diary approach without therespondent burden of a 24-hour diary While closely following the basicmethodology of phone implemented diary studies such as those at theUniversity of Maryland these techniques were adapted to take advantage of theunique methods of Knowledge Networksrsquo survey instrument for online surveyadministration conducted via the Microsoft Web-TV set top box In May 2001Knowledge Networks fielded the first SI QSS Time-Diary Study with arepresentative sample of approximately 6000 Americans between the ages of 18and 64 Appendix A contains a more detailed description of the KnowledgeNetworks survey
METHODOLOGY
Like the University of Maryland time diary studies the SIQSS modifiedtime-diary study asked respondents about their activities ldquoyesterdayrdquo Rather
than covering the entire day however the focus was on six randomly selectedhours of the daymdashone in each of six time blocks (strata) night early morninglate morning afternoon early evening and late evening The sampling designwas structured to collect an even distribution of days of the week across thetotal sample and of hours over the course of the day for each respondent6
With a six-hour design the survey is less monotonous than a 24-hourdesign Thus the SIQSS diary is able to go into great detail about the socialcontext of each activity without fatiguing respondents This also permits morefollow-up questions including information on social context and interaction foreach and every primary activity7 Engaging a larger sample (n gt6000) provideshigh quality comparable data for each hour of the day That allows moredetailed data about each specific activity developing a more fine-grained pictureof time use that becomes the backbone of this study
THE DATA
This survey design provides ideal data for examining the fundamentalquestions regarding the relationship between Internet use and time spent ininterpersonal relationships and on social activities This data allowscomparison of when and where the Internet is used while controlling for various
demographic background factors such as education age work hours householdcomposition and for other key activities that might affect the relationshipbetween time online and time on sociability
Given the detailed diary design the survey collects much improved dataon the main independent variable time spent on the Internet Respondents areable to identify Internetemail use as an activity associated with a number of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 629
6IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
different main activities (work education social time etc) and were evenprompted about whether some of their activities (reading newspaperscorresponding) were done online
About one respondent in seven (13) report using Internetemail as amain activity on the diary day This percentage is larger than the 8 reportedby the University of Maryland study but it is much less than the 50 thatreport having used the Internetemail at some point yesterday in the usualrecall studies8 This may be because unfortunately the time estimate used inthis analysis does not include Internetemail use that occurs incidentally andtherefore is coded as a secondary activ i ty It misses for instance individualswho reported talking on the phone as a main activity but who checked theiremail briefly at the same time Examining the secondary activities in the SIQSSdata is a substantial task and is planned for future research
Given the rich and fine-grained nature of the data there are a variety of different ways to measure sociability Three measures of sociability are
constructed (1) the number of minutes spent actively engaging or participatingin an activity with friends (2) the number of minutes spent actively engaging orparticipating in an activity with family9 and (3) the number of minutes spent on
socializing activities (eg visiting parties etc) These variables are quitedifferent measures of sociability The active engagement measures of timespent with friends or family incorporates any time together whether going todinner doing chores tending to children or anything it only requires that therespondent was doing the activity with a friend (or family member) The socialactivity variable on the other hand includes only those activities thatrespondents define as socializing activities (visiting parties and the like) sothat this measure may omit social interactions that occur while say watchingtelevision traveling etc In other words the active engagement measure isdefined by information about wi th w hom the respondent did an activity whilethe socializing variable is defined by the information about what activity therespondent did While there is undoubtedly some overlap this providesmeasures of sociability from different angles The active engagement (withwhom) measure should be the most general and complete definition of interpersonal interaction but the activity-based measure of sociability providesmore comparability with previous research These two types of measures of
interpersonal interaction thus serve as the main dependent variables in theanalysis of the relationship between Internet use and sociabil ity that follows
Time use for each of these measures was computed by summing thenumber of minutes spent on each as a main acti v i t y across the six diary hours10
Table 1 presents the basic distributional characteristics of the main independentvariable (time spent using the Internetmdashat home and at work) and the threemain dependent variables (time spent with friends time spent with family timeon social activities) The mean median and standard deviation of each measureare shown in extrapolated minutes spent over 24 hours11
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 729
7IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 1 DIARY TIMES FOR INTERNET USE SOCIAL ACTIVITIES AND SOCIAL CONTACTS (IN MINUTES PER DAY )
Mean Median Std Deviation N
Activities Time online at home 214 169 198 6146
Time online at work 33 29 84 6146
Time spent on social activities 575 315 411 6146
With Whom
Active time with family 2814 2641 988 6146
Active time with friends 873 543 546 6146
DATAANALYSIS
Before moving to the multivariate analysis it is useful to examine the
bivariate comparison of the sociability measures between Internet users andInternet nonusers (noting of course that this ignores variation in Internet useand fails to control for important demographic characteristics) Table 2 showsthat Internet users spend less time on most ldquotypicalrdquo social activities as well asless time doing activities with friends and family
This basic cross comparison of the data suggests that Internet users arespending less time on social activities and personal interactions but it isnecessary to explore this relationship in a multivariate setting before drawingany conclusions Moreover to advance an understanding of the complex affectsof the Internet on sociabil ity it is important to look more closely at type of Internet time It is overly simplistic to look for one effect for al l Internet useWhere and when an individual uses the Internet may be as important as how
much he or she uses it For instance does time spent using the Internet athome have a greater impact on face time with family members than time spenton the Internet at work
While the ldquodisplacementrdquo hypothesis predicts that Internet use at homehas a negative affect on social time with friends and family the ldquoefficiencyrdquohypothesis predicts no relationship or even a positive relationship betweenInternet use and sociability regardless of time or location The followingmultivariate regression analysis will help to identify which hypothesis onaverage more closely reflects the observed relationships between I nternet useand sociabil ity
Numerous control variables are included in the analysis to identify the
independent effect of Internet use (at home and at work) on the three measuresof sociability Measures of time spent on sleep and time spent on work areincluded in the analysis because these portions of daily life are fairly fixed It isexpected that Internet use comes disproportionately at the expense of discretionary time that could otherwise be spent in face-to-face socialengagement Time spent on sleep is important because it defines the length of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 829
8IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 2 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERNETUSERS AND NONUSERS
(IN MINUTES PER DAY FROM YESTERDAY DIARY DATA)Non-Internet
User
(n =5388)
Internet User
(n =757) Differenc
Social Activitie
Parties 67 11 -56
Socialize 130 126 -04
Conversation 140 96 -44
Telephone calls 13 20 07
Sports event 21 01 -20
Culture event 18 07 -11
Total 495 369 -126
Religious servicegroup 19 12 -07
All organizations 66 61 -05
All child care 351 195 -156
With Whom
Time spent with family 2874 1850 -1024
Time spent with friends 942 598 -343
the conscious daymdashit expands or contracts the day In terms of the displacementmodel time on sleep reduces the denominator of time available Work time isan important control because of the potential spurious relationship betweentime spent working and sociability For instance it can be expected that
individuals who work more are likely to spend more time on the Internet (atwork) Those who work more can also be expected to spend less time with theirfriends and family Thus work hours should be included in the regression modelin order to identify the direct affect of I nternet use on sociability independent of time spent working
Time spent watching TV is included in the regression model as aninteresting comparison because Internet and TV use have often been thought of as equivalent or substitutable uses of time Most previous studies have found anegative relationship between TV time and Internet time (which is alsoobserved in this datamdashcorrelation of -027) This in and of itself casts somedoubt on the efficiency hypothesis I f Internet use has the effect of giving people
mor e leisure time (to spend with friends and family) then it should also givepeople more time to watch TVmdashthe number one leisure activity of AmericansAt the same time it is necessary to control for basic demographic
characteristics which might be related to both I nternet use and sociabil ity andcould thus distort the observed relationship The regression models thereforecontrol for marital status gender age education raceethnicity number of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 929
9IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
children single parenthood and living alone Table 3 presents the findings fromthe multivariate regression analysis of effect of Internet use differentiated byuse at home and use at work on time spent with friends family and on social
activities12
I t is immediately apparent from Table 3 that time spent on the Internetldquoat homerdquo is significantly negatively related to time spent with family andfriends and on social activities However the amount of I nternet use at workdoes not have a significant impact on sociability once the number of hours spentat work (for pay) has been taken into account This is consistent with thedisplacement hypothesis Home is the critical environment where users face thedirect tradeoff between Internetemail use and actually ldquobeing withrdquo family Forevery hour spent on the Internet at home the model suggests individuals arespending an average of almost 30 fewer minutes with their family This meansthat time online at home is coming at the expense of time with family not justtime on sleep TV or other asocial activities The relationship is identical
though substantively weaker for time spent with friends and for time spent onsocial activities
The results also verify that the statistical controls while predictable and
interesting in their own right do not eliminate the underlying ldquodisplacementrdquorelationships between amount of Internet use yesterday and the amount of active face-to-face time As might be expected men are significantly less likelyto spend time with family than women (and more time with friends and onsocial activities) Married people and single parents spend more time withfamily but less time with friends and on social activities Moreover individualsliving alone are less likely to spend time with family friends and on socializingEven though the analysis is limited to those under age 65 age still reduces face-to-face interactions with family members friends and social activities Turningto the other time controls time spent on sleep work and TV watching asexpected has a negative relationship with all measures of sociability
These findings concur with the earlier findings of the SIQSS and theKennedy School studies However they are now based on more detailed androbust data Time can be reallocatedmdashfrom time spent with friends family or onsocial activities to time spent on the Internetmdashbut not expanded it is indeedlike a hydraulic system where increases in activity in one area reduce time
available for other activities
INTERNET USE AND LEISURE WEEKDAYS VERSUS WEEKENDS
While the above analysis provides new insights regarding the impact of location of Internet use on sociability when the Internet is used may alsoprovide an important distinction For most people the weekend typically holdsmany more discretionary moments in the day in which individuals can choosehow they wish to spend their time and with whom they wish to spend it I f the
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1029
10IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 3 HOMEWORK INTERNET USE AND SOCIAL CONTACTACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 21968 2910 59690 3928 29947 2712 Background FactorsEducation 010 061 036 110 003 013
Male 200 235 -824 -480 550 441
Married -577 -456 2765 1086 -852 -461
African-American -256 -188 -564 -205 164 082
Hispanic -046 -031 -211 -071 -260 -121
Asian and other -143 -074 -503 -130 -149 -053
Age -036 -145 083 168 -112 -311
Age square 000 073 -001 -228 001 222
Number of children -170 -330 108 104 -215 -286
Weekday -3419 -2473 -8943 -3215 -3422 -1693
Living alone -166 -117 -2385 -833 -485 -233
Single parents -322 -182 876 246 -149 -058
Time Factors TV time -018 -1877 001 039 -019 -1351
Sleep time -013 -1322 -036 -1783 -021 -1395
Work time -014 -2219 -040 -3078 -013 -1397
ONLINE AT HOME -013 -574 -048 -1094 -018 -567
ONLINE AT WORK 005 096 018 171 -003 -034
Adjusted R Square 044 060 026
F 26124 49953 11963
N 5738 5738 5738
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
displacement model is correct the amount of home use of the Internet shouldhave its strongest impact on time spent with both friends and family on
weekends when people have more freedom to choose what they wish to do andwith whom if anyone they wish to spend their time 13 Table 4 reports theregression results for the weekend analysis and Table 5 reports the regressionresults for the weekday analysis
The relationship between time spent on Internetemail at home on theweekend and time spent with family is the strongest observed so far thecoefficient is -069 (see Table 5) This means that for every hour spent onlinethere is a corresponding 41 minutes less spent with family members While thisnumber is substantively small for the average respondent (with an average of only 25 minutes spent on the Internet it results in 15 fewer minutes withfamily) it is quite easy to see that for heavy Internet users this effect is quiteprofound The weekday regressions too find that time spent on the Internet at
home has a strong significant and negative influence on time spent with familymembers but the strength of the relationship is only about half of what it is onweekends once again offering support for the displacement hypothesis14
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1129
11IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 4 ANALYSIS OF WEEKDAY INTERNET USE
Diary Minutesβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 15092 1927 44972 2608 22567 1880 Background Factor
Education 012 074 044 124 -011 -044
Male 229 264 -809 -424 447 337
Married -543 -426 2506 893 -674 -345 African-American -189 -132 -493 -157 151 069
Hispanic -183 -120 -312 -093 -191 -081Asian and other -257 -133 -498 -117 -318 -107
Age -022 -086 044 080 -068 -176
Age square 000 057 -001 -139 000 105Number of children -096 -185 097 085 -214 -269
Living alone -076 -054 -2266 -727 -348 -160
Single parents -331 -184 1020 258 100 036
Time Factor TV time -015 -1434 009 408 -017 -1091 Sleep time -011 -1003 -031 -1329 -017 -1045
Work time -011 -1702 -031 -2168 -010 -1024
ONLINE AT HOME -010 -469 -039 -832 -012 -370
ONLINE AT WORK 004 087 011 105 -004 -056
Adjusted R Square 010 023 007
F 2961 7671 1912
N 4092 4092 4092
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
CONCLUSION
Results from Americarsquos first online time diary survey offer strong supportfor the ldquohydraul icrdquo or displacement hypothesismdashand no evidence to support the
efficiency hypothesis On average the more time spent on the Internet at homethe less time spent with friends family and on social activities in contrastInternet use at work has little effect on sociability Similarly Internet useduring the weekends is more strongly related to decreased time interacting andsocializing than Internet use during weekdays for it is during this time whenInternet and email use competes most directly with time spent in face-to-faceinteractions with others
Internet use and sociability were examined from a number of differentangles with invariable support for the displacement hypothesis Of the different
measures of sociability the active engagement measure appears to best capture
interpersonal interaction The social activity variable is just one subset of face-to-
face interaction and it likely captures time with friends more than time with familyFor instance parents undoubtedly spent less time on ldquosocializingrdquo activities such as
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1229
12IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 5 ANALYSIS OF WEEKEND INTERNET USE
Diary Minuteβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 29194 1671 71013 2311 38464 1573 Background Factor
Education -007 -017 -024 -035 038 068
Male 027 013 -1142 -321 710 251
Married -702 -231 3301 616 -1413 -331
African-American -319 -105 -896 -168 257 060
Hispanic 230 069 -054 -009 -450 -097
Asian and other 154 033 -444 -054 322 049
Age -089 -155 101 100 -242 -303
Age square 001 078 -002 -126 002 250
Number of children -310 -251 289 133 -176 -102
Living alone -320 -091 -2678 -432 -840 -170
Single parents -397 -095 370 050 -925 -158
Time Factor TV time -026 -1164 -013 -337 -024 -754
Sleep time -020 -857 -048 -1198 -029 -911
Work time -023 -1442 -063 -2271 -021 -940
ONLINE AT HOME -016 -265 -069 -665 -036 -437
ONLINE AT WORK -003 -014 019 047 -018 -057
Adjusted R Square 018 034 011
F 2348 5339 1379
N 1645 1645 1645
Note
p lt05 p lt 01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
parties or theatre but that hardly means thatthey are spending less time in
interpersonal interactions In fact most studies of social networks find thatmarried individuals have stronger social support systems than single people
These findings confirm that the quantity of face-to-face interpersonalinteraction is affected by how an individual uses and distributes his or her timeduring the day Future research should compare traditional interactions withcyber interactions to evaluate the extent to which the social value of this newform of communication compensates for the potential negative consequencesBut in studying these social benefits researchers must acknowledge that theInternet al so has the potential to hold social detriments
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1329
13IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
REFERENCES
Cole J I Suman M Schramm P Van Bel D Lunn B Maguire P
Hanson K Singh R and Aquino J S 2000 The UCL A I nternet Report Sur veying t he Digita l Fut ur e Los Angeles UCLA Center forCommunication Policy
Franzen A 2000 Does the Internet Make Us Lonely European Sociological
Review 16(4) p 427-438Hafner K 2000 Working at Home TodayNew York Tim es November 2Hampton K N and Wellman B 1999 Netville On-Line and Off-L ine
Amer ican Behavioral Scient ist 43(3) p 478-495Kadushin C 1982 Social Density and Mental Health In Marsden P V and
Lin N (eds) Social Str uctur e and Netw or k A nalysis Beverly Hi lls CASage
National Public Radio Kaiser Family Foundation and Kennedy School of
Government 2000 Survey Shows Widespread Enthusiasm for High TechnologyNPR Onli ne Repor t 3 (February)
Nie N 1999 Tracking Our Techno Future Am er ican Demograph ics 21(7) p
50-52Nie N 2001 Sociabil ity Interpersonal Relations and the Internet Reconciling
Conflicting Findings Am eri can Behavioral Scienti st 45(3) p 420-435Nie N and Erbring L 2000 I nt ern et and Society A Prel imi nary Report
Stanford CA Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society
Repr in ted in t hi s issue
Nie N and Sackman H 1970 The Information U ti l i t y and Social Choice Montvale NJ AFIPS
PEW Internet and American Life Project 2000 Tracking Online Life HowWomen Use the Internet to Cultivate Relationships with Family andFriends Onli ne Int ern et L ife Report May 10
Putnam R 1995 Bowling Alone Americarsquos Declining Social Capital Journ al of Democracy 6 p 65-78
Putnam R 2000 Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival of American
Communi ty New York Simon and SchusterRobinson J and Godbey G 1997 Time for Life The Surpris ing Ways
Am er icans U se Their T im e University Park PA Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press
Robinson J P Kestnbaum M Neustadtl A and Alvarez A 2001Information Technology the Internet and Time Displacement Revision
of paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Associationof Public Opinion Research in Portland OR May 2000 Next ar t i cle in
t hi s issue
Salaff J Wellman B and Dimitrova D 1998 There is a Time and Place for Teleworking In R Suomi P J ackson L Hollman M Aspnas (eds)Teleworking Environments Proceedings of the Third International
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1429
14IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
Work shop on Telework Turku Finland Turku Center for ComputerScience General Publication 8 p 11-31
Steiner G A 1963 The People Look at Television A Study of Audience
Att i tudes New York KnopfUCLA Internet Report 2000 Surveying th e Dig i ta l Fut ur e (SDF) Los AngelesCA October
Ulsaner E 2000 Social Capital and the Net Proceedings of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) 43 (December) p 60-64
Wellman B Haase A Q Witte J and Hampton K 2001 Does the InternetIncrease Decrease or Supplement Social Capital Social NetworksParticipation and Community Commitment American Behavioral
Scientist 45(3) p 437-456Wellman B and Wortley S 1990 Different Strokes from Different Folks
Community Ties and Social Support Am er ican Jour nal of Sociology 96p 558-588
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1529
15IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX AK NOWLEDGE NETWORKS METHODOLOGY
The data used in this analysis were collected by Knowledge Networksusing a new time-diary methodology that needs further explanation In order toovercome the fact that close to half of all Americans did not have access to theInternet at the time of the study Knowledge Networks provides representativenational samples with Internet equipment in exchange for participation insurveys Respondents in the Knowledge Networks (KN) panel are randomlyrecruited through Random Digit Dial (RDD) sampling methods on a quarterly-updated sample frame consisting of the entire US telephone population and areprovided with WebTV equipment All telephone numbers have an equalprobability of selection and sampling is done without replacement Although
this sampling technique entails the coverage error of excluding householdswithout telephones (less than 5 of population) this approach has significantlybroader coverage than sampling techniques that draw only from computersusers with I nternet access (eg Harris I nteractive)
Before the initial telephone calls are made households in the RDDsample with listed addresses are sent letters describing the proposed exchangerelationship During the initial RDD telephone interview respondents are toldthey have been selected to participate in an important national study and theywill be given a WebTV receiver that will allow them free access to the Internet if they will answer brief surveys on their television I t is emphasized thatconfidentiality and privacy are always upheld and that no other household canreplace theirs Respondents are immediately polled regarding the extent towhich members of their households are experienced with the Internet andproficient with computers
Once the WebTV equipment is installed in their homes respondents areasked to respond to some profile surveys that record the key attributes of eachhousehold member For example respondents are asked about their genderdate of birth ethnicity education income etc All adults (aged 18 and older) of the selected household are asked to respond to surveys via WebTV Eachmember is sent one short survey per week usually not taking more than 15minutes to complete In rare instances when panel members are asked torespond to longer surveys they would be given a week off or some other form of incentive Respondents can respond to the surveys at any time at their
convenience and are permitted to stop before they complete the survey andreturn to it at a later time Respondents who fail to respond to eight consecutivesurveys will have the WebTV receiver removed from their homes Detailedinformation on the methodology can be found at wwwknowledgenetworkscom
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1629
16IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX BDIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 6
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activitycategorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity they were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking Kitchen Cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard WorkInternetEmail Telephone Calls PlantPet Care Paperwork OrganizeUnpackOther (user defined)
For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone and ComputerWork were included as options This picks up Internet use whether that usewas say educational professional or simply recreational
The respondents were then asked how longthe activity lasted (10 min to20 min to 1 hour or more) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whetheralone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother)
Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the same
time as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a check list of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked toidentify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown their completeddiary form based on their answers to ensure that their results were accurate
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of I nternet use the content and number of emails (personal vs work related) their types of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed) their amount of TV watching sleep and social interactionsBesides providing supplemental information these follow-up questions provided
an additional measure of the independent and dependent variables (andanalysis were replicated using these measures with identical results)mdashas wellas proving an accuracy check for their time-diary estimates For sample diaryscreens see NieHillygusAppendixBdoc
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1729
17IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 6 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activitiesHousework Cleaning chores cooking home financesChild Care Feeding clothing playing with childrenErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail readSocial Outing Socializing parties events moviesRecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies gamesOrganizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacksDressWash Dress shower bathe groomSleep Sleep nap or dozeOther User Defined
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1829
18IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX CREPL ICATION WITH ldquoESTIMATEDrdquo INTERNET USE
For comparabil ity with the first Internet study the results are replicated usingthe follow-up measure of Internet use in which respondents are asked toestimate the number of hours and minutes spent on the Internet and Emailyesterday The results are reported in Table 7 The relationship betweenestimated time online and time spent with family friends and on socialactivities remains negative and significant though the relationship is not quiteas crisp as those reported in Table 3 (generally weaker relationships on thecoefficients and slightly smaller R -squared values)
TABLE 7 ANALYSIS WITH ESTIMATED INTERNET TIME (FOLLOW-UP MEASURE)
Diary Minute
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 53254 1370 37296 1323 20805 1182
Background Factor
Education 190 158 026 030 064 116
Male -3211 -502 1915 413 815 282
Married 10085 1065 -2782 -405 -1533 -357
African-American -1905 -186 706 095 -490 -106
Hispanic -1156 -105 -861 -107 -1178 -235
Asian and other -2198 -152 -619 -059 -248 -038
Age 221 120 -441 -330 -176 -210
Age square -004 -180 004 239 001 148
Number of children 477 123 -775 -277 -637 -364
Weekday -9346 -1290 -3681 -701 -3279 -999
Living alon -8228 -771 -1755 -227 -225 -047Single parents 3098 233 -129 -013 -493 -082
Time Factors
TV time 000 005 -018 -1187 -015 -1528
Sleep time -032 -1819 -017 -1308 -008 -1015
WORK TIME -037 -3091 -012 -1345 -010 -1914
ONLINE TIME (EST) -029 -777 -013 -487 -004 -219
Adjusted R Square 029 009 013
F 15060 3644 5320
N 5738 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Active Time wFamil Active Time wFriend Time on Social Activitie
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1929
19IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX DREPL ICATION FOR TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND TIME ON CHILD CARE
The analysis was also replicated for two other measures of sociabilitytime spent on organization activities and time spent on child care The resultsfor this analysis can be found in Table 8 Once again the results find asignificant negative relationship between time spent on the Internet at homeand the dependent variables The results are substantively smaller than theresults found in previous analysis but they nonetheless offer support for thedisplacement hypothesis
TABLE 8 TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 4238 1090 8562 1303
Background FactorsEducation 019 231 013 092
Male 068 155 -570 -769
Married 188 289 681 619
African-American 348 495 002 002
Hispanic -105 -138 128 099
Asian and other -011 -011 -010 -006
Age 005 040 022 104
Age square 000 -009 -001 -249
Number of children 007 025 247 551
Weekday -757 -1064 2643 2198
Living alone 041 056 167 135
Single parents 055 060 329 213 Time Factor
TV time -004 -744 -008 -942
Sleep time -003 -661 -007 -751
Work time -003 -981 -009 -1636
ONLINE AT HOME -004 -337 -010 -510
ONLINE AT WORK 006 210 -001 -029
Adjusted R Square 013 014
F 5150 5634
N 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Organization Time on Child Car
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 529
5IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
would have to manipulate their entire diary not just one report of time spent ona particular activity
SIQSS therefore developed a research design that combines the best of
both worldsmdashthe detailed time-use estimates of the diary approach without therespondent burden of a 24-hour diary While closely following the basicmethodology of phone implemented diary studies such as those at theUniversity of Maryland these techniques were adapted to take advantage of theunique methods of Knowledge Networksrsquo survey instrument for online surveyadministration conducted via the Microsoft Web-TV set top box In May 2001Knowledge Networks fielded the first SI QSS Time-Diary Study with arepresentative sample of approximately 6000 Americans between the ages of 18and 64 Appendix A contains a more detailed description of the KnowledgeNetworks survey
METHODOLOGY
Like the University of Maryland time diary studies the SIQSS modifiedtime-diary study asked respondents about their activities ldquoyesterdayrdquo Rather
than covering the entire day however the focus was on six randomly selectedhours of the daymdashone in each of six time blocks (strata) night early morninglate morning afternoon early evening and late evening The sampling designwas structured to collect an even distribution of days of the week across thetotal sample and of hours over the course of the day for each respondent6
With a six-hour design the survey is less monotonous than a 24-hourdesign Thus the SIQSS diary is able to go into great detail about the socialcontext of each activity without fatiguing respondents This also permits morefollow-up questions including information on social context and interaction foreach and every primary activity7 Engaging a larger sample (n gt6000) provideshigh quality comparable data for each hour of the day That allows moredetailed data about each specific activity developing a more fine-grained pictureof time use that becomes the backbone of this study
THE DATA
This survey design provides ideal data for examining the fundamentalquestions regarding the relationship between Internet use and time spent ininterpersonal relationships and on social activities This data allowscomparison of when and where the Internet is used while controlling for various
demographic background factors such as education age work hours householdcomposition and for other key activities that might affect the relationshipbetween time online and time on sociability
Given the detailed diary design the survey collects much improved dataon the main independent variable time spent on the Internet Respondents areable to identify Internetemail use as an activity associated with a number of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 629
6IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
different main activities (work education social time etc) and were evenprompted about whether some of their activities (reading newspaperscorresponding) were done online
About one respondent in seven (13) report using Internetemail as amain activity on the diary day This percentage is larger than the 8 reportedby the University of Maryland study but it is much less than the 50 thatreport having used the Internetemail at some point yesterday in the usualrecall studies8 This may be because unfortunately the time estimate used inthis analysis does not include Internetemail use that occurs incidentally andtherefore is coded as a secondary activ i ty It misses for instance individualswho reported talking on the phone as a main activity but who checked theiremail briefly at the same time Examining the secondary activities in the SIQSSdata is a substantial task and is planned for future research
Given the rich and fine-grained nature of the data there are a variety of different ways to measure sociability Three measures of sociability are
constructed (1) the number of minutes spent actively engaging or participatingin an activity with friends (2) the number of minutes spent actively engaging orparticipating in an activity with family9 and (3) the number of minutes spent on
socializing activities (eg visiting parties etc) These variables are quitedifferent measures of sociability The active engagement measures of timespent with friends or family incorporates any time together whether going todinner doing chores tending to children or anything it only requires that therespondent was doing the activity with a friend (or family member) The socialactivity variable on the other hand includes only those activities thatrespondents define as socializing activities (visiting parties and the like) sothat this measure may omit social interactions that occur while say watchingtelevision traveling etc In other words the active engagement measure isdefined by information about wi th w hom the respondent did an activity whilethe socializing variable is defined by the information about what activity therespondent did While there is undoubtedly some overlap this providesmeasures of sociability from different angles The active engagement (withwhom) measure should be the most general and complete definition of interpersonal interaction but the activity-based measure of sociability providesmore comparability with previous research These two types of measures of
interpersonal interaction thus serve as the main dependent variables in theanalysis of the relationship between Internet use and sociabil ity that follows
Time use for each of these measures was computed by summing thenumber of minutes spent on each as a main acti v i t y across the six diary hours10
Table 1 presents the basic distributional characteristics of the main independentvariable (time spent using the Internetmdashat home and at work) and the threemain dependent variables (time spent with friends time spent with family timeon social activities) The mean median and standard deviation of each measureare shown in extrapolated minutes spent over 24 hours11
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 729
7IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 1 DIARY TIMES FOR INTERNET USE SOCIAL ACTIVITIES AND SOCIAL CONTACTS (IN MINUTES PER DAY )
Mean Median Std Deviation N
Activities Time online at home 214 169 198 6146
Time online at work 33 29 84 6146
Time spent on social activities 575 315 411 6146
With Whom
Active time with family 2814 2641 988 6146
Active time with friends 873 543 546 6146
DATAANALYSIS
Before moving to the multivariate analysis it is useful to examine the
bivariate comparison of the sociability measures between Internet users andInternet nonusers (noting of course that this ignores variation in Internet useand fails to control for important demographic characteristics) Table 2 showsthat Internet users spend less time on most ldquotypicalrdquo social activities as well asless time doing activities with friends and family
This basic cross comparison of the data suggests that Internet users arespending less time on social activities and personal interactions but it isnecessary to explore this relationship in a multivariate setting before drawingany conclusions Moreover to advance an understanding of the complex affectsof the Internet on sociabil ity it is important to look more closely at type of Internet time It is overly simplistic to look for one effect for al l Internet useWhere and when an individual uses the Internet may be as important as how
much he or she uses it For instance does time spent using the Internet athome have a greater impact on face time with family members than time spenton the Internet at work
While the ldquodisplacementrdquo hypothesis predicts that Internet use at homehas a negative affect on social time with friends and family the ldquoefficiencyrdquohypothesis predicts no relationship or even a positive relationship betweenInternet use and sociability regardless of time or location The followingmultivariate regression analysis will help to identify which hypothesis onaverage more closely reflects the observed relationships between I nternet useand sociabil ity
Numerous control variables are included in the analysis to identify the
independent effect of Internet use (at home and at work) on the three measuresof sociability Measures of time spent on sleep and time spent on work areincluded in the analysis because these portions of daily life are fairly fixed It isexpected that Internet use comes disproportionately at the expense of discretionary time that could otherwise be spent in face-to-face socialengagement Time spent on sleep is important because it defines the length of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 829
8IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 2 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERNETUSERS AND NONUSERS
(IN MINUTES PER DAY FROM YESTERDAY DIARY DATA)Non-Internet
User
(n =5388)
Internet User
(n =757) Differenc
Social Activitie
Parties 67 11 -56
Socialize 130 126 -04
Conversation 140 96 -44
Telephone calls 13 20 07
Sports event 21 01 -20
Culture event 18 07 -11
Total 495 369 -126
Religious servicegroup 19 12 -07
All organizations 66 61 -05
All child care 351 195 -156
With Whom
Time spent with family 2874 1850 -1024
Time spent with friends 942 598 -343
the conscious daymdashit expands or contracts the day In terms of the displacementmodel time on sleep reduces the denominator of time available Work time isan important control because of the potential spurious relationship betweentime spent working and sociability For instance it can be expected that
individuals who work more are likely to spend more time on the Internet (atwork) Those who work more can also be expected to spend less time with theirfriends and family Thus work hours should be included in the regression modelin order to identify the direct affect of I nternet use on sociability independent of time spent working
Time spent watching TV is included in the regression model as aninteresting comparison because Internet and TV use have often been thought of as equivalent or substitutable uses of time Most previous studies have found anegative relationship between TV time and Internet time (which is alsoobserved in this datamdashcorrelation of -027) This in and of itself casts somedoubt on the efficiency hypothesis I f Internet use has the effect of giving people
mor e leisure time (to spend with friends and family) then it should also givepeople more time to watch TVmdashthe number one leisure activity of AmericansAt the same time it is necessary to control for basic demographic
characteristics which might be related to both I nternet use and sociabil ity andcould thus distort the observed relationship The regression models thereforecontrol for marital status gender age education raceethnicity number of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 929
9IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
children single parenthood and living alone Table 3 presents the findings fromthe multivariate regression analysis of effect of Internet use differentiated byuse at home and use at work on time spent with friends family and on social
activities12
I t is immediately apparent from Table 3 that time spent on the Internetldquoat homerdquo is significantly negatively related to time spent with family andfriends and on social activities However the amount of I nternet use at workdoes not have a significant impact on sociability once the number of hours spentat work (for pay) has been taken into account This is consistent with thedisplacement hypothesis Home is the critical environment where users face thedirect tradeoff between Internetemail use and actually ldquobeing withrdquo family Forevery hour spent on the Internet at home the model suggests individuals arespending an average of almost 30 fewer minutes with their family This meansthat time online at home is coming at the expense of time with family not justtime on sleep TV or other asocial activities The relationship is identical
though substantively weaker for time spent with friends and for time spent onsocial activities
The results also verify that the statistical controls while predictable and
interesting in their own right do not eliminate the underlying ldquodisplacementrdquorelationships between amount of Internet use yesterday and the amount of active face-to-face time As might be expected men are significantly less likelyto spend time with family than women (and more time with friends and onsocial activities) Married people and single parents spend more time withfamily but less time with friends and on social activities Moreover individualsliving alone are less likely to spend time with family friends and on socializingEven though the analysis is limited to those under age 65 age still reduces face-to-face interactions with family members friends and social activities Turningto the other time controls time spent on sleep work and TV watching asexpected has a negative relationship with all measures of sociability
These findings concur with the earlier findings of the SIQSS and theKennedy School studies However they are now based on more detailed androbust data Time can be reallocatedmdashfrom time spent with friends family or onsocial activities to time spent on the Internetmdashbut not expanded it is indeedlike a hydraulic system where increases in activity in one area reduce time
available for other activities
INTERNET USE AND LEISURE WEEKDAYS VERSUS WEEKENDS
While the above analysis provides new insights regarding the impact of location of Internet use on sociability when the Internet is used may alsoprovide an important distinction For most people the weekend typically holdsmany more discretionary moments in the day in which individuals can choosehow they wish to spend their time and with whom they wish to spend it I f the
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1029
10IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 3 HOMEWORK INTERNET USE AND SOCIAL CONTACTACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 21968 2910 59690 3928 29947 2712 Background FactorsEducation 010 061 036 110 003 013
Male 200 235 -824 -480 550 441
Married -577 -456 2765 1086 -852 -461
African-American -256 -188 -564 -205 164 082
Hispanic -046 -031 -211 -071 -260 -121
Asian and other -143 -074 -503 -130 -149 -053
Age -036 -145 083 168 -112 -311
Age square 000 073 -001 -228 001 222
Number of children -170 -330 108 104 -215 -286
Weekday -3419 -2473 -8943 -3215 -3422 -1693
Living alone -166 -117 -2385 -833 -485 -233
Single parents -322 -182 876 246 -149 -058
Time Factors TV time -018 -1877 001 039 -019 -1351
Sleep time -013 -1322 -036 -1783 -021 -1395
Work time -014 -2219 -040 -3078 -013 -1397
ONLINE AT HOME -013 -574 -048 -1094 -018 -567
ONLINE AT WORK 005 096 018 171 -003 -034
Adjusted R Square 044 060 026
F 26124 49953 11963
N 5738 5738 5738
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
displacement model is correct the amount of home use of the Internet shouldhave its strongest impact on time spent with both friends and family on
weekends when people have more freedom to choose what they wish to do andwith whom if anyone they wish to spend their time 13 Table 4 reports theregression results for the weekend analysis and Table 5 reports the regressionresults for the weekday analysis
The relationship between time spent on Internetemail at home on theweekend and time spent with family is the strongest observed so far thecoefficient is -069 (see Table 5) This means that for every hour spent onlinethere is a corresponding 41 minutes less spent with family members While thisnumber is substantively small for the average respondent (with an average of only 25 minutes spent on the Internet it results in 15 fewer minutes withfamily) it is quite easy to see that for heavy Internet users this effect is quiteprofound The weekday regressions too find that time spent on the Internet at
home has a strong significant and negative influence on time spent with familymembers but the strength of the relationship is only about half of what it is onweekends once again offering support for the displacement hypothesis14
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1129
11IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 4 ANALYSIS OF WEEKDAY INTERNET USE
Diary Minutesβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 15092 1927 44972 2608 22567 1880 Background Factor
Education 012 074 044 124 -011 -044
Male 229 264 -809 -424 447 337
Married -543 -426 2506 893 -674 -345 African-American -189 -132 -493 -157 151 069
Hispanic -183 -120 -312 -093 -191 -081Asian and other -257 -133 -498 -117 -318 -107
Age -022 -086 044 080 -068 -176
Age square 000 057 -001 -139 000 105Number of children -096 -185 097 085 -214 -269
Living alone -076 -054 -2266 -727 -348 -160
Single parents -331 -184 1020 258 100 036
Time Factor TV time -015 -1434 009 408 -017 -1091 Sleep time -011 -1003 -031 -1329 -017 -1045
Work time -011 -1702 -031 -2168 -010 -1024
ONLINE AT HOME -010 -469 -039 -832 -012 -370
ONLINE AT WORK 004 087 011 105 -004 -056
Adjusted R Square 010 023 007
F 2961 7671 1912
N 4092 4092 4092
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
CONCLUSION
Results from Americarsquos first online time diary survey offer strong supportfor the ldquohydraul icrdquo or displacement hypothesismdashand no evidence to support the
efficiency hypothesis On average the more time spent on the Internet at homethe less time spent with friends family and on social activities in contrastInternet use at work has little effect on sociability Similarly Internet useduring the weekends is more strongly related to decreased time interacting andsocializing than Internet use during weekdays for it is during this time whenInternet and email use competes most directly with time spent in face-to-faceinteractions with others
Internet use and sociability were examined from a number of differentangles with invariable support for the displacement hypothesis Of the different
measures of sociability the active engagement measure appears to best capture
interpersonal interaction The social activity variable is just one subset of face-to-
face interaction and it likely captures time with friends more than time with familyFor instance parents undoubtedly spent less time on ldquosocializingrdquo activities such as
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1229
12IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 5 ANALYSIS OF WEEKEND INTERNET USE
Diary Minuteβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 29194 1671 71013 2311 38464 1573 Background Factor
Education -007 -017 -024 -035 038 068
Male 027 013 -1142 -321 710 251
Married -702 -231 3301 616 -1413 -331
African-American -319 -105 -896 -168 257 060
Hispanic 230 069 -054 -009 -450 -097
Asian and other 154 033 -444 -054 322 049
Age -089 -155 101 100 -242 -303
Age square 001 078 -002 -126 002 250
Number of children -310 -251 289 133 -176 -102
Living alone -320 -091 -2678 -432 -840 -170
Single parents -397 -095 370 050 -925 -158
Time Factor TV time -026 -1164 -013 -337 -024 -754
Sleep time -020 -857 -048 -1198 -029 -911
Work time -023 -1442 -063 -2271 -021 -940
ONLINE AT HOME -016 -265 -069 -665 -036 -437
ONLINE AT WORK -003 -014 019 047 -018 -057
Adjusted R Square 018 034 011
F 2348 5339 1379
N 1645 1645 1645
Note
p lt05 p lt 01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
parties or theatre but that hardly means thatthey are spending less time in
interpersonal interactions In fact most studies of social networks find thatmarried individuals have stronger social support systems than single people
These findings confirm that the quantity of face-to-face interpersonalinteraction is affected by how an individual uses and distributes his or her timeduring the day Future research should compare traditional interactions withcyber interactions to evaluate the extent to which the social value of this newform of communication compensates for the potential negative consequencesBut in studying these social benefits researchers must acknowledge that theInternet al so has the potential to hold social detriments
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1329
13IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
REFERENCES
Cole J I Suman M Schramm P Van Bel D Lunn B Maguire P
Hanson K Singh R and Aquino J S 2000 The UCL A I nternet Report Sur veying t he Digita l Fut ur e Los Angeles UCLA Center forCommunication Policy
Franzen A 2000 Does the Internet Make Us Lonely European Sociological
Review 16(4) p 427-438Hafner K 2000 Working at Home TodayNew York Tim es November 2Hampton K N and Wellman B 1999 Netville On-Line and Off-L ine
Amer ican Behavioral Scient ist 43(3) p 478-495Kadushin C 1982 Social Density and Mental Health In Marsden P V and
Lin N (eds) Social Str uctur e and Netw or k A nalysis Beverly Hi lls CASage
National Public Radio Kaiser Family Foundation and Kennedy School of
Government 2000 Survey Shows Widespread Enthusiasm for High TechnologyNPR Onli ne Repor t 3 (February)
Nie N 1999 Tracking Our Techno Future Am er ican Demograph ics 21(7) p
50-52Nie N 2001 Sociabil ity Interpersonal Relations and the Internet Reconciling
Conflicting Findings Am eri can Behavioral Scienti st 45(3) p 420-435Nie N and Erbring L 2000 I nt ern et and Society A Prel imi nary Report
Stanford CA Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society
Repr in ted in t hi s issue
Nie N and Sackman H 1970 The Information U ti l i t y and Social Choice Montvale NJ AFIPS
PEW Internet and American Life Project 2000 Tracking Online Life HowWomen Use the Internet to Cultivate Relationships with Family andFriends Onli ne Int ern et L ife Report May 10
Putnam R 1995 Bowling Alone Americarsquos Declining Social Capital Journ al of Democracy 6 p 65-78
Putnam R 2000 Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival of American
Communi ty New York Simon and SchusterRobinson J and Godbey G 1997 Time for Life The Surpris ing Ways
Am er icans U se Their T im e University Park PA Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press
Robinson J P Kestnbaum M Neustadtl A and Alvarez A 2001Information Technology the Internet and Time Displacement Revision
of paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Associationof Public Opinion Research in Portland OR May 2000 Next ar t i cle in
t hi s issue
Salaff J Wellman B and Dimitrova D 1998 There is a Time and Place for Teleworking In R Suomi P J ackson L Hollman M Aspnas (eds)Teleworking Environments Proceedings of the Third International
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1429
14IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
Work shop on Telework Turku Finland Turku Center for ComputerScience General Publication 8 p 11-31
Steiner G A 1963 The People Look at Television A Study of Audience
Att i tudes New York KnopfUCLA Internet Report 2000 Surveying th e Dig i ta l Fut ur e (SDF) Los AngelesCA October
Ulsaner E 2000 Social Capital and the Net Proceedings of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) 43 (December) p 60-64
Wellman B Haase A Q Witte J and Hampton K 2001 Does the InternetIncrease Decrease or Supplement Social Capital Social NetworksParticipation and Community Commitment American Behavioral
Scientist 45(3) p 437-456Wellman B and Wortley S 1990 Different Strokes from Different Folks
Community Ties and Social Support Am er ican Jour nal of Sociology 96p 558-588
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1529
15IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX AK NOWLEDGE NETWORKS METHODOLOGY
The data used in this analysis were collected by Knowledge Networksusing a new time-diary methodology that needs further explanation In order toovercome the fact that close to half of all Americans did not have access to theInternet at the time of the study Knowledge Networks provides representativenational samples with Internet equipment in exchange for participation insurveys Respondents in the Knowledge Networks (KN) panel are randomlyrecruited through Random Digit Dial (RDD) sampling methods on a quarterly-updated sample frame consisting of the entire US telephone population and areprovided with WebTV equipment All telephone numbers have an equalprobability of selection and sampling is done without replacement Although
this sampling technique entails the coverage error of excluding householdswithout telephones (less than 5 of population) this approach has significantlybroader coverage than sampling techniques that draw only from computersusers with I nternet access (eg Harris I nteractive)
Before the initial telephone calls are made households in the RDDsample with listed addresses are sent letters describing the proposed exchangerelationship During the initial RDD telephone interview respondents are toldthey have been selected to participate in an important national study and theywill be given a WebTV receiver that will allow them free access to the Internet if they will answer brief surveys on their television I t is emphasized thatconfidentiality and privacy are always upheld and that no other household canreplace theirs Respondents are immediately polled regarding the extent towhich members of their households are experienced with the Internet andproficient with computers
Once the WebTV equipment is installed in their homes respondents areasked to respond to some profile surveys that record the key attributes of eachhousehold member For example respondents are asked about their genderdate of birth ethnicity education income etc All adults (aged 18 and older) of the selected household are asked to respond to surveys via WebTV Eachmember is sent one short survey per week usually not taking more than 15minutes to complete In rare instances when panel members are asked torespond to longer surveys they would be given a week off or some other form of incentive Respondents can respond to the surveys at any time at their
convenience and are permitted to stop before they complete the survey andreturn to it at a later time Respondents who fail to respond to eight consecutivesurveys will have the WebTV receiver removed from their homes Detailedinformation on the methodology can be found at wwwknowledgenetworkscom
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1629
16IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX BDIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 6
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activitycategorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity they were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking Kitchen Cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard WorkInternetEmail Telephone Calls PlantPet Care Paperwork OrganizeUnpackOther (user defined)
For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone and ComputerWork were included as options This picks up Internet use whether that usewas say educational professional or simply recreational
The respondents were then asked how longthe activity lasted (10 min to20 min to 1 hour or more) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whetheralone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother)
Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the same
time as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a check list of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked toidentify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown their completeddiary form based on their answers to ensure that their results were accurate
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of I nternet use the content and number of emails (personal vs work related) their types of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed) their amount of TV watching sleep and social interactionsBesides providing supplemental information these follow-up questions provided
an additional measure of the independent and dependent variables (andanalysis were replicated using these measures with identical results)mdashas wellas proving an accuracy check for their time-diary estimates For sample diaryscreens see NieHillygusAppendixBdoc
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1729
17IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 6 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activitiesHousework Cleaning chores cooking home financesChild Care Feeding clothing playing with childrenErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail readSocial Outing Socializing parties events moviesRecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies gamesOrganizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacksDressWash Dress shower bathe groomSleep Sleep nap or dozeOther User Defined
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1829
18IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX CREPL ICATION WITH ldquoESTIMATEDrdquo INTERNET USE
For comparabil ity with the first Internet study the results are replicated usingthe follow-up measure of Internet use in which respondents are asked toestimate the number of hours and minutes spent on the Internet and Emailyesterday The results are reported in Table 7 The relationship betweenestimated time online and time spent with family friends and on socialactivities remains negative and significant though the relationship is not quiteas crisp as those reported in Table 3 (generally weaker relationships on thecoefficients and slightly smaller R -squared values)
TABLE 7 ANALYSIS WITH ESTIMATED INTERNET TIME (FOLLOW-UP MEASURE)
Diary Minute
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 53254 1370 37296 1323 20805 1182
Background Factor
Education 190 158 026 030 064 116
Male -3211 -502 1915 413 815 282
Married 10085 1065 -2782 -405 -1533 -357
African-American -1905 -186 706 095 -490 -106
Hispanic -1156 -105 -861 -107 -1178 -235
Asian and other -2198 -152 -619 -059 -248 -038
Age 221 120 -441 -330 -176 -210
Age square -004 -180 004 239 001 148
Number of children 477 123 -775 -277 -637 -364
Weekday -9346 -1290 -3681 -701 -3279 -999
Living alon -8228 -771 -1755 -227 -225 -047Single parents 3098 233 -129 -013 -493 -082
Time Factors
TV time 000 005 -018 -1187 -015 -1528
Sleep time -032 -1819 -017 -1308 -008 -1015
WORK TIME -037 -3091 -012 -1345 -010 -1914
ONLINE TIME (EST) -029 -777 -013 -487 -004 -219
Adjusted R Square 029 009 013
F 15060 3644 5320
N 5738 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Active Time wFamil Active Time wFriend Time on Social Activitie
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1929
19IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX DREPL ICATION FOR TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND TIME ON CHILD CARE
The analysis was also replicated for two other measures of sociabilitytime spent on organization activities and time spent on child care The resultsfor this analysis can be found in Table 8 Once again the results find asignificant negative relationship between time spent on the Internet at homeand the dependent variables The results are substantively smaller than theresults found in previous analysis but they nonetheless offer support for thedisplacement hypothesis
TABLE 8 TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 4238 1090 8562 1303
Background FactorsEducation 019 231 013 092
Male 068 155 -570 -769
Married 188 289 681 619
African-American 348 495 002 002
Hispanic -105 -138 128 099
Asian and other -011 -011 -010 -006
Age 005 040 022 104
Age square 000 -009 -001 -249
Number of children 007 025 247 551
Weekday -757 -1064 2643 2198
Living alone 041 056 167 135
Single parents 055 060 329 213 Time Factor
TV time -004 -744 -008 -942
Sleep time -003 -661 -007 -751
Work time -003 -981 -009 -1636
ONLINE AT HOME -004 -337 -010 -510
ONLINE AT WORK 006 210 -001 -029
Adjusted R Square 013 014
F 5150 5634
N 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Organization Time on Child Car
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 629
6IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
different main activities (work education social time etc) and were evenprompted about whether some of their activities (reading newspaperscorresponding) were done online
About one respondent in seven (13) report using Internetemail as amain activity on the diary day This percentage is larger than the 8 reportedby the University of Maryland study but it is much less than the 50 thatreport having used the Internetemail at some point yesterday in the usualrecall studies8 This may be because unfortunately the time estimate used inthis analysis does not include Internetemail use that occurs incidentally andtherefore is coded as a secondary activ i ty It misses for instance individualswho reported talking on the phone as a main activity but who checked theiremail briefly at the same time Examining the secondary activities in the SIQSSdata is a substantial task and is planned for future research
Given the rich and fine-grained nature of the data there are a variety of different ways to measure sociability Three measures of sociability are
constructed (1) the number of minutes spent actively engaging or participatingin an activity with friends (2) the number of minutes spent actively engaging orparticipating in an activity with family9 and (3) the number of minutes spent on
socializing activities (eg visiting parties etc) These variables are quitedifferent measures of sociability The active engagement measures of timespent with friends or family incorporates any time together whether going todinner doing chores tending to children or anything it only requires that therespondent was doing the activity with a friend (or family member) The socialactivity variable on the other hand includes only those activities thatrespondents define as socializing activities (visiting parties and the like) sothat this measure may omit social interactions that occur while say watchingtelevision traveling etc In other words the active engagement measure isdefined by information about wi th w hom the respondent did an activity whilethe socializing variable is defined by the information about what activity therespondent did While there is undoubtedly some overlap this providesmeasures of sociability from different angles The active engagement (withwhom) measure should be the most general and complete definition of interpersonal interaction but the activity-based measure of sociability providesmore comparability with previous research These two types of measures of
interpersonal interaction thus serve as the main dependent variables in theanalysis of the relationship between Internet use and sociabil ity that follows
Time use for each of these measures was computed by summing thenumber of minutes spent on each as a main acti v i t y across the six diary hours10
Table 1 presents the basic distributional characteristics of the main independentvariable (time spent using the Internetmdashat home and at work) and the threemain dependent variables (time spent with friends time spent with family timeon social activities) The mean median and standard deviation of each measureare shown in extrapolated minutes spent over 24 hours11
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 729
7IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 1 DIARY TIMES FOR INTERNET USE SOCIAL ACTIVITIES AND SOCIAL CONTACTS (IN MINUTES PER DAY )
Mean Median Std Deviation N
Activities Time online at home 214 169 198 6146
Time online at work 33 29 84 6146
Time spent on social activities 575 315 411 6146
With Whom
Active time with family 2814 2641 988 6146
Active time with friends 873 543 546 6146
DATAANALYSIS
Before moving to the multivariate analysis it is useful to examine the
bivariate comparison of the sociability measures between Internet users andInternet nonusers (noting of course that this ignores variation in Internet useand fails to control for important demographic characteristics) Table 2 showsthat Internet users spend less time on most ldquotypicalrdquo social activities as well asless time doing activities with friends and family
This basic cross comparison of the data suggests that Internet users arespending less time on social activities and personal interactions but it isnecessary to explore this relationship in a multivariate setting before drawingany conclusions Moreover to advance an understanding of the complex affectsof the Internet on sociabil ity it is important to look more closely at type of Internet time It is overly simplistic to look for one effect for al l Internet useWhere and when an individual uses the Internet may be as important as how
much he or she uses it For instance does time spent using the Internet athome have a greater impact on face time with family members than time spenton the Internet at work
While the ldquodisplacementrdquo hypothesis predicts that Internet use at homehas a negative affect on social time with friends and family the ldquoefficiencyrdquohypothesis predicts no relationship or even a positive relationship betweenInternet use and sociability regardless of time or location The followingmultivariate regression analysis will help to identify which hypothesis onaverage more closely reflects the observed relationships between I nternet useand sociabil ity
Numerous control variables are included in the analysis to identify the
independent effect of Internet use (at home and at work) on the three measuresof sociability Measures of time spent on sleep and time spent on work areincluded in the analysis because these portions of daily life are fairly fixed It isexpected that Internet use comes disproportionately at the expense of discretionary time that could otherwise be spent in face-to-face socialengagement Time spent on sleep is important because it defines the length of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 829
8IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 2 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERNETUSERS AND NONUSERS
(IN MINUTES PER DAY FROM YESTERDAY DIARY DATA)Non-Internet
User
(n =5388)
Internet User
(n =757) Differenc
Social Activitie
Parties 67 11 -56
Socialize 130 126 -04
Conversation 140 96 -44
Telephone calls 13 20 07
Sports event 21 01 -20
Culture event 18 07 -11
Total 495 369 -126
Religious servicegroup 19 12 -07
All organizations 66 61 -05
All child care 351 195 -156
With Whom
Time spent with family 2874 1850 -1024
Time spent with friends 942 598 -343
the conscious daymdashit expands or contracts the day In terms of the displacementmodel time on sleep reduces the denominator of time available Work time isan important control because of the potential spurious relationship betweentime spent working and sociability For instance it can be expected that
individuals who work more are likely to spend more time on the Internet (atwork) Those who work more can also be expected to spend less time with theirfriends and family Thus work hours should be included in the regression modelin order to identify the direct affect of I nternet use on sociability independent of time spent working
Time spent watching TV is included in the regression model as aninteresting comparison because Internet and TV use have often been thought of as equivalent or substitutable uses of time Most previous studies have found anegative relationship between TV time and Internet time (which is alsoobserved in this datamdashcorrelation of -027) This in and of itself casts somedoubt on the efficiency hypothesis I f Internet use has the effect of giving people
mor e leisure time (to spend with friends and family) then it should also givepeople more time to watch TVmdashthe number one leisure activity of AmericansAt the same time it is necessary to control for basic demographic
characteristics which might be related to both I nternet use and sociabil ity andcould thus distort the observed relationship The regression models thereforecontrol for marital status gender age education raceethnicity number of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 929
9IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
children single parenthood and living alone Table 3 presents the findings fromthe multivariate regression analysis of effect of Internet use differentiated byuse at home and use at work on time spent with friends family and on social
activities12
I t is immediately apparent from Table 3 that time spent on the Internetldquoat homerdquo is significantly negatively related to time spent with family andfriends and on social activities However the amount of I nternet use at workdoes not have a significant impact on sociability once the number of hours spentat work (for pay) has been taken into account This is consistent with thedisplacement hypothesis Home is the critical environment where users face thedirect tradeoff between Internetemail use and actually ldquobeing withrdquo family Forevery hour spent on the Internet at home the model suggests individuals arespending an average of almost 30 fewer minutes with their family This meansthat time online at home is coming at the expense of time with family not justtime on sleep TV or other asocial activities The relationship is identical
though substantively weaker for time spent with friends and for time spent onsocial activities
The results also verify that the statistical controls while predictable and
interesting in their own right do not eliminate the underlying ldquodisplacementrdquorelationships between amount of Internet use yesterday and the amount of active face-to-face time As might be expected men are significantly less likelyto spend time with family than women (and more time with friends and onsocial activities) Married people and single parents spend more time withfamily but less time with friends and on social activities Moreover individualsliving alone are less likely to spend time with family friends and on socializingEven though the analysis is limited to those under age 65 age still reduces face-to-face interactions with family members friends and social activities Turningto the other time controls time spent on sleep work and TV watching asexpected has a negative relationship with all measures of sociability
These findings concur with the earlier findings of the SIQSS and theKennedy School studies However they are now based on more detailed androbust data Time can be reallocatedmdashfrom time spent with friends family or onsocial activities to time spent on the Internetmdashbut not expanded it is indeedlike a hydraulic system where increases in activity in one area reduce time
available for other activities
INTERNET USE AND LEISURE WEEKDAYS VERSUS WEEKENDS
While the above analysis provides new insights regarding the impact of location of Internet use on sociability when the Internet is used may alsoprovide an important distinction For most people the weekend typically holdsmany more discretionary moments in the day in which individuals can choosehow they wish to spend their time and with whom they wish to spend it I f the
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1029
10IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 3 HOMEWORK INTERNET USE AND SOCIAL CONTACTACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 21968 2910 59690 3928 29947 2712 Background FactorsEducation 010 061 036 110 003 013
Male 200 235 -824 -480 550 441
Married -577 -456 2765 1086 -852 -461
African-American -256 -188 -564 -205 164 082
Hispanic -046 -031 -211 -071 -260 -121
Asian and other -143 -074 -503 -130 -149 -053
Age -036 -145 083 168 -112 -311
Age square 000 073 -001 -228 001 222
Number of children -170 -330 108 104 -215 -286
Weekday -3419 -2473 -8943 -3215 -3422 -1693
Living alone -166 -117 -2385 -833 -485 -233
Single parents -322 -182 876 246 -149 -058
Time Factors TV time -018 -1877 001 039 -019 -1351
Sleep time -013 -1322 -036 -1783 -021 -1395
Work time -014 -2219 -040 -3078 -013 -1397
ONLINE AT HOME -013 -574 -048 -1094 -018 -567
ONLINE AT WORK 005 096 018 171 -003 -034
Adjusted R Square 044 060 026
F 26124 49953 11963
N 5738 5738 5738
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
displacement model is correct the amount of home use of the Internet shouldhave its strongest impact on time spent with both friends and family on
weekends when people have more freedom to choose what they wish to do andwith whom if anyone they wish to spend their time 13 Table 4 reports theregression results for the weekend analysis and Table 5 reports the regressionresults for the weekday analysis
The relationship between time spent on Internetemail at home on theweekend and time spent with family is the strongest observed so far thecoefficient is -069 (see Table 5) This means that for every hour spent onlinethere is a corresponding 41 minutes less spent with family members While thisnumber is substantively small for the average respondent (with an average of only 25 minutes spent on the Internet it results in 15 fewer minutes withfamily) it is quite easy to see that for heavy Internet users this effect is quiteprofound The weekday regressions too find that time spent on the Internet at
home has a strong significant and negative influence on time spent with familymembers but the strength of the relationship is only about half of what it is onweekends once again offering support for the displacement hypothesis14
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1129
11IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 4 ANALYSIS OF WEEKDAY INTERNET USE
Diary Minutesβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 15092 1927 44972 2608 22567 1880 Background Factor
Education 012 074 044 124 -011 -044
Male 229 264 -809 -424 447 337
Married -543 -426 2506 893 -674 -345 African-American -189 -132 -493 -157 151 069
Hispanic -183 -120 -312 -093 -191 -081Asian and other -257 -133 -498 -117 -318 -107
Age -022 -086 044 080 -068 -176
Age square 000 057 -001 -139 000 105Number of children -096 -185 097 085 -214 -269
Living alone -076 -054 -2266 -727 -348 -160
Single parents -331 -184 1020 258 100 036
Time Factor TV time -015 -1434 009 408 -017 -1091 Sleep time -011 -1003 -031 -1329 -017 -1045
Work time -011 -1702 -031 -2168 -010 -1024
ONLINE AT HOME -010 -469 -039 -832 -012 -370
ONLINE AT WORK 004 087 011 105 -004 -056
Adjusted R Square 010 023 007
F 2961 7671 1912
N 4092 4092 4092
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
CONCLUSION
Results from Americarsquos first online time diary survey offer strong supportfor the ldquohydraul icrdquo or displacement hypothesismdashand no evidence to support the
efficiency hypothesis On average the more time spent on the Internet at homethe less time spent with friends family and on social activities in contrastInternet use at work has little effect on sociability Similarly Internet useduring the weekends is more strongly related to decreased time interacting andsocializing than Internet use during weekdays for it is during this time whenInternet and email use competes most directly with time spent in face-to-faceinteractions with others
Internet use and sociability were examined from a number of differentangles with invariable support for the displacement hypothesis Of the different
measures of sociability the active engagement measure appears to best capture
interpersonal interaction The social activity variable is just one subset of face-to-
face interaction and it likely captures time with friends more than time with familyFor instance parents undoubtedly spent less time on ldquosocializingrdquo activities such as
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1229
12IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 5 ANALYSIS OF WEEKEND INTERNET USE
Diary Minuteβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 29194 1671 71013 2311 38464 1573 Background Factor
Education -007 -017 -024 -035 038 068
Male 027 013 -1142 -321 710 251
Married -702 -231 3301 616 -1413 -331
African-American -319 -105 -896 -168 257 060
Hispanic 230 069 -054 -009 -450 -097
Asian and other 154 033 -444 -054 322 049
Age -089 -155 101 100 -242 -303
Age square 001 078 -002 -126 002 250
Number of children -310 -251 289 133 -176 -102
Living alone -320 -091 -2678 -432 -840 -170
Single parents -397 -095 370 050 -925 -158
Time Factor TV time -026 -1164 -013 -337 -024 -754
Sleep time -020 -857 -048 -1198 -029 -911
Work time -023 -1442 -063 -2271 -021 -940
ONLINE AT HOME -016 -265 -069 -665 -036 -437
ONLINE AT WORK -003 -014 019 047 -018 -057
Adjusted R Square 018 034 011
F 2348 5339 1379
N 1645 1645 1645
Note
p lt05 p lt 01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
parties or theatre but that hardly means thatthey are spending less time in
interpersonal interactions In fact most studies of social networks find thatmarried individuals have stronger social support systems than single people
These findings confirm that the quantity of face-to-face interpersonalinteraction is affected by how an individual uses and distributes his or her timeduring the day Future research should compare traditional interactions withcyber interactions to evaluate the extent to which the social value of this newform of communication compensates for the potential negative consequencesBut in studying these social benefits researchers must acknowledge that theInternet al so has the potential to hold social detriments
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1329
13IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
REFERENCES
Cole J I Suman M Schramm P Van Bel D Lunn B Maguire P
Hanson K Singh R and Aquino J S 2000 The UCL A I nternet Report Sur veying t he Digita l Fut ur e Los Angeles UCLA Center forCommunication Policy
Franzen A 2000 Does the Internet Make Us Lonely European Sociological
Review 16(4) p 427-438Hafner K 2000 Working at Home TodayNew York Tim es November 2Hampton K N and Wellman B 1999 Netville On-Line and Off-L ine
Amer ican Behavioral Scient ist 43(3) p 478-495Kadushin C 1982 Social Density and Mental Health In Marsden P V and
Lin N (eds) Social Str uctur e and Netw or k A nalysis Beverly Hi lls CASage
National Public Radio Kaiser Family Foundation and Kennedy School of
Government 2000 Survey Shows Widespread Enthusiasm for High TechnologyNPR Onli ne Repor t 3 (February)
Nie N 1999 Tracking Our Techno Future Am er ican Demograph ics 21(7) p
50-52Nie N 2001 Sociabil ity Interpersonal Relations and the Internet Reconciling
Conflicting Findings Am eri can Behavioral Scienti st 45(3) p 420-435Nie N and Erbring L 2000 I nt ern et and Society A Prel imi nary Report
Stanford CA Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society
Repr in ted in t hi s issue
Nie N and Sackman H 1970 The Information U ti l i t y and Social Choice Montvale NJ AFIPS
PEW Internet and American Life Project 2000 Tracking Online Life HowWomen Use the Internet to Cultivate Relationships with Family andFriends Onli ne Int ern et L ife Report May 10
Putnam R 1995 Bowling Alone Americarsquos Declining Social Capital Journ al of Democracy 6 p 65-78
Putnam R 2000 Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival of American
Communi ty New York Simon and SchusterRobinson J and Godbey G 1997 Time for Life The Surpris ing Ways
Am er icans U se Their T im e University Park PA Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press
Robinson J P Kestnbaum M Neustadtl A and Alvarez A 2001Information Technology the Internet and Time Displacement Revision
of paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Associationof Public Opinion Research in Portland OR May 2000 Next ar t i cle in
t hi s issue
Salaff J Wellman B and Dimitrova D 1998 There is a Time and Place for Teleworking In R Suomi P J ackson L Hollman M Aspnas (eds)Teleworking Environments Proceedings of the Third International
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1429
14IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
Work shop on Telework Turku Finland Turku Center for ComputerScience General Publication 8 p 11-31
Steiner G A 1963 The People Look at Television A Study of Audience
Att i tudes New York KnopfUCLA Internet Report 2000 Surveying th e Dig i ta l Fut ur e (SDF) Los AngelesCA October
Ulsaner E 2000 Social Capital and the Net Proceedings of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) 43 (December) p 60-64
Wellman B Haase A Q Witte J and Hampton K 2001 Does the InternetIncrease Decrease or Supplement Social Capital Social NetworksParticipation and Community Commitment American Behavioral
Scientist 45(3) p 437-456Wellman B and Wortley S 1990 Different Strokes from Different Folks
Community Ties and Social Support Am er ican Jour nal of Sociology 96p 558-588
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1529
15IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX AK NOWLEDGE NETWORKS METHODOLOGY
The data used in this analysis were collected by Knowledge Networksusing a new time-diary methodology that needs further explanation In order toovercome the fact that close to half of all Americans did not have access to theInternet at the time of the study Knowledge Networks provides representativenational samples with Internet equipment in exchange for participation insurveys Respondents in the Knowledge Networks (KN) panel are randomlyrecruited through Random Digit Dial (RDD) sampling methods on a quarterly-updated sample frame consisting of the entire US telephone population and areprovided with WebTV equipment All telephone numbers have an equalprobability of selection and sampling is done without replacement Although
this sampling technique entails the coverage error of excluding householdswithout telephones (less than 5 of population) this approach has significantlybroader coverage than sampling techniques that draw only from computersusers with I nternet access (eg Harris I nteractive)
Before the initial telephone calls are made households in the RDDsample with listed addresses are sent letters describing the proposed exchangerelationship During the initial RDD telephone interview respondents are toldthey have been selected to participate in an important national study and theywill be given a WebTV receiver that will allow them free access to the Internet if they will answer brief surveys on their television I t is emphasized thatconfidentiality and privacy are always upheld and that no other household canreplace theirs Respondents are immediately polled regarding the extent towhich members of their households are experienced with the Internet andproficient with computers
Once the WebTV equipment is installed in their homes respondents areasked to respond to some profile surveys that record the key attributes of eachhousehold member For example respondents are asked about their genderdate of birth ethnicity education income etc All adults (aged 18 and older) of the selected household are asked to respond to surveys via WebTV Eachmember is sent one short survey per week usually not taking more than 15minutes to complete In rare instances when panel members are asked torespond to longer surveys they would be given a week off or some other form of incentive Respondents can respond to the surveys at any time at their
convenience and are permitted to stop before they complete the survey andreturn to it at a later time Respondents who fail to respond to eight consecutivesurveys will have the WebTV receiver removed from their homes Detailedinformation on the methodology can be found at wwwknowledgenetworkscom
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1629
16IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX BDIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 6
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activitycategorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity they were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking Kitchen Cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard WorkInternetEmail Telephone Calls PlantPet Care Paperwork OrganizeUnpackOther (user defined)
For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone and ComputerWork were included as options This picks up Internet use whether that usewas say educational professional or simply recreational
The respondents were then asked how longthe activity lasted (10 min to20 min to 1 hour or more) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whetheralone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother)
Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the same
time as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a check list of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked toidentify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown their completeddiary form based on their answers to ensure that their results were accurate
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of I nternet use the content and number of emails (personal vs work related) their types of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed) their amount of TV watching sleep and social interactionsBesides providing supplemental information these follow-up questions provided
an additional measure of the independent and dependent variables (andanalysis were replicated using these measures with identical results)mdashas wellas proving an accuracy check for their time-diary estimates For sample diaryscreens see NieHillygusAppendixBdoc
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1729
17IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 6 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activitiesHousework Cleaning chores cooking home financesChild Care Feeding clothing playing with childrenErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail readSocial Outing Socializing parties events moviesRecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies gamesOrganizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacksDressWash Dress shower bathe groomSleep Sleep nap or dozeOther User Defined
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1829
18IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX CREPL ICATION WITH ldquoESTIMATEDrdquo INTERNET USE
For comparabil ity with the first Internet study the results are replicated usingthe follow-up measure of Internet use in which respondents are asked toestimate the number of hours and minutes spent on the Internet and Emailyesterday The results are reported in Table 7 The relationship betweenestimated time online and time spent with family friends and on socialactivities remains negative and significant though the relationship is not quiteas crisp as those reported in Table 3 (generally weaker relationships on thecoefficients and slightly smaller R -squared values)
TABLE 7 ANALYSIS WITH ESTIMATED INTERNET TIME (FOLLOW-UP MEASURE)
Diary Minute
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 53254 1370 37296 1323 20805 1182
Background Factor
Education 190 158 026 030 064 116
Male -3211 -502 1915 413 815 282
Married 10085 1065 -2782 -405 -1533 -357
African-American -1905 -186 706 095 -490 -106
Hispanic -1156 -105 -861 -107 -1178 -235
Asian and other -2198 -152 -619 -059 -248 -038
Age 221 120 -441 -330 -176 -210
Age square -004 -180 004 239 001 148
Number of children 477 123 -775 -277 -637 -364
Weekday -9346 -1290 -3681 -701 -3279 -999
Living alon -8228 -771 -1755 -227 -225 -047Single parents 3098 233 -129 -013 -493 -082
Time Factors
TV time 000 005 -018 -1187 -015 -1528
Sleep time -032 -1819 -017 -1308 -008 -1015
WORK TIME -037 -3091 -012 -1345 -010 -1914
ONLINE TIME (EST) -029 -777 -013 -487 -004 -219
Adjusted R Square 029 009 013
F 15060 3644 5320
N 5738 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Active Time wFamil Active Time wFriend Time on Social Activitie
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1929
19IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX DREPL ICATION FOR TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND TIME ON CHILD CARE
The analysis was also replicated for two other measures of sociabilitytime spent on organization activities and time spent on child care The resultsfor this analysis can be found in Table 8 Once again the results find asignificant negative relationship between time spent on the Internet at homeand the dependent variables The results are substantively smaller than theresults found in previous analysis but they nonetheless offer support for thedisplacement hypothesis
TABLE 8 TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 4238 1090 8562 1303
Background FactorsEducation 019 231 013 092
Male 068 155 -570 -769
Married 188 289 681 619
African-American 348 495 002 002
Hispanic -105 -138 128 099
Asian and other -011 -011 -010 -006
Age 005 040 022 104
Age square 000 -009 -001 -249
Number of children 007 025 247 551
Weekday -757 -1064 2643 2198
Living alone 041 056 167 135
Single parents 055 060 329 213 Time Factor
TV time -004 -744 -008 -942
Sleep time -003 -661 -007 -751
Work time -003 -981 -009 -1636
ONLINE AT HOME -004 -337 -010 -510
ONLINE AT WORK 006 210 -001 -029
Adjusted R Square 013 014
F 5150 5634
N 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Organization Time on Child Car
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 729
7IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 1 DIARY TIMES FOR INTERNET USE SOCIAL ACTIVITIES AND SOCIAL CONTACTS (IN MINUTES PER DAY )
Mean Median Std Deviation N
Activities Time online at home 214 169 198 6146
Time online at work 33 29 84 6146
Time spent on social activities 575 315 411 6146
With Whom
Active time with family 2814 2641 988 6146
Active time with friends 873 543 546 6146
DATAANALYSIS
Before moving to the multivariate analysis it is useful to examine the
bivariate comparison of the sociability measures between Internet users andInternet nonusers (noting of course that this ignores variation in Internet useand fails to control for important demographic characteristics) Table 2 showsthat Internet users spend less time on most ldquotypicalrdquo social activities as well asless time doing activities with friends and family
This basic cross comparison of the data suggests that Internet users arespending less time on social activities and personal interactions but it isnecessary to explore this relationship in a multivariate setting before drawingany conclusions Moreover to advance an understanding of the complex affectsof the Internet on sociabil ity it is important to look more closely at type of Internet time It is overly simplistic to look for one effect for al l Internet useWhere and when an individual uses the Internet may be as important as how
much he or she uses it For instance does time spent using the Internet athome have a greater impact on face time with family members than time spenton the Internet at work
While the ldquodisplacementrdquo hypothesis predicts that Internet use at homehas a negative affect on social time with friends and family the ldquoefficiencyrdquohypothesis predicts no relationship or even a positive relationship betweenInternet use and sociability regardless of time or location The followingmultivariate regression analysis will help to identify which hypothesis onaverage more closely reflects the observed relationships between I nternet useand sociabil ity
Numerous control variables are included in the analysis to identify the
independent effect of Internet use (at home and at work) on the three measuresof sociability Measures of time spent on sleep and time spent on work areincluded in the analysis because these portions of daily life are fairly fixed It isexpected that Internet use comes disproportionately at the expense of discretionary time that could otherwise be spent in face-to-face socialengagement Time spent on sleep is important because it defines the length of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 829
8IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 2 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERNETUSERS AND NONUSERS
(IN MINUTES PER DAY FROM YESTERDAY DIARY DATA)Non-Internet
User
(n =5388)
Internet User
(n =757) Differenc
Social Activitie
Parties 67 11 -56
Socialize 130 126 -04
Conversation 140 96 -44
Telephone calls 13 20 07
Sports event 21 01 -20
Culture event 18 07 -11
Total 495 369 -126
Religious servicegroup 19 12 -07
All organizations 66 61 -05
All child care 351 195 -156
With Whom
Time spent with family 2874 1850 -1024
Time spent with friends 942 598 -343
the conscious daymdashit expands or contracts the day In terms of the displacementmodel time on sleep reduces the denominator of time available Work time isan important control because of the potential spurious relationship betweentime spent working and sociability For instance it can be expected that
individuals who work more are likely to spend more time on the Internet (atwork) Those who work more can also be expected to spend less time with theirfriends and family Thus work hours should be included in the regression modelin order to identify the direct affect of I nternet use on sociability independent of time spent working
Time spent watching TV is included in the regression model as aninteresting comparison because Internet and TV use have often been thought of as equivalent or substitutable uses of time Most previous studies have found anegative relationship between TV time and Internet time (which is alsoobserved in this datamdashcorrelation of -027) This in and of itself casts somedoubt on the efficiency hypothesis I f Internet use has the effect of giving people
mor e leisure time (to spend with friends and family) then it should also givepeople more time to watch TVmdashthe number one leisure activity of AmericansAt the same time it is necessary to control for basic demographic
characteristics which might be related to both I nternet use and sociabil ity andcould thus distort the observed relationship The regression models thereforecontrol for marital status gender age education raceethnicity number of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 929
9IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
children single parenthood and living alone Table 3 presents the findings fromthe multivariate regression analysis of effect of Internet use differentiated byuse at home and use at work on time spent with friends family and on social
activities12
I t is immediately apparent from Table 3 that time spent on the Internetldquoat homerdquo is significantly negatively related to time spent with family andfriends and on social activities However the amount of I nternet use at workdoes not have a significant impact on sociability once the number of hours spentat work (for pay) has been taken into account This is consistent with thedisplacement hypothesis Home is the critical environment where users face thedirect tradeoff between Internetemail use and actually ldquobeing withrdquo family Forevery hour spent on the Internet at home the model suggests individuals arespending an average of almost 30 fewer minutes with their family This meansthat time online at home is coming at the expense of time with family not justtime on sleep TV or other asocial activities The relationship is identical
though substantively weaker for time spent with friends and for time spent onsocial activities
The results also verify that the statistical controls while predictable and
interesting in their own right do not eliminate the underlying ldquodisplacementrdquorelationships between amount of Internet use yesterday and the amount of active face-to-face time As might be expected men are significantly less likelyto spend time with family than women (and more time with friends and onsocial activities) Married people and single parents spend more time withfamily but less time with friends and on social activities Moreover individualsliving alone are less likely to spend time with family friends and on socializingEven though the analysis is limited to those under age 65 age still reduces face-to-face interactions with family members friends and social activities Turningto the other time controls time spent on sleep work and TV watching asexpected has a negative relationship with all measures of sociability
These findings concur with the earlier findings of the SIQSS and theKennedy School studies However they are now based on more detailed androbust data Time can be reallocatedmdashfrom time spent with friends family or onsocial activities to time spent on the Internetmdashbut not expanded it is indeedlike a hydraulic system where increases in activity in one area reduce time
available for other activities
INTERNET USE AND LEISURE WEEKDAYS VERSUS WEEKENDS
While the above analysis provides new insights regarding the impact of location of Internet use on sociability when the Internet is used may alsoprovide an important distinction For most people the weekend typically holdsmany more discretionary moments in the day in which individuals can choosehow they wish to spend their time and with whom they wish to spend it I f the
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1029
10IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 3 HOMEWORK INTERNET USE AND SOCIAL CONTACTACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 21968 2910 59690 3928 29947 2712 Background FactorsEducation 010 061 036 110 003 013
Male 200 235 -824 -480 550 441
Married -577 -456 2765 1086 -852 -461
African-American -256 -188 -564 -205 164 082
Hispanic -046 -031 -211 -071 -260 -121
Asian and other -143 -074 -503 -130 -149 -053
Age -036 -145 083 168 -112 -311
Age square 000 073 -001 -228 001 222
Number of children -170 -330 108 104 -215 -286
Weekday -3419 -2473 -8943 -3215 -3422 -1693
Living alone -166 -117 -2385 -833 -485 -233
Single parents -322 -182 876 246 -149 -058
Time Factors TV time -018 -1877 001 039 -019 -1351
Sleep time -013 -1322 -036 -1783 -021 -1395
Work time -014 -2219 -040 -3078 -013 -1397
ONLINE AT HOME -013 -574 -048 -1094 -018 -567
ONLINE AT WORK 005 096 018 171 -003 -034
Adjusted R Square 044 060 026
F 26124 49953 11963
N 5738 5738 5738
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
displacement model is correct the amount of home use of the Internet shouldhave its strongest impact on time spent with both friends and family on
weekends when people have more freedom to choose what they wish to do andwith whom if anyone they wish to spend their time 13 Table 4 reports theregression results for the weekend analysis and Table 5 reports the regressionresults for the weekday analysis
The relationship between time spent on Internetemail at home on theweekend and time spent with family is the strongest observed so far thecoefficient is -069 (see Table 5) This means that for every hour spent onlinethere is a corresponding 41 minutes less spent with family members While thisnumber is substantively small for the average respondent (with an average of only 25 minutes spent on the Internet it results in 15 fewer minutes withfamily) it is quite easy to see that for heavy Internet users this effect is quiteprofound The weekday regressions too find that time spent on the Internet at
home has a strong significant and negative influence on time spent with familymembers but the strength of the relationship is only about half of what it is onweekends once again offering support for the displacement hypothesis14
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1129
11IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 4 ANALYSIS OF WEEKDAY INTERNET USE
Diary Minutesβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 15092 1927 44972 2608 22567 1880 Background Factor
Education 012 074 044 124 -011 -044
Male 229 264 -809 -424 447 337
Married -543 -426 2506 893 -674 -345 African-American -189 -132 -493 -157 151 069
Hispanic -183 -120 -312 -093 -191 -081Asian and other -257 -133 -498 -117 -318 -107
Age -022 -086 044 080 -068 -176
Age square 000 057 -001 -139 000 105Number of children -096 -185 097 085 -214 -269
Living alone -076 -054 -2266 -727 -348 -160
Single parents -331 -184 1020 258 100 036
Time Factor TV time -015 -1434 009 408 -017 -1091 Sleep time -011 -1003 -031 -1329 -017 -1045
Work time -011 -1702 -031 -2168 -010 -1024
ONLINE AT HOME -010 -469 -039 -832 -012 -370
ONLINE AT WORK 004 087 011 105 -004 -056
Adjusted R Square 010 023 007
F 2961 7671 1912
N 4092 4092 4092
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
CONCLUSION
Results from Americarsquos first online time diary survey offer strong supportfor the ldquohydraul icrdquo or displacement hypothesismdashand no evidence to support the
efficiency hypothesis On average the more time spent on the Internet at homethe less time spent with friends family and on social activities in contrastInternet use at work has little effect on sociability Similarly Internet useduring the weekends is more strongly related to decreased time interacting andsocializing than Internet use during weekdays for it is during this time whenInternet and email use competes most directly with time spent in face-to-faceinteractions with others
Internet use and sociability were examined from a number of differentangles with invariable support for the displacement hypothesis Of the different
measures of sociability the active engagement measure appears to best capture
interpersonal interaction The social activity variable is just one subset of face-to-
face interaction and it likely captures time with friends more than time with familyFor instance parents undoubtedly spent less time on ldquosocializingrdquo activities such as
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1229
12IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 5 ANALYSIS OF WEEKEND INTERNET USE
Diary Minuteβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 29194 1671 71013 2311 38464 1573 Background Factor
Education -007 -017 -024 -035 038 068
Male 027 013 -1142 -321 710 251
Married -702 -231 3301 616 -1413 -331
African-American -319 -105 -896 -168 257 060
Hispanic 230 069 -054 -009 -450 -097
Asian and other 154 033 -444 -054 322 049
Age -089 -155 101 100 -242 -303
Age square 001 078 -002 -126 002 250
Number of children -310 -251 289 133 -176 -102
Living alone -320 -091 -2678 -432 -840 -170
Single parents -397 -095 370 050 -925 -158
Time Factor TV time -026 -1164 -013 -337 -024 -754
Sleep time -020 -857 -048 -1198 -029 -911
Work time -023 -1442 -063 -2271 -021 -940
ONLINE AT HOME -016 -265 -069 -665 -036 -437
ONLINE AT WORK -003 -014 019 047 -018 -057
Adjusted R Square 018 034 011
F 2348 5339 1379
N 1645 1645 1645
Note
p lt05 p lt 01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
parties or theatre but that hardly means thatthey are spending less time in
interpersonal interactions In fact most studies of social networks find thatmarried individuals have stronger social support systems than single people
These findings confirm that the quantity of face-to-face interpersonalinteraction is affected by how an individual uses and distributes his or her timeduring the day Future research should compare traditional interactions withcyber interactions to evaluate the extent to which the social value of this newform of communication compensates for the potential negative consequencesBut in studying these social benefits researchers must acknowledge that theInternet al so has the potential to hold social detriments
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1329
13IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
REFERENCES
Cole J I Suman M Schramm P Van Bel D Lunn B Maguire P
Hanson K Singh R and Aquino J S 2000 The UCL A I nternet Report Sur veying t he Digita l Fut ur e Los Angeles UCLA Center forCommunication Policy
Franzen A 2000 Does the Internet Make Us Lonely European Sociological
Review 16(4) p 427-438Hafner K 2000 Working at Home TodayNew York Tim es November 2Hampton K N and Wellman B 1999 Netville On-Line and Off-L ine
Amer ican Behavioral Scient ist 43(3) p 478-495Kadushin C 1982 Social Density and Mental Health In Marsden P V and
Lin N (eds) Social Str uctur e and Netw or k A nalysis Beverly Hi lls CASage
National Public Radio Kaiser Family Foundation and Kennedy School of
Government 2000 Survey Shows Widespread Enthusiasm for High TechnologyNPR Onli ne Repor t 3 (February)
Nie N 1999 Tracking Our Techno Future Am er ican Demograph ics 21(7) p
50-52Nie N 2001 Sociabil ity Interpersonal Relations and the Internet Reconciling
Conflicting Findings Am eri can Behavioral Scienti st 45(3) p 420-435Nie N and Erbring L 2000 I nt ern et and Society A Prel imi nary Report
Stanford CA Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society
Repr in ted in t hi s issue
Nie N and Sackman H 1970 The Information U ti l i t y and Social Choice Montvale NJ AFIPS
PEW Internet and American Life Project 2000 Tracking Online Life HowWomen Use the Internet to Cultivate Relationships with Family andFriends Onli ne Int ern et L ife Report May 10
Putnam R 1995 Bowling Alone Americarsquos Declining Social Capital Journ al of Democracy 6 p 65-78
Putnam R 2000 Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival of American
Communi ty New York Simon and SchusterRobinson J and Godbey G 1997 Time for Life The Surpris ing Ways
Am er icans U se Their T im e University Park PA Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press
Robinson J P Kestnbaum M Neustadtl A and Alvarez A 2001Information Technology the Internet and Time Displacement Revision
of paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Associationof Public Opinion Research in Portland OR May 2000 Next ar t i cle in
t hi s issue
Salaff J Wellman B and Dimitrova D 1998 There is a Time and Place for Teleworking In R Suomi P J ackson L Hollman M Aspnas (eds)Teleworking Environments Proceedings of the Third International
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1429
14IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
Work shop on Telework Turku Finland Turku Center for ComputerScience General Publication 8 p 11-31
Steiner G A 1963 The People Look at Television A Study of Audience
Att i tudes New York KnopfUCLA Internet Report 2000 Surveying th e Dig i ta l Fut ur e (SDF) Los AngelesCA October
Ulsaner E 2000 Social Capital and the Net Proceedings of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) 43 (December) p 60-64
Wellman B Haase A Q Witte J and Hampton K 2001 Does the InternetIncrease Decrease or Supplement Social Capital Social NetworksParticipation and Community Commitment American Behavioral
Scientist 45(3) p 437-456Wellman B and Wortley S 1990 Different Strokes from Different Folks
Community Ties and Social Support Am er ican Jour nal of Sociology 96p 558-588
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1529
15IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX AK NOWLEDGE NETWORKS METHODOLOGY
The data used in this analysis were collected by Knowledge Networksusing a new time-diary methodology that needs further explanation In order toovercome the fact that close to half of all Americans did not have access to theInternet at the time of the study Knowledge Networks provides representativenational samples with Internet equipment in exchange for participation insurveys Respondents in the Knowledge Networks (KN) panel are randomlyrecruited through Random Digit Dial (RDD) sampling methods on a quarterly-updated sample frame consisting of the entire US telephone population and areprovided with WebTV equipment All telephone numbers have an equalprobability of selection and sampling is done without replacement Although
this sampling technique entails the coverage error of excluding householdswithout telephones (less than 5 of population) this approach has significantlybroader coverage than sampling techniques that draw only from computersusers with I nternet access (eg Harris I nteractive)
Before the initial telephone calls are made households in the RDDsample with listed addresses are sent letters describing the proposed exchangerelationship During the initial RDD telephone interview respondents are toldthey have been selected to participate in an important national study and theywill be given a WebTV receiver that will allow them free access to the Internet if they will answer brief surveys on their television I t is emphasized thatconfidentiality and privacy are always upheld and that no other household canreplace theirs Respondents are immediately polled regarding the extent towhich members of their households are experienced with the Internet andproficient with computers
Once the WebTV equipment is installed in their homes respondents areasked to respond to some profile surveys that record the key attributes of eachhousehold member For example respondents are asked about their genderdate of birth ethnicity education income etc All adults (aged 18 and older) of the selected household are asked to respond to surveys via WebTV Eachmember is sent one short survey per week usually not taking more than 15minutes to complete In rare instances when panel members are asked torespond to longer surveys they would be given a week off or some other form of incentive Respondents can respond to the surveys at any time at their
convenience and are permitted to stop before they complete the survey andreturn to it at a later time Respondents who fail to respond to eight consecutivesurveys will have the WebTV receiver removed from their homes Detailedinformation on the methodology can be found at wwwknowledgenetworkscom
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1629
16IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX BDIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 6
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activitycategorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity they were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking Kitchen Cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard WorkInternetEmail Telephone Calls PlantPet Care Paperwork OrganizeUnpackOther (user defined)
For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone and ComputerWork were included as options This picks up Internet use whether that usewas say educational professional or simply recreational
The respondents were then asked how longthe activity lasted (10 min to20 min to 1 hour or more) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whetheralone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother)
Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the same
time as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a check list of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked toidentify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown their completeddiary form based on their answers to ensure that their results were accurate
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of I nternet use the content and number of emails (personal vs work related) their types of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed) their amount of TV watching sleep and social interactionsBesides providing supplemental information these follow-up questions provided
an additional measure of the independent and dependent variables (andanalysis were replicated using these measures with identical results)mdashas wellas proving an accuracy check for their time-diary estimates For sample diaryscreens see NieHillygusAppendixBdoc
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1729
17IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 6 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activitiesHousework Cleaning chores cooking home financesChild Care Feeding clothing playing with childrenErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail readSocial Outing Socializing parties events moviesRecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies gamesOrganizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacksDressWash Dress shower bathe groomSleep Sleep nap or dozeOther User Defined
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1829
18IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX CREPL ICATION WITH ldquoESTIMATEDrdquo INTERNET USE
For comparabil ity with the first Internet study the results are replicated usingthe follow-up measure of Internet use in which respondents are asked toestimate the number of hours and minutes spent on the Internet and Emailyesterday The results are reported in Table 7 The relationship betweenestimated time online and time spent with family friends and on socialactivities remains negative and significant though the relationship is not quiteas crisp as those reported in Table 3 (generally weaker relationships on thecoefficients and slightly smaller R -squared values)
TABLE 7 ANALYSIS WITH ESTIMATED INTERNET TIME (FOLLOW-UP MEASURE)
Diary Minute
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 53254 1370 37296 1323 20805 1182
Background Factor
Education 190 158 026 030 064 116
Male -3211 -502 1915 413 815 282
Married 10085 1065 -2782 -405 -1533 -357
African-American -1905 -186 706 095 -490 -106
Hispanic -1156 -105 -861 -107 -1178 -235
Asian and other -2198 -152 -619 -059 -248 -038
Age 221 120 -441 -330 -176 -210
Age square -004 -180 004 239 001 148
Number of children 477 123 -775 -277 -637 -364
Weekday -9346 -1290 -3681 -701 -3279 -999
Living alon -8228 -771 -1755 -227 -225 -047Single parents 3098 233 -129 -013 -493 -082
Time Factors
TV time 000 005 -018 -1187 -015 -1528
Sleep time -032 -1819 -017 -1308 -008 -1015
WORK TIME -037 -3091 -012 -1345 -010 -1914
ONLINE TIME (EST) -029 -777 -013 -487 -004 -219
Adjusted R Square 029 009 013
F 15060 3644 5320
N 5738 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Active Time wFamil Active Time wFriend Time on Social Activitie
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1929
19IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX DREPL ICATION FOR TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND TIME ON CHILD CARE
The analysis was also replicated for two other measures of sociabilitytime spent on organization activities and time spent on child care The resultsfor this analysis can be found in Table 8 Once again the results find asignificant negative relationship between time spent on the Internet at homeand the dependent variables The results are substantively smaller than theresults found in previous analysis but they nonetheless offer support for thedisplacement hypothesis
TABLE 8 TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 4238 1090 8562 1303
Background FactorsEducation 019 231 013 092
Male 068 155 -570 -769
Married 188 289 681 619
African-American 348 495 002 002
Hispanic -105 -138 128 099
Asian and other -011 -011 -010 -006
Age 005 040 022 104
Age square 000 -009 -001 -249
Number of children 007 025 247 551
Weekday -757 -1064 2643 2198
Living alone 041 056 167 135
Single parents 055 060 329 213 Time Factor
TV time -004 -744 -008 -942
Sleep time -003 -661 -007 -751
Work time -003 -981 -009 -1636
ONLINE AT HOME -004 -337 -010 -510
ONLINE AT WORK 006 210 -001 -029
Adjusted R Square 013 014
F 5150 5634
N 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Organization Time on Child Car
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 829
8IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 2 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERNETUSERS AND NONUSERS
(IN MINUTES PER DAY FROM YESTERDAY DIARY DATA)Non-Internet
User
(n =5388)
Internet User
(n =757) Differenc
Social Activitie
Parties 67 11 -56
Socialize 130 126 -04
Conversation 140 96 -44
Telephone calls 13 20 07
Sports event 21 01 -20
Culture event 18 07 -11
Total 495 369 -126
Religious servicegroup 19 12 -07
All organizations 66 61 -05
All child care 351 195 -156
With Whom
Time spent with family 2874 1850 -1024
Time spent with friends 942 598 -343
the conscious daymdashit expands or contracts the day In terms of the displacementmodel time on sleep reduces the denominator of time available Work time isan important control because of the potential spurious relationship betweentime spent working and sociability For instance it can be expected that
individuals who work more are likely to spend more time on the Internet (atwork) Those who work more can also be expected to spend less time with theirfriends and family Thus work hours should be included in the regression modelin order to identify the direct affect of I nternet use on sociability independent of time spent working
Time spent watching TV is included in the regression model as aninteresting comparison because Internet and TV use have often been thought of as equivalent or substitutable uses of time Most previous studies have found anegative relationship between TV time and Internet time (which is alsoobserved in this datamdashcorrelation of -027) This in and of itself casts somedoubt on the efficiency hypothesis I f Internet use has the effect of giving people
mor e leisure time (to spend with friends and family) then it should also givepeople more time to watch TVmdashthe number one leisure activity of AmericansAt the same time it is necessary to control for basic demographic
characteristics which might be related to both I nternet use and sociabil ity andcould thus distort the observed relationship The regression models thereforecontrol for marital status gender age education raceethnicity number of
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 929
9IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
children single parenthood and living alone Table 3 presents the findings fromthe multivariate regression analysis of effect of Internet use differentiated byuse at home and use at work on time spent with friends family and on social
activities12
I t is immediately apparent from Table 3 that time spent on the Internetldquoat homerdquo is significantly negatively related to time spent with family andfriends and on social activities However the amount of I nternet use at workdoes not have a significant impact on sociability once the number of hours spentat work (for pay) has been taken into account This is consistent with thedisplacement hypothesis Home is the critical environment where users face thedirect tradeoff between Internetemail use and actually ldquobeing withrdquo family Forevery hour spent on the Internet at home the model suggests individuals arespending an average of almost 30 fewer minutes with their family This meansthat time online at home is coming at the expense of time with family not justtime on sleep TV or other asocial activities The relationship is identical
though substantively weaker for time spent with friends and for time spent onsocial activities
The results also verify that the statistical controls while predictable and
interesting in their own right do not eliminate the underlying ldquodisplacementrdquorelationships between amount of Internet use yesterday and the amount of active face-to-face time As might be expected men are significantly less likelyto spend time with family than women (and more time with friends and onsocial activities) Married people and single parents spend more time withfamily but less time with friends and on social activities Moreover individualsliving alone are less likely to spend time with family friends and on socializingEven though the analysis is limited to those under age 65 age still reduces face-to-face interactions with family members friends and social activities Turningto the other time controls time spent on sleep work and TV watching asexpected has a negative relationship with all measures of sociability
These findings concur with the earlier findings of the SIQSS and theKennedy School studies However they are now based on more detailed androbust data Time can be reallocatedmdashfrom time spent with friends family or onsocial activities to time spent on the Internetmdashbut not expanded it is indeedlike a hydraulic system where increases in activity in one area reduce time
available for other activities
INTERNET USE AND LEISURE WEEKDAYS VERSUS WEEKENDS
While the above analysis provides new insights regarding the impact of location of Internet use on sociability when the Internet is used may alsoprovide an important distinction For most people the weekend typically holdsmany more discretionary moments in the day in which individuals can choosehow they wish to spend their time and with whom they wish to spend it I f the
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1029
10IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 3 HOMEWORK INTERNET USE AND SOCIAL CONTACTACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 21968 2910 59690 3928 29947 2712 Background FactorsEducation 010 061 036 110 003 013
Male 200 235 -824 -480 550 441
Married -577 -456 2765 1086 -852 -461
African-American -256 -188 -564 -205 164 082
Hispanic -046 -031 -211 -071 -260 -121
Asian and other -143 -074 -503 -130 -149 -053
Age -036 -145 083 168 -112 -311
Age square 000 073 -001 -228 001 222
Number of children -170 -330 108 104 -215 -286
Weekday -3419 -2473 -8943 -3215 -3422 -1693
Living alone -166 -117 -2385 -833 -485 -233
Single parents -322 -182 876 246 -149 -058
Time Factors TV time -018 -1877 001 039 -019 -1351
Sleep time -013 -1322 -036 -1783 -021 -1395
Work time -014 -2219 -040 -3078 -013 -1397
ONLINE AT HOME -013 -574 -048 -1094 -018 -567
ONLINE AT WORK 005 096 018 171 -003 -034
Adjusted R Square 044 060 026
F 26124 49953 11963
N 5738 5738 5738
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
displacement model is correct the amount of home use of the Internet shouldhave its strongest impact on time spent with both friends and family on
weekends when people have more freedom to choose what they wish to do andwith whom if anyone they wish to spend their time 13 Table 4 reports theregression results for the weekend analysis and Table 5 reports the regressionresults for the weekday analysis
The relationship between time spent on Internetemail at home on theweekend and time spent with family is the strongest observed so far thecoefficient is -069 (see Table 5) This means that for every hour spent onlinethere is a corresponding 41 minutes less spent with family members While thisnumber is substantively small for the average respondent (with an average of only 25 minutes spent on the Internet it results in 15 fewer minutes withfamily) it is quite easy to see that for heavy Internet users this effect is quiteprofound The weekday regressions too find that time spent on the Internet at
home has a strong significant and negative influence on time spent with familymembers but the strength of the relationship is only about half of what it is onweekends once again offering support for the displacement hypothesis14
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1129
11IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 4 ANALYSIS OF WEEKDAY INTERNET USE
Diary Minutesβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 15092 1927 44972 2608 22567 1880 Background Factor
Education 012 074 044 124 -011 -044
Male 229 264 -809 -424 447 337
Married -543 -426 2506 893 -674 -345 African-American -189 -132 -493 -157 151 069
Hispanic -183 -120 -312 -093 -191 -081Asian and other -257 -133 -498 -117 -318 -107
Age -022 -086 044 080 -068 -176
Age square 000 057 -001 -139 000 105Number of children -096 -185 097 085 -214 -269
Living alone -076 -054 -2266 -727 -348 -160
Single parents -331 -184 1020 258 100 036
Time Factor TV time -015 -1434 009 408 -017 -1091 Sleep time -011 -1003 -031 -1329 -017 -1045
Work time -011 -1702 -031 -2168 -010 -1024
ONLINE AT HOME -010 -469 -039 -832 -012 -370
ONLINE AT WORK 004 087 011 105 -004 -056
Adjusted R Square 010 023 007
F 2961 7671 1912
N 4092 4092 4092
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
CONCLUSION
Results from Americarsquos first online time diary survey offer strong supportfor the ldquohydraul icrdquo or displacement hypothesismdashand no evidence to support the
efficiency hypothesis On average the more time spent on the Internet at homethe less time spent with friends family and on social activities in contrastInternet use at work has little effect on sociability Similarly Internet useduring the weekends is more strongly related to decreased time interacting andsocializing than Internet use during weekdays for it is during this time whenInternet and email use competes most directly with time spent in face-to-faceinteractions with others
Internet use and sociability were examined from a number of differentangles with invariable support for the displacement hypothesis Of the different
measures of sociability the active engagement measure appears to best capture
interpersonal interaction The social activity variable is just one subset of face-to-
face interaction and it likely captures time with friends more than time with familyFor instance parents undoubtedly spent less time on ldquosocializingrdquo activities such as
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1229
12IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 5 ANALYSIS OF WEEKEND INTERNET USE
Diary Minuteβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 29194 1671 71013 2311 38464 1573 Background Factor
Education -007 -017 -024 -035 038 068
Male 027 013 -1142 -321 710 251
Married -702 -231 3301 616 -1413 -331
African-American -319 -105 -896 -168 257 060
Hispanic 230 069 -054 -009 -450 -097
Asian and other 154 033 -444 -054 322 049
Age -089 -155 101 100 -242 -303
Age square 001 078 -002 -126 002 250
Number of children -310 -251 289 133 -176 -102
Living alone -320 -091 -2678 -432 -840 -170
Single parents -397 -095 370 050 -925 -158
Time Factor TV time -026 -1164 -013 -337 -024 -754
Sleep time -020 -857 -048 -1198 -029 -911
Work time -023 -1442 -063 -2271 -021 -940
ONLINE AT HOME -016 -265 -069 -665 -036 -437
ONLINE AT WORK -003 -014 019 047 -018 -057
Adjusted R Square 018 034 011
F 2348 5339 1379
N 1645 1645 1645
Note
p lt05 p lt 01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
parties or theatre but that hardly means thatthey are spending less time in
interpersonal interactions In fact most studies of social networks find thatmarried individuals have stronger social support systems than single people
These findings confirm that the quantity of face-to-face interpersonalinteraction is affected by how an individual uses and distributes his or her timeduring the day Future research should compare traditional interactions withcyber interactions to evaluate the extent to which the social value of this newform of communication compensates for the potential negative consequencesBut in studying these social benefits researchers must acknowledge that theInternet al so has the potential to hold social detriments
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1329
13IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
REFERENCES
Cole J I Suman M Schramm P Van Bel D Lunn B Maguire P
Hanson K Singh R and Aquino J S 2000 The UCL A I nternet Report Sur veying t he Digita l Fut ur e Los Angeles UCLA Center forCommunication Policy
Franzen A 2000 Does the Internet Make Us Lonely European Sociological
Review 16(4) p 427-438Hafner K 2000 Working at Home TodayNew York Tim es November 2Hampton K N and Wellman B 1999 Netville On-Line and Off-L ine
Amer ican Behavioral Scient ist 43(3) p 478-495Kadushin C 1982 Social Density and Mental Health In Marsden P V and
Lin N (eds) Social Str uctur e and Netw or k A nalysis Beverly Hi lls CASage
National Public Radio Kaiser Family Foundation and Kennedy School of
Government 2000 Survey Shows Widespread Enthusiasm for High TechnologyNPR Onli ne Repor t 3 (February)
Nie N 1999 Tracking Our Techno Future Am er ican Demograph ics 21(7) p
50-52Nie N 2001 Sociabil ity Interpersonal Relations and the Internet Reconciling
Conflicting Findings Am eri can Behavioral Scienti st 45(3) p 420-435Nie N and Erbring L 2000 I nt ern et and Society A Prel imi nary Report
Stanford CA Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society
Repr in ted in t hi s issue
Nie N and Sackman H 1970 The Information U ti l i t y and Social Choice Montvale NJ AFIPS
PEW Internet and American Life Project 2000 Tracking Online Life HowWomen Use the Internet to Cultivate Relationships with Family andFriends Onli ne Int ern et L ife Report May 10
Putnam R 1995 Bowling Alone Americarsquos Declining Social Capital Journ al of Democracy 6 p 65-78
Putnam R 2000 Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival of American
Communi ty New York Simon and SchusterRobinson J and Godbey G 1997 Time for Life The Surpris ing Ways
Am er icans U se Their T im e University Park PA Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press
Robinson J P Kestnbaum M Neustadtl A and Alvarez A 2001Information Technology the Internet and Time Displacement Revision
of paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Associationof Public Opinion Research in Portland OR May 2000 Next ar t i cle in
t hi s issue
Salaff J Wellman B and Dimitrova D 1998 There is a Time and Place for Teleworking In R Suomi P J ackson L Hollman M Aspnas (eds)Teleworking Environments Proceedings of the Third International
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1429
14IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
Work shop on Telework Turku Finland Turku Center for ComputerScience General Publication 8 p 11-31
Steiner G A 1963 The People Look at Television A Study of Audience
Att i tudes New York KnopfUCLA Internet Report 2000 Surveying th e Dig i ta l Fut ur e (SDF) Los AngelesCA October
Ulsaner E 2000 Social Capital and the Net Proceedings of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) 43 (December) p 60-64
Wellman B Haase A Q Witte J and Hampton K 2001 Does the InternetIncrease Decrease or Supplement Social Capital Social NetworksParticipation and Community Commitment American Behavioral
Scientist 45(3) p 437-456Wellman B and Wortley S 1990 Different Strokes from Different Folks
Community Ties and Social Support Am er ican Jour nal of Sociology 96p 558-588
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1529
15IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX AK NOWLEDGE NETWORKS METHODOLOGY
The data used in this analysis were collected by Knowledge Networksusing a new time-diary methodology that needs further explanation In order toovercome the fact that close to half of all Americans did not have access to theInternet at the time of the study Knowledge Networks provides representativenational samples with Internet equipment in exchange for participation insurveys Respondents in the Knowledge Networks (KN) panel are randomlyrecruited through Random Digit Dial (RDD) sampling methods on a quarterly-updated sample frame consisting of the entire US telephone population and areprovided with WebTV equipment All telephone numbers have an equalprobability of selection and sampling is done without replacement Although
this sampling technique entails the coverage error of excluding householdswithout telephones (less than 5 of population) this approach has significantlybroader coverage than sampling techniques that draw only from computersusers with I nternet access (eg Harris I nteractive)
Before the initial telephone calls are made households in the RDDsample with listed addresses are sent letters describing the proposed exchangerelationship During the initial RDD telephone interview respondents are toldthey have been selected to participate in an important national study and theywill be given a WebTV receiver that will allow them free access to the Internet if they will answer brief surveys on their television I t is emphasized thatconfidentiality and privacy are always upheld and that no other household canreplace theirs Respondents are immediately polled regarding the extent towhich members of their households are experienced with the Internet andproficient with computers
Once the WebTV equipment is installed in their homes respondents areasked to respond to some profile surveys that record the key attributes of eachhousehold member For example respondents are asked about their genderdate of birth ethnicity education income etc All adults (aged 18 and older) of the selected household are asked to respond to surveys via WebTV Eachmember is sent one short survey per week usually not taking more than 15minutes to complete In rare instances when panel members are asked torespond to longer surveys they would be given a week off or some other form of incentive Respondents can respond to the surveys at any time at their
convenience and are permitted to stop before they complete the survey andreturn to it at a later time Respondents who fail to respond to eight consecutivesurveys will have the WebTV receiver removed from their homes Detailedinformation on the methodology can be found at wwwknowledgenetworkscom
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1629
16IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX BDIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 6
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activitycategorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity they were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking Kitchen Cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard WorkInternetEmail Telephone Calls PlantPet Care Paperwork OrganizeUnpackOther (user defined)
For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone and ComputerWork were included as options This picks up Internet use whether that usewas say educational professional or simply recreational
The respondents were then asked how longthe activity lasted (10 min to20 min to 1 hour or more) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whetheralone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother)
Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the same
time as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a check list of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked toidentify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown their completeddiary form based on their answers to ensure that their results were accurate
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of I nternet use the content and number of emails (personal vs work related) their types of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed) their amount of TV watching sleep and social interactionsBesides providing supplemental information these follow-up questions provided
an additional measure of the independent and dependent variables (andanalysis were replicated using these measures with identical results)mdashas wellas proving an accuracy check for their time-diary estimates For sample diaryscreens see NieHillygusAppendixBdoc
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1729
17IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 6 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activitiesHousework Cleaning chores cooking home financesChild Care Feeding clothing playing with childrenErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail readSocial Outing Socializing parties events moviesRecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies gamesOrganizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacksDressWash Dress shower bathe groomSleep Sleep nap or dozeOther User Defined
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1829
18IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX CREPL ICATION WITH ldquoESTIMATEDrdquo INTERNET USE
For comparabil ity with the first Internet study the results are replicated usingthe follow-up measure of Internet use in which respondents are asked toestimate the number of hours and minutes spent on the Internet and Emailyesterday The results are reported in Table 7 The relationship betweenestimated time online and time spent with family friends and on socialactivities remains negative and significant though the relationship is not quiteas crisp as those reported in Table 3 (generally weaker relationships on thecoefficients and slightly smaller R -squared values)
TABLE 7 ANALYSIS WITH ESTIMATED INTERNET TIME (FOLLOW-UP MEASURE)
Diary Minute
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 53254 1370 37296 1323 20805 1182
Background Factor
Education 190 158 026 030 064 116
Male -3211 -502 1915 413 815 282
Married 10085 1065 -2782 -405 -1533 -357
African-American -1905 -186 706 095 -490 -106
Hispanic -1156 -105 -861 -107 -1178 -235
Asian and other -2198 -152 -619 -059 -248 -038
Age 221 120 -441 -330 -176 -210
Age square -004 -180 004 239 001 148
Number of children 477 123 -775 -277 -637 -364
Weekday -9346 -1290 -3681 -701 -3279 -999
Living alon -8228 -771 -1755 -227 -225 -047Single parents 3098 233 -129 -013 -493 -082
Time Factors
TV time 000 005 -018 -1187 -015 -1528
Sleep time -032 -1819 -017 -1308 -008 -1015
WORK TIME -037 -3091 -012 -1345 -010 -1914
ONLINE TIME (EST) -029 -777 -013 -487 -004 -219
Adjusted R Square 029 009 013
F 15060 3644 5320
N 5738 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Active Time wFamil Active Time wFriend Time on Social Activitie
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1929
19IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX DREPL ICATION FOR TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND TIME ON CHILD CARE
The analysis was also replicated for two other measures of sociabilitytime spent on organization activities and time spent on child care The resultsfor this analysis can be found in Table 8 Once again the results find asignificant negative relationship between time spent on the Internet at homeand the dependent variables The results are substantively smaller than theresults found in previous analysis but they nonetheless offer support for thedisplacement hypothesis
TABLE 8 TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 4238 1090 8562 1303
Background FactorsEducation 019 231 013 092
Male 068 155 -570 -769
Married 188 289 681 619
African-American 348 495 002 002
Hispanic -105 -138 128 099
Asian and other -011 -011 -010 -006
Age 005 040 022 104
Age square 000 -009 -001 -249
Number of children 007 025 247 551
Weekday -757 -1064 2643 2198
Living alone 041 056 167 135
Single parents 055 060 329 213 Time Factor
TV time -004 -744 -008 -942
Sleep time -003 -661 -007 -751
Work time -003 -981 -009 -1636
ONLINE AT HOME -004 -337 -010 -510
ONLINE AT WORK 006 210 -001 -029
Adjusted R Square 013 014
F 5150 5634
N 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Organization Time on Child Car
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 929
9IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
children single parenthood and living alone Table 3 presents the findings fromthe multivariate regression analysis of effect of Internet use differentiated byuse at home and use at work on time spent with friends family and on social
activities12
I t is immediately apparent from Table 3 that time spent on the Internetldquoat homerdquo is significantly negatively related to time spent with family andfriends and on social activities However the amount of I nternet use at workdoes not have a significant impact on sociability once the number of hours spentat work (for pay) has been taken into account This is consistent with thedisplacement hypothesis Home is the critical environment where users face thedirect tradeoff between Internetemail use and actually ldquobeing withrdquo family Forevery hour spent on the Internet at home the model suggests individuals arespending an average of almost 30 fewer minutes with their family This meansthat time online at home is coming at the expense of time with family not justtime on sleep TV or other asocial activities The relationship is identical
though substantively weaker for time spent with friends and for time spent onsocial activities
The results also verify that the statistical controls while predictable and
interesting in their own right do not eliminate the underlying ldquodisplacementrdquorelationships between amount of Internet use yesterday and the amount of active face-to-face time As might be expected men are significantly less likelyto spend time with family than women (and more time with friends and onsocial activities) Married people and single parents spend more time withfamily but less time with friends and on social activities Moreover individualsliving alone are less likely to spend time with family friends and on socializingEven though the analysis is limited to those under age 65 age still reduces face-to-face interactions with family members friends and social activities Turningto the other time controls time spent on sleep work and TV watching asexpected has a negative relationship with all measures of sociability
These findings concur with the earlier findings of the SIQSS and theKennedy School studies However they are now based on more detailed androbust data Time can be reallocatedmdashfrom time spent with friends family or onsocial activities to time spent on the Internetmdashbut not expanded it is indeedlike a hydraulic system where increases in activity in one area reduce time
available for other activities
INTERNET USE AND LEISURE WEEKDAYS VERSUS WEEKENDS
While the above analysis provides new insights regarding the impact of location of Internet use on sociability when the Internet is used may alsoprovide an important distinction For most people the weekend typically holdsmany more discretionary moments in the day in which individuals can choosehow they wish to spend their time and with whom they wish to spend it I f the
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1029
10IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 3 HOMEWORK INTERNET USE AND SOCIAL CONTACTACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 21968 2910 59690 3928 29947 2712 Background FactorsEducation 010 061 036 110 003 013
Male 200 235 -824 -480 550 441
Married -577 -456 2765 1086 -852 -461
African-American -256 -188 -564 -205 164 082
Hispanic -046 -031 -211 -071 -260 -121
Asian and other -143 -074 -503 -130 -149 -053
Age -036 -145 083 168 -112 -311
Age square 000 073 -001 -228 001 222
Number of children -170 -330 108 104 -215 -286
Weekday -3419 -2473 -8943 -3215 -3422 -1693
Living alone -166 -117 -2385 -833 -485 -233
Single parents -322 -182 876 246 -149 -058
Time Factors TV time -018 -1877 001 039 -019 -1351
Sleep time -013 -1322 -036 -1783 -021 -1395
Work time -014 -2219 -040 -3078 -013 -1397
ONLINE AT HOME -013 -574 -048 -1094 -018 -567
ONLINE AT WORK 005 096 018 171 -003 -034
Adjusted R Square 044 060 026
F 26124 49953 11963
N 5738 5738 5738
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
displacement model is correct the amount of home use of the Internet shouldhave its strongest impact on time spent with both friends and family on
weekends when people have more freedom to choose what they wish to do andwith whom if anyone they wish to spend their time 13 Table 4 reports theregression results for the weekend analysis and Table 5 reports the regressionresults for the weekday analysis
The relationship between time spent on Internetemail at home on theweekend and time spent with family is the strongest observed so far thecoefficient is -069 (see Table 5) This means that for every hour spent onlinethere is a corresponding 41 minutes less spent with family members While thisnumber is substantively small for the average respondent (with an average of only 25 minutes spent on the Internet it results in 15 fewer minutes withfamily) it is quite easy to see that for heavy Internet users this effect is quiteprofound The weekday regressions too find that time spent on the Internet at
home has a strong significant and negative influence on time spent with familymembers but the strength of the relationship is only about half of what it is onweekends once again offering support for the displacement hypothesis14
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1129
11IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 4 ANALYSIS OF WEEKDAY INTERNET USE
Diary Minutesβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 15092 1927 44972 2608 22567 1880 Background Factor
Education 012 074 044 124 -011 -044
Male 229 264 -809 -424 447 337
Married -543 -426 2506 893 -674 -345 African-American -189 -132 -493 -157 151 069
Hispanic -183 -120 -312 -093 -191 -081Asian and other -257 -133 -498 -117 -318 -107
Age -022 -086 044 080 -068 -176
Age square 000 057 -001 -139 000 105Number of children -096 -185 097 085 -214 -269
Living alone -076 -054 -2266 -727 -348 -160
Single parents -331 -184 1020 258 100 036
Time Factor TV time -015 -1434 009 408 -017 -1091 Sleep time -011 -1003 -031 -1329 -017 -1045
Work time -011 -1702 -031 -2168 -010 -1024
ONLINE AT HOME -010 -469 -039 -832 -012 -370
ONLINE AT WORK 004 087 011 105 -004 -056
Adjusted R Square 010 023 007
F 2961 7671 1912
N 4092 4092 4092
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
CONCLUSION
Results from Americarsquos first online time diary survey offer strong supportfor the ldquohydraul icrdquo or displacement hypothesismdashand no evidence to support the
efficiency hypothesis On average the more time spent on the Internet at homethe less time spent with friends family and on social activities in contrastInternet use at work has little effect on sociability Similarly Internet useduring the weekends is more strongly related to decreased time interacting andsocializing than Internet use during weekdays for it is during this time whenInternet and email use competes most directly with time spent in face-to-faceinteractions with others
Internet use and sociability were examined from a number of differentangles with invariable support for the displacement hypothesis Of the different
measures of sociability the active engagement measure appears to best capture
interpersonal interaction The social activity variable is just one subset of face-to-
face interaction and it likely captures time with friends more than time with familyFor instance parents undoubtedly spent less time on ldquosocializingrdquo activities such as
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1229
12IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 5 ANALYSIS OF WEEKEND INTERNET USE
Diary Minuteβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 29194 1671 71013 2311 38464 1573 Background Factor
Education -007 -017 -024 -035 038 068
Male 027 013 -1142 -321 710 251
Married -702 -231 3301 616 -1413 -331
African-American -319 -105 -896 -168 257 060
Hispanic 230 069 -054 -009 -450 -097
Asian and other 154 033 -444 -054 322 049
Age -089 -155 101 100 -242 -303
Age square 001 078 -002 -126 002 250
Number of children -310 -251 289 133 -176 -102
Living alone -320 -091 -2678 -432 -840 -170
Single parents -397 -095 370 050 -925 -158
Time Factor TV time -026 -1164 -013 -337 -024 -754
Sleep time -020 -857 -048 -1198 -029 -911
Work time -023 -1442 -063 -2271 -021 -940
ONLINE AT HOME -016 -265 -069 -665 -036 -437
ONLINE AT WORK -003 -014 019 047 -018 -057
Adjusted R Square 018 034 011
F 2348 5339 1379
N 1645 1645 1645
Note
p lt05 p lt 01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
parties or theatre but that hardly means thatthey are spending less time in
interpersonal interactions In fact most studies of social networks find thatmarried individuals have stronger social support systems than single people
These findings confirm that the quantity of face-to-face interpersonalinteraction is affected by how an individual uses and distributes his or her timeduring the day Future research should compare traditional interactions withcyber interactions to evaluate the extent to which the social value of this newform of communication compensates for the potential negative consequencesBut in studying these social benefits researchers must acknowledge that theInternet al so has the potential to hold social detriments
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1329
13IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
REFERENCES
Cole J I Suman M Schramm P Van Bel D Lunn B Maguire P
Hanson K Singh R and Aquino J S 2000 The UCL A I nternet Report Sur veying t he Digita l Fut ur e Los Angeles UCLA Center forCommunication Policy
Franzen A 2000 Does the Internet Make Us Lonely European Sociological
Review 16(4) p 427-438Hafner K 2000 Working at Home TodayNew York Tim es November 2Hampton K N and Wellman B 1999 Netville On-Line and Off-L ine
Amer ican Behavioral Scient ist 43(3) p 478-495Kadushin C 1982 Social Density and Mental Health In Marsden P V and
Lin N (eds) Social Str uctur e and Netw or k A nalysis Beverly Hi lls CASage
National Public Radio Kaiser Family Foundation and Kennedy School of
Government 2000 Survey Shows Widespread Enthusiasm for High TechnologyNPR Onli ne Repor t 3 (February)
Nie N 1999 Tracking Our Techno Future Am er ican Demograph ics 21(7) p
50-52Nie N 2001 Sociabil ity Interpersonal Relations and the Internet Reconciling
Conflicting Findings Am eri can Behavioral Scienti st 45(3) p 420-435Nie N and Erbring L 2000 I nt ern et and Society A Prel imi nary Report
Stanford CA Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society
Repr in ted in t hi s issue
Nie N and Sackman H 1970 The Information U ti l i t y and Social Choice Montvale NJ AFIPS
PEW Internet and American Life Project 2000 Tracking Online Life HowWomen Use the Internet to Cultivate Relationships with Family andFriends Onli ne Int ern et L ife Report May 10
Putnam R 1995 Bowling Alone Americarsquos Declining Social Capital Journ al of Democracy 6 p 65-78
Putnam R 2000 Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival of American
Communi ty New York Simon and SchusterRobinson J and Godbey G 1997 Time for Life The Surpris ing Ways
Am er icans U se Their T im e University Park PA Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press
Robinson J P Kestnbaum M Neustadtl A and Alvarez A 2001Information Technology the Internet and Time Displacement Revision
of paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Associationof Public Opinion Research in Portland OR May 2000 Next ar t i cle in
t hi s issue
Salaff J Wellman B and Dimitrova D 1998 There is a Time and Place for Teleworking In R Suomi P J ackson L Hollman M Aspnas (eds)Teleworking Environments Proceedings of the Third International
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1429
14IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
Work shop on Telework Turku Finland Turku Center for ComputerScience General Publication 8 p 11-31
Steiner G A 1963 The People Look at Television A Study of Audience
Att i tudes New York KnopfUCLA Internet Report 2000 Surveying th e Dig i ta l Fut ur e (SDF) Los AngelesCA October
Ulsaner E 2000 Social Capital and the Net Proceedings of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) 43 (December) p 60-64
Wellman B Haase A Q Witte J and Hampton K 2001 Does the InternetIncrease Decrease or Supplement Social Capital Social NetworksParticipation and Community Commitment American Behavioral
Scientist 45(3) p 437-456Wellman B and Wortley S 1990 Different Strokes from Different Folks
Community Ties and Social Support Am er ican Jour nal of Sociology 96p 558-588
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1529
15IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX AK NOWLEDGE NETWORKS METHODOLOGY
The data used in this analysis were collected by Knowledge Networksusing a new time-diary methodology that needs further explanation In order toovercome the fact that close to half of all Americans did not have access to theInternet at the time of the study Knowledge Networks provides representativenational samples with Internet equipment in exchange for participation insurveys Respondents in the Knowledge Networks (KN) panel are randomlyrecruited through Random Digit Dial (RDD) sampling methods on a quarterly-updated sample frame consisting of the entire US telephone population and areprovided with WebTV equipment All telephone numbers have an equalprobability of selection and sampling is done without replacement Although
this sampling technique entails the coverage error of excluding householdswithout telephones (less than 5 of population) this approach has significantlybroader coverage than sampling techniques that draw only from computersusers with I nternet access (eg Harris I nteractive)
Before the initial telephone calls are made households in the RDDsample with listed addresses are sent letters describing the proposed exchangerelationship During the initial RDD telephone interview respondents are toldthey have been selected to participate in an important national study and theywill be given a WebTV receiver that will allow them free access to the Internet if they will answer brief surveys on their television I t is emphasized thatconfidentiality and privacy are always upheld and that no other household canreplace theirs Respondents are immediately polled regarding the extent towhich members of their households are experienced with the Internet andproficient with computers
Once the WebTV equipment is installed in their homes respondents areasked to respond to some profile surveys that record the key attributes of eachhousehold member For example respondents are asked about their genderdate of birth ethnicity education income etc All adults (aged 18 and older) of the selected household are asked to respond to surveys via WebTV Eachmember is sent one short survey per week usually not taking more than 15minutes to complete In rare instances when panel members are asked torespond to longer surveys they would be given a week off or some other form of incentive Respondents can respond to the surveys at any time at their
convenience and are permitted to stop before they complete the survey andreturn to it at a later time Respondents who fail to respond to eight consecutivesurveys will have the WebTV receiver removed from their homes Detailedinformation on the methodology can be found at wwwknowledgenetworkscom
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1629
16IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX BDIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 6
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activitycategorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity they were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking Kitchen Cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard WorkInternetEmail Telephone Calls PlantPet Care Paperwork OrganizeUnpackOther (user defined)
For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone and ComputerWork were included as options This picks up Internet use whether that usewas say educational professional or simply recreational
The respondents were then asked how longthe activity lasted (10 min to20 min to 1 hour or more) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whetheralone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother)
Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the same
time as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a check list of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked toidentify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown their completeddiary form based on their answers to ensure that their results were accurate
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of I nternet use the content and number of emails (personal vs work related) their types of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed) their amount of TV watching sleep and social interactionsBesides providing supplemental information these follow-up questions provided
an additional measure of the independent and dependent variables (andanalysis were replicated using these measures with identical results)mdashas wellas proving an accuracy check for their time-diary estimates For sample diaryscreens see NieHillygusAppendixBdoc
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1729
17IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 6 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activitiesHousework Cleaning chores cooking home financesChild Care Feeding clothing playing with childrenErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail readSocial Outing Socializing parties events moviesRecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies gamesOrganizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacksDressWash Dress shower bathe groomSleep Sleep nap or dozeOther User Defined
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1829
18IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX CREPL ICATION WITH ldquoESTIMATEDrdquo INTERNET USE
For comparabil ity with the first Internet study the results are replicated usingthe follow-up measure of Internet use in which respondents are asked toestimate the number of hours and minutes spent on the Internet and Emailyesterday The results are reported in Table 7 The relationship betweenestimated time online and time spent with family friends and on socialactivities remains negative and significant though the relationship is not quiteas crisp as those reported in Table 3 (generally weaker relationships on thecoefficients and slightly smaller R -squared values)
TABLE 7 ANALYSIS WITH ESTIMATED INTERNET TIME (FOLLOW-UP MEASURE)
Diary Minute
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 53254 1370 37296 1323 20805 1182
Background Factor
Education 190 158 026 030 064 116
Male -3211 -502 1915 413 815 282
Married 10085 1065 -2782 -405 -1533 -357
African-American -1905 -186 706 095 -490 -106
Hispanic -1156 -105 -861 -107 -1178 -235
Asian and other -2198 -152 -619 -059 -248 -038
Age 221 120 -441 -330 -176 -210
Age square -004 -180 004 239 001 148
Number of children 477 123 -775 -277 -637 -364
Weekday -9346 -1290 -3681 -701 -3279 -999
Living alon -8228 -771 -1755 -227 -225 -047Single parents 3098 233 -129 -013 -493 -082
Time Factors
TV time 000 005 -018 -1187 -015 -1528
Sleep time -032 -1819 -017 -1308 -008 -1015
WORK TIME -037 -3091 -012 -1345 -010 -1914
ONLINE TIME (EST) -029 -777 -013 -487 -004 -219
Adjusted R Square 029 009 013
F 15060 3644 5320
N 5738 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Active Time wFamil Active Time wFriend Time on Social Activitie
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1929
19IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX DREPL ICATION FOR TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND TIME ON CHILD CARE
The analysis was also replicated for two other measures of sociabilitytime spent on organization activities and time spent on child care The resultsfor this analysis can be found in Table 8 Once again the results find asignificant negative relationship between time spent on the Internet at homeand the dependent variables The results are substantively smaller than theresults found in previous analysis but they nonetheless offer support for thedisplacement hypothesis
TABLE 8 TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 4238 1090 8562 1303
Background FactorsEducation 019 231 013 092
Male 068 155 -570 -769
Married 188 289 681 619
African-American 348 495 002 002
Hispanic -105 -138 128 099
Asian and other -011 -011 -010 -006
Age 005 040 022 104
Age square 000 -009 -001 -249
Number of children 007 025 247 551
Weekday -757 -1064 2643 2198
Living alone 041 056 167 135
Single parents 055 060 329 213 Time Factor
TV time -004 -744 -008 -942
Sleep time -003 -661 -007 -751
Work time -003 -981 -009 -1636
ONLINE AT HOME -004 -337 -010 -510
ONLINE AT WORK 006 210 -001 -029
Adjusted R Square 013 014
F 5150 5634
N 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Organization Time on Child Car
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1029
10IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 3 HOMEWORK INTERNET USE AND SOCIAL CONTACTACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 21968 2910 59690 3928 29947 2712 Background FactorsEducation 010 061 036 110 003 013
Male 200 235 -824 -480 550 441
Married -577 -456 2765 1086 -852 -461
African-American -256 -188 -564 -205 164 082
Hispanic -046 -031 -211 -071 -260 -121
Asian and other -143 -074 -503 -130 -149 -053
Age -036 -145 083 168 -112 -311
Age square 000 073 -001 -228 001 222
Number of children -170 -330 108 104 -215 -286
Weekday -3419 -2473 -8943 -3215 -3422 -1693
Living alone -166 -117 -2385 -833 -485 -233
Single parents -322 -182 876 246 -149 -058
Time Factors TV time -018 -1877 001 039 -019 -1351
Sleep time -013 -1322 -036 -1783 -021 -1395
Work time -014 -2219 -040 -3078 -013 -1397
ONLINE AT HOME -013 -574 -048 -1094 -018 -567
ONLINE AT WORK 005 096 018 171 -003 -034
Adjusted R Square 044 060 026
F 26124 49953 11963
N 5738 5738 5738
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
displacement model is correct the amount of home use of the Internet shouldhave its strongest impact on time spent with both friends and family on
weekends when people have more freedom to choose what they wish to do andwith whom if anyone they wish to spend their time 13 Table 4 reports theregression results for the weekend analysis and Table 5 reports the regressionresults for the weekday analysis
The relationship between time spent on Internetemail at home on theweekend and time spent with family is the strongest observed so far thecoefficient is -069 (see Table 5) This means that for every hour spent onlinethere is a corresponding 41 minutes less spent with family members While thisnumber is substantively small for the average respondent (with an average of only 25 minutes spent on the Internet it results in 15 fewer minutes withfamily) it is quite easy to see that for heavy Internet users this effect is quiteprofound The weekday regressions too find that time spent on the Internet at
home has a strong significant and negative influence on time spent with familymembers but the strength of the relationship is only about half of what it is onweekends once again offering support for the displacement hypothesis14
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1129
11IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 4 ANALYSIS OF WEEKDAY INTERNET USE
Diary Minutesβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 15092 1927 44972 2608 22567 1880 Background Factor
Education 012 074 044 124 -011 -044
Male 229 264 -809 -424 447 337
Married -543 -426 2506 893 -674 -345 African-American -189 -132 -493 -157 151 069
Hispanic -183 -120 -312 -093 -191 -081Asian and other -257 -133 -498 -117 -318 -107
Age -022 -086 044 080 -068 -176
Age square 000 057 -001 -139 000 105Number of children -096 -185 097 085 -214 -269
Living alone -076 -054 -2266 -727 -348 -160
Single parents -331 -184 1020 258 100 036
Time Factor TV time -015 -1434 009 408 -017 -1091 Sleep time -011 -1003 -031 -1329 -017 -1045
Work time -011 -1702 -031 -2168 -010 -1024
ONLINE AT HOME -010 -469 -039 -832 -012 -370
ONLINE AT WORK 004 087 011 105 -004 -056
Adjusted R Square 010 023 007
F 2961 7671 1912
N 4092 4092 4092
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
CONCLUSION
Results from Americarsquos first online time diary survey offer strong supportfor the ldquohydraul icrdquo or displacement hypothesismdashand no evidence to support the
efficiency hypothesis On average the more time spent on the Internet at homethe less time spent with friends family and on social activities in contrastInternet use at work has little effect on sociability Similarly Internet useduring the weekends is more strongly related to decreased time interacting andsocializing than Internet use during weekdays for it is during this time whenInternet and email use competes most directly with time spent in face-to-faceinteractions with others
Internet use and sociability were examined from a number of differentangles with invariable support for the displacement hypothesis Of the different
measures of sociability the active engagement measure appears to best capture
interpersonal interaction The social activity variable is just one subset of face-to-
face interaction and it likely captures time with friends more than time with familyFor instance parents undoubtedly spent less time on ldquosocializingrdquo activities such as
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1229
12IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 5 ANALYSIS OF WEEKEND INTERNET USE
Diary Minuteβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 29194 1671 71013 2311 38464 1573 Background Factor
Education -007 -017 -024 -035 038 068
Male 027 013 -1142 -321 710 251
Married -702 -231 3301 616 -1413 -331
African-American -319 -105 -896 -168 257 060
Hispanic 230 069 -054 -009 -450 -097
Asian and other 154 033 -444 -054 322 049
Age -089 -155 101 100 -242 -303
Age square 001 078 -002 -126 002 250
Number of children -310 -251 289 133 -176 -102
Living alone -320 -091 -2678 -432 -840 -170
Single parents -397 -095 370 050 -925 -158
Time Factor TV time -026 -1164 -013 -337 -024 -754
Sleep time -020 -857 -048 -1198 -029 -911
Work time -023 -1442 -063 -2271 -021 -940
ONLINE AT HOME -016 -265 -069 -665 -036 -437
ONLINE AT WORK -003 -014 019 047 -018 -057
Adjusted R Square 018 034 011
F 2348 5339 1379
N 1645 1645 1645
Note
p lt05 p lt 01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
parties or theatre but that hardly means thatthey are spending less time in
interpersonal interactions In fact most studies of social networks find thatmarried individuals have stronger social support systems than single people
These findings confirm that the quantity of face-to-face interpersonalinteraction is affected by how an individual uses and distributes his or her timeduring the day Future research should compare traditional interactions withcyber interactions to evaluate the extent to which the social value of this newform of communication compensates for the potential negative consequencesBut in studying these social benefits researchers must acknowledge that theInternet al so has the potential to hold social detriments
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1329
13IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
REFERENCES
Cole J I Suman M Schramm P Van Bel D Lunn B Maguire P
Hanson K Singh R and Aquino J S 2000 The UCL A I nternet Report Sur veying t he Digita l Fut ur e Los Angeles UCLA Center forCommunication Policy
Franzen A 2000 Does the Internet Make Us Lonely European Sociological
Review 16(4) p 427-438Hafner K 2000 Working at Home TodayNew York Tim es November 2Hampton K N and Wellman B 1999 Netville On-Line and Off-L ine
Amer ican Behavioral Scient ist 43(3) p 478-495Kadushin C 1982 Social Density and Mental Health In Marsden P V and
Lin N (eds) Social Str uctur e and Netw or k A nalysis Beverly Hi lls CASage
National Public Radio Kaiser Family Foundation and Kennedy School of
Government 2000 Survey Shows Widespread Enthusiasm for High TechnologyNPR Onli ne Repor t 3 (February)
Nie N 1999 Tracking Our Techno Future Am er ican Demograph ics 21(7) p
50-52Nie N 2001 Sociabil ity Interpersonal Relations and the Internet Reconciling
Conflicting Findings Am eri can Behavioral Scienti st 45(3) p 420-435Nie N and Erbring L 2000 I nt ern et and Society A Prel imi nary Report
Stanford CA Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society
Repr in ted in t hi s issue
Nie N and Sackman H 1970 The Information U ti l i t y and Social Choice Montvale NJ AFIPS
PEW Internet and American Life Project 2000 Tracking Online Life HowWomen Use the Internet to Cultivate Relationships with Family andFriends Onli ne Int ern et L ife Report May 10
Putnam R 1995 Bowling Alone Americarsquos Declining Social Capital Journ al of Democracy 6 p 65-78
Putnam R 2000 Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival of American
Communi ty New York Simon and SchusterRobinson J and Godbey G 1997 Time for Life The Surpris ing Ways
Am er icans U se Their T im e University Park PA Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press
Robinson J P Kestnbaum M Neustadtl A and Alvarez A 2001Information Technology the Internet and Time Displacement Revision
of paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Associationof Public Opinion Research in Portland OR May 2000 Next ar t i cle in
t hi s issue
Salaff J Wellman B and Dimitrova D 1998 There is a Time and Place for Teleworking In R Suomi P J ackson L Hollman M Aspnas (eds)Teleworking Environments Proceedings of the Third International
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1429
14IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
Work shop on Telework Turku Finland Turku Center for ComputerScience General Publication 8 p 11-31
Steiner G A 1963 The People Look at Television A Study of Audience
Att i tudes New York KnopfUCLA Internet Report 2000 Surveying th e Dig i ta l Fut ur e (SDF) Los AngelesCA October
Ulsaner E 2000 Social Capital and the Net Proceedings of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) 43 (December) p 60-64
Wellman B Haase A Q Witte J and Hampton K 2001 Does the InternetIncrease Decrease or Supplement Social Capital Social NetworksParticipation and Community Commitment American Behavioral
Scientist 45(3) p 437-456Wellman B and Wortley S 1990 Different Strokes from Different Folks
Community Ties and Social Support Am er ican Jour nal of Sociology 96p 558-588
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1529
15IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX AK NOWLEDGE NETWORKS METHODOLOGY
The data used in this analysis were collected by Knowledge Networksusing a new time-diary methodology that needs further explanation In order toovercome the fact that close to half of all Americans did not have access to theInternet at the time of the study Knowledge Networks provides representativenational samples with Internet equipment in exchange for participation insurveys Respondents in the Knowledge Networks (KN) panel are randomlyrecruited through Random Digit Dial (RDD) sampling methods on a quarterly-updated sample frame consisting of the entire US telephone population and areprovided with WebTV equipment All telephone numbers have an equalprobability of selection and sampling is done without replacement Although
this sampling technique entails the coverage error of excluding householdswithout telephones (less than 5 of population) this approach has significantlybroader coverage than sampling techniques that draw only from computersusers with I nternet access (eg Harris I nteractive)
Before the initial telephone calls are made households in the RDDsample with listed addresses are sent letters describing the proposed exchangerelationship During the initial RDD telephone interview respondents are toldthey have been selected to participate in an important national study and theywill be given a WebTV receiver that will allow them free access to the Internet if they will answer brief surveys on their television I t is emphasized thatconfidentiality and privacy are always upheld and that no other household canreplace theirs Respondents are immediately polled regarding the extent towhich members of their households are experienced with the Internet andproficient with computers
Once the WebTV equipment is installed in their homes respondents areasked to respond to some profile surveys that record the key attributes of eachhousehold member For example respondents are asked about their genderdate of birth ethnicity education income etc All adults (aged 18 and older) of the selected household are asked to respond to surveys via WebTV Eachmember is sent one short survey per week usually not taking more than 15minutes to complete In rare instances when panel members are asked torespond to longer surveys they would be given a week off or some other form of incentive Respondents can respond to the surveys at any time at their
convenience and are permitted to stop before they complete the survey andreturn to it at a later time Respondents who fail to respond to eight consecutivesurveys will have the WebTV receiver removed from their homes Detailedinformation on the methodology can be found at wwwknowledgenetworkscom
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1629
16IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX BDIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 6
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activitycategorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity they were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking Kitchen Cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard WorkInternetEmail Telephone Calls PlantPet Care Paperwork OrganizeUnpackOther (user defined)
For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone and ComputerWork were included as options This picks up Internet use whether that usewas say educational professional or simply recreational
The respondents were then asked how longthe activity lasted (10 min to20 min to 1 hour or more) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whetheralone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother)
Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the same
time as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a check list of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked toidentify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown their completeddiary form based on their answers to ensure that their results were accurate
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of I nternet use the content and number of emails (personal vs work related) their types of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed) their amount of TV watching sleep and social interactionsBesides providing supplemental information these follow-up questions provided
an additional measure of the independent and dependent variables (andanalysis were replicated using these measures with identical results)mdashas wellas proving an accuracy check for their time-diary estimates For sample diaryscreens see NieHillygusAppendixBdoc
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1729
17IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 6 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activitiesHousework Cleaning chores cooking home financesChild Care Feeding clothing playing with childrenErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail readSocial Outing Socializing parties events moviesRecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies gamesOrganizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacksDressWash Dress shower bathe groomSleep Sleep nap or dozeOther User Defined
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1829
18IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX CREPL ICATION WITH ldquoESTIMATEDrdquo INTERNET USE
For comparabil ity with the first Internet study the results are replicated usingthe follow-up measure of Internet use in which respondents are asked toestimate the number of hours and minutes spent on the Internet and Emailyesterday The results are reported in Table 7 The relationship betweenestimated time online and time spent with family friends and on socialactivities remains negative and significant though the relationship is not quiteas crisp as those reported in Table 3 (generally weaker relationships on thecoefficients and slightly smaller R -squared values)
TABLE 7 ANALYSIS WITH ESTIMATED INTERNET TIME (FOLLOW-UP MEASURE)
Diary Minute
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 53254 1370 37296 1323 20805 1182
Background Factor
Education 190 158 026 030 064 116
Male -3211 -502 1915 413 815 282
Married 10085 1065 -2782 -405 -1533 -357
African-American -1905 -186 706 095 -490 -106
Hispanic -1156 -105 -861 -107 -1178 -235
Asian and other -2198 -152 -619 -059 -248 -038
Age 221 120 -441 -330 -176 -210
Age square -004 -180 004 239 001 148
Number of children 477 123 -775 -277 -637 -364
Weekday -9346 -1290 -3681 -701 -3279 -999
Living alon -8228 -771 -1755 -227 -225 -047Single parents 3098 233 -129 -013 -493 -082
Time Factors
TV time 000 005 -018 -1187 -015 -1528
Sleep time -032 -1819 -017 -1308 -008 -1015
WORK TIME -037 -3091 -012 -1345 -010 -1914
ONLINE TIME (EST) -029 -777 -013 -487 -004 -219
Adjusted R Square 029 009 013
F 15060 3644 5320
N 5738 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Active Time wFamil Active Time wFriend Time on Social Activitie
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1929
19IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX DREPL ICATION FOR TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND TIME ON CHILD CARE
The analysis was also replicated for two other measures of sociabilitytime spent on organization activities and time spent on child care The resultsfor this analysis can be found in Table 8 Once again the results find asignificant negative relationship between time spent on the Internet at homeand the dependent variables The results are substantively smaller than theresults found in previous analysis but they nonetheless offer support for thedisplacement hypothesis
TABLE 8 TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 4238 1090 8562 1303
Background FactorsEducation 019 231 013 092
Male 068 155 -570 -769
Married 188 289 681 619
African-American 348 495 002 002
Hispanic -105 -138 128 099
Asian and other -011 -011 -010 -006
Age 005 040 022 104
Age square 000 -009 -001 -249
Number of children 007 025 247 551
Weekday -757 -1064 2643 2198
Living alone 041 056 167 135
Single parents 055 060 329 213 Time Factor
TV time -004 -744 -008 -942
Sleep time -003 -661 -007 -751
Work time -003 -981 -009 -1636
ONLINE AT HOME -004 -337 -010 -510
ONLINE AT WORK 006 210 -001 -029
Adjusted R Square 013 014
F 5150 5634
N 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Organization Time on Child Car
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1129
11IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 4 ANALYSIS OF WEEKDAY INTERNET USE
Diary Minutesβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 15092 1927 44972 2608 22567 1880 Background Factor
Education 012 074 044 124 -011 -044
Male 229 264 -809 -424 447 337
Married -543 -426 2506 893 -674 -345 African-American -189 -132 -493 -157 151 069
Hispanic -183 -120 -312 -093 -191 -081Asian and other -257 -133 -498 -117 -318 -107
Age -022 -086 044 080 -068 -176
Age square 000 057 -001 -139 000 105Number of children -096 -185 097 085 -214 -269
Living alone -076 -054 -2266 -727 -348 -160
Single parents -331 -184 1020 258 100 036
Time Factor TV time -015 -1434 009 408 -017 -1091 Sleep time -011 -1003 -031 -1329 -017 -1045
Work time -011 -1702 -031 -2168 -010 -1024
ONLINE AT HOME -010 -469 -039 -832 -012 -370
ONLINE AT WORK 004 087 011 105 -004 -056
Adjusted R Square 010 023 007
F 2961 7671 1912
N 4092 4092 4092
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
CONCLUSION
Results from Americarsquos first online time diary survey offer strong supportfor the ldquohydraul icrdquo or displacement hypothesismdashand no evidence to support the
efficiency hypothesis On average the more time spent on the Internet at homethe less time spent with friends family and on social activities in contrastInternet use at work has little effect on sociability Similarly Internet useduring the weekends is more strongly related to decreased time interacting andsocializing than Internet use during weekdays for it is during this time whenInternet and email use competes most directly with time spent in face-to-faceinteractions with others
Internet use and sociability were examined from a number of differentangles with invariable support for the displacement hypothesis Of the different
measures of sociability the active engagement measure appears to best capture
interpersonal interaction The social activity variable is just one subset of face-to-
face interaction and it likely captures time with friends more than time with familyFor instance parents undoubtedly spent less time on ldquosocializingrdquo activities such as
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1229
12IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 5 ANALYSIS OF WEEKEND INTERNET USE
Diary Minuteβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 29194 1671 71013 2311 38464 1573 Background Factor
Education -007 -017 -024 -035 038 068
Male 027 013 -1142 -321 710 251
Married -702 -231 3301 616 -1413 -331
African-American -319 -105 -896 -168 257 060
Hispanic 230 069 -054 -009 -450 -097
Asian and other 154 033 -444 -054 322 049
Age -089 -155 101 100 -242 -303
Age square 001 078 -002 -126 002 250
Number of children -310 -251 289 133 -176 -102
Living alone -320 -091 -2678 -432 -840 -170
Single parents -397 -095 370 050 -925 -158
Time Factor TV time -026 -1164 -013 -337 -024 -754
Sleep time -020 -857 -048 -1198 -029 -911
Work time -023 -1442 -063 -2271 -021 -940
ONLINE AT HOME -016 -265 -069 -665 -036 -437
ONLINE AT WORK -003 -014 019 047 -018 -057
Adjusted R Square 018 034 011
F 2348 5339 1379
N 1645 1645 1645
Note
p lt05 p lt 01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
parties or theatre but that hardly means thatthey are spending less time in
interpersonal interactions In fact most studies of social networks find thatmarried individuals have stronger social support systems than single people
These findings confirm that the quantity of face-to-face interpersonalinteraction is affected by how an individual uses and distributes his or her timeduring the day Future research should compare traditional interactions withcyber interactions to evaluate the extent to which the social value of this newform of communication compensates for the potential negative consequencesBut in studying these social benefits researchers must acknowledge that theInternet al so has the potential to hold social detriments
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1329
13IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
REFERENCES
Cole J I Suman M Schramm P Van Bel D Lunn B Maguire P
Hanson K Singh R and Aquino J S 2000 The UCL A I nternet Report Sur veying t he Digita l Fut ur e Los Angeles UCLA Center forCommunication Policy
Franzen A 2000 Does the Internet Make Us Lonely European Sociological
Review 16(4) p 427-438Hafner K 2000 Working at Home TodayNew York Tim es November 2Hampton K N and Wellman B 1999 Netville On-Line and Off-L ine
Amer ican Behavioral Scient ist 43(3) p 478-495Kadushin C 1982 Social Density and Mental Health In Marsden P V and
Lin N (eds) Social Str uctur e and Netw or k A nalysis Beverly Hi lls CASage
National Public Radio Kaiser Family Foundation and Kennedy School of
Government 2000 Survey Shows Widespread Enthusiasm for High TechnologyNPR Onli ne Repor t 3 (February)
Nie N 1999 Tracking Our Techno Future Am er ican Demograph ics 21(7) p
50-52Nie N 2001 Sociabil ity Interpersonal Relations and the Internet Reconciling
Conflicting Findings Am eri can Behavioral Scienti st 45(3) p 420-435Nie N and Erbring L 2000 I nt ern et and Society A Prel imi nary Report
Stanford CA Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society
Repr in ted in t hi s issue
Nie N and Sackman H 1970 The Information U ti l i t y and Social Choice Montvale NJ AFIPS
PEW Internet and American Life Project 2000 Tracking Online Life HowWomen Use the Internet to Cultivate Relationships with Family andFriends Onli ne Int ern et L ife Report May 10
Putnam R 1995 Bowling Alone Americarsquos Declining Social Capital Journ al of Democracy 6 p 65-78
Putnam R 2000 Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival of American
Communi ty New York Simon and SchusterRobinson J and Godbey G 1997 Time for Life The Surpris ing Ways
Am er icans U se Their T im e University Park PA Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press
Robinson J P Kestnbaum M Neustadtl A and Alvarez A 2001Information Technology the Internet and Time Displacement Revision
of paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Associationof Public Opinion Research in Portland OR May 2000 Next ar t i cle in
t hi s issue
Salaff J Wellman B and Dimitrova D 1998 There is a Time and Place for Teleworking In R Suomi P J ackson L Hollman M Aspnas (eds)Teleworking Environments Proceedings of the Third International
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1429
14IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
Work shop on Telework Turku Finland Turku Center for ComputerScience General Publication 8 p 11-31
Steiner G A 1963 The People Look at Television A Study of Audience
Att i tudes New York KnopfUCLA Internet Report 2000 Surveying th e Dig i ta l Fut ur e (SDF) Los AngelesCA October
Ulsaner E 2000 Social Capital and the Net Proceedings of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) 43 (December) p 60-64
Wellman B Haase A Q Witte J and Hampton K 2001 Does the InternetIncrease Decrease or Supplement Social Capital Social NetworksParticipation and Community Commitment American Behavioral
Scientist 45(3) p 437-456Wellman B and Wortley S 1990 Different Strokes from Different Folks
Community Ties and Social Support Am er ican Jour nal of Sociology 96p 558-588
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1529
15IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX AK NOWLEDGE NETWORKS METHODOLOGY
The data used in this analysis were collected by Knowledge Networksusing a new time-diary methodology that needs further explanation In order toovercome the fact that close to half of all Americans did not have access to theInternet at the time of the study Knowledge Networks provides representativenational samples with Internet equipment in exchange for participation insurveys Respondents in the Knowledge Networks (KN) panel are randomlyrecruited through Random Digit Dial (RDD) sampling methods on a quarterly-updated sample frame consisting of the entire US telephone population and areprovided with WebTV equipment All telephone numbers have an equalprobability of selection and sampling is done without replacement Although
this sampling technique entails the coverage error of excluding householdswithout telephones (less than 5 of population) this approach has significantlybroader coverage than sampling techniques that draw only from computersusers with I nternet access (eg Harris I nteractive)
Before the initial telephone calls are made households in the RDDsample with listed addresses are sent letters describing the proposed exchangerelationship During the initial RDD telephone interview respondents are toldthey have been selected to participate in an important national study and theywill be given a WebTV receiver that will allow them free access to the Internet if they will answer brief surveys on their television I t is emphasized thatconfidentiality and privacy are always upheld and that no other household canreplace theirs Respondents are immediately polled regarding the extent towhich members of their households are experienced with the Internet andproficient with computers
Once the WebTV equipment is installed in their homes respondents areasked to respond to some profile surveys that record the key attributes of eachhousehold member For example respondents are asked about their genderdate of birth ethnicity education income etc All adults (aged 18 and older) of the selected household are asked to respond to surveys via WebTV Eachmember is sent one short survey per week usually not taking more than 15minutes to complete In rare instances when panel members are asked torespond to longer surveys they would be given a week off or some other form of incentive Respondents can respond to the surveys at any time at their
convenience and are permitted to stop before they complete the survey andreturn to it at a later time Respondents who fail to respond to eight consecutivesurveys will have the WebTV receiver removed from their homes Detailedinformation on the methodology can be found at wwwknowledgenetworkscom
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1629
16IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX BDIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 6
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activitycategorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity they were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking Kitchen Cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard WorkInternetEmail Telephone Calls PlantPet Care Paperwork OrganizeUnpackOther (user defined)
For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone and ComputerWork were included as options This picks up Internet use whether that usewas say educational professional or simply recreational
The respondents were then asked how longthe activity lasted (10 min to20 min to 1 hour or more) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whetheralone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother)
Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the same
time as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a check list of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked toidentify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown their completeddiary form based on their answers to ensure that their results were accurate
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of I nternet use the content and number of emails (personal vs work related) their types of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed) their amount of TV watching sleep and social interactionsBesides providing supplemental information these follow-up questions provided
an additional measure of the independent and dependent variables (andanalysis were replicated using these measures with identical results)mdashas wellas proving an accuracy check for their time-diary estimates For sample diaryscreens see NieHillygusAppendixBdoc
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1729
17IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 6 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activitiesHousework Cleaning chores cooking home financesChild Care Feeding clothing playing with childrenErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail readSocial Outing Socializing parties events moviesRecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies gamesOrganizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacksDressWash Dress shower bathe groomSleep Sleep nap or dozeOther User Defined
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1829
18IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX CREPL ICATION WITH ldquoESTIMATEDrdquo INTERNET USE
For comparabil ity with the first Internet study the results are replicated usingthe follow-up measure of Internet use in which respondents are asked toestimate the number of hours and minutes spent on the Internet and Emailyesterday The results are reported in Table 7 The relationship betweenestimated time online and time spent with family friends and on socialactivities remains negative and significant though the relationship is not quiteas crisp as those reported in Table 3 (generally weaker relationships on thecoefficients and slightly smaller R -squared values)
TABLE 7 ANALYSIS WITH ESTIMATED INTERNET TIME (FOLLOW-UP MEASURE)
Diary Minute
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 53254 1370 37296 1323 20805 1182
Background Factor
Education 190 158 026 030 064 116
Male -3211 -502 1915 413 815 282
Married 10085 1065 -2782 -405 -1533 -357
African-American -1905 -186 706 095 -490 -106
Hispanic -1156 -105 -861 -107 -1178 -235
Asian and other -2198 -152 -619 -059 -248 -038
Age 221 120 -441 -330 -176 -210
Age square -004 -180 004 239 001 148
Number of children 477 123 -775 -277 -637 -364
Weekday -9346 -1290 -3681 -701 -3279 -999
Living alon -8228 -771 -1755 -227 -225 -047Single parents 3098 233 -129 -013 -493 -082
Time Factors
TV time 000 005 -018 -1187 -015 -1528
Sleep time -032 -1819 -017 -1308 -008 -1015
WORK TIME -037 -3091 -012 -1345 -010 -1914
ONLINE TIME (EST) -029 -777 -013 -487 -004 -219
Adjusted R Square 029 009 013
F 15060 3644 5320
N 5738 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Active Time wFamil Active Time wFriend Time on Social Activitie
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1929
19IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX DREPL ICATION FOR TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND TIME ON CHILD CARE
The analysis was also replicated for two other measures of sociabilitytime spent on organization activities and time spent on child care The resultsfor this analysis can be found in Table 8 Once again the results find asignificant negative relationship between time spent on the Internet at homeand the dependent variables The results are substantively smaller than theresults found in previous analysis but they nonetheless offer support for thedisplacement hypothesis
TABLE 8 TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 4238 1090 8562 1303
Background FactorsEducation 019 231 013 092
Male 068 155 -570 -769
Married 188 289 681 619
African-American 348 495 002 002
Hispanic -105 -138 128 099
Asian and other -011 -011 -010 -006
Age 005 040 022 104
Age square 000 -009 -001 -249
Number of children 007 025 247 551
Weekday -757 -1064 2643 2198
Living alone 041 056 167 135
Single parents 055 060 329 213 Time Factor
TV time -004 -744 -008 -942
Sleep time -003 -661 -007 -751
Work time -003 -981 -009 -1636
ONLINE AT HOME -004 -337 -010 -510
ONLINE AT WORK 006 210 -001 -029
Adjusted R Square 013 014
F 5150 5634
N 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Organization Time on Child Car
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1229
12IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 5 ANALYSIS OF WEEKEND INTERNET USE
Diary Minuteβ t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 29194 1671 71013 2311 38464 1573 Background Factor
Education -007 -017 -024 -035 038 068
Male 027 013 -1142 -321 710 251
Married -702 -231 3301 616 -1413 -331
African-American -319 -105 -896 -168 257 060
Hispanic 230 069 -054 -009 -450 -097
Asian and other 154 033 -444 -054 322 049
Age -089 -155 101 100 -242 -303
Age square 001 078 -002 -126 002 250
Number of children -310 -251 289 133 -176 -102
Living alone -320 -091 -2678 -432 -840 -170
Single parents -397 -095 370 050 -925 -158
Time Factor TV time -026 -1164 -013 -337 -024 -754
Sleep time -020 -857 -048 -1198 -029 -911
Work time -023 -1442 -063 -2271 -021 -940
ONLINE AT HOME -016 -265 -069 -665 -036 -437
ONLINE AT WORK -003 -014 019 047 -018 -057
Adjusted R Square 018 034 011
F 2348 5339 1379
N 1645 1645 1645
Note
p lt05 p lt 01 p lt001
Time on Social Activities Active Time wFamily Active Time wFriends
parties or theatre but that hardly means thatthey are spending less time in
interpersonal interactions In fact most studies of social networks find thatmarried individuals have stronger social support systems than single people
These findings confirm that the quantity of face-to-face interpersonalinteraction is affected by how an individual uses and distributes his or her timeduring the day Future research should compare traditional interactions withcyber interactions to evaluate the extent to which the social value of this newform of communication compensates for the potential negative consequencesBut in studying these social benefits researchers must acknowledge that theInternet al so has the potential to hold social detriments
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1329
13IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
REFERENCES
Cole J I Suman M Schramm P Van Bel D Lunn B Maguire P
Hanson K Singh R and Aquino J S 2000 The UCL A I nternet Report Sur veying t he Digita l Fut ur e Los Angeles UCLA Center forCommunication Policy
Franzen A 2000 Does the Internet Make Us Lonely European Sociological
Review 16(4) p 427-438Hafner K 2000 Working at Home TodayNew York Tim es November 2Hampton K N and Wellman B 1999 Netville On-Line and Off-L ine
Amer ican Behavioral Scient ist 43(3) p 478-495Kadushin C 1982 Social Density and Mental Health In Marsden P V and
Lin N (eds) Social Str uctur e and Netw or k A nalysis Beverly Hi lls CASage
National Public Radio Kaiser Family Foundation and Kennedy School of
Government 2000 Survey Shows Widespread Enthusiasm for High TechnologyNPR Onli ne Repor t 3 (February)
Nie N 1999 Tracking Our Techno Future Am er ican Demograph ics 21(7) p
50-52Nie N 2001 Sociabil ity Interpersonal Relations and the Internet Reconciling
Conflicting Findings Am eri can Behavioral Scienti st 45(3) p 420-435Nie N and Erbring L 2000 I nt ern et and Society A Prel imi nary Report
Stanford CA Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society
Repr in ted in t hi s issue
Nie N and Sackman H 1970 The Information U ti l i t y and Social Choice Montvale NJ AFIPS
PEW Internet and American Life Project 2000 Tracking Online Life HowWomen Use the Internet to Cultivate Relationships with Family andFriends Onli ne Int ern et L ife Report May 10
Putnam R 1995 Bowling Alone Americarsquos Declining Social Capital Journ al of Democracy 6 p 65-78
Putnam R 2000 Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival of American
Communi ty New York Simon and SchusterRobinson J and Godbey G 1997 Time for Life The Surpris ing Ways
Am er icans U se Their T im e University Park PA Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press
Robinson J P Kestnbaum M Neustadtl A and Alvarez A 2001Information Technology the Internet and Time Displacement Revision
of paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Associationof Public Opinion Research in Portland OR May 2000 Next ar t i cle in
t hi s issue
Salaff J Wellman B and Dimitrova D 1998 There is a Time and Place for Teleworking In R Suomi P J ackson L Hollman M Aspnas (eds)Teleworking Environments Proceedings of the Third International
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1429
14IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
Work shop on Telework Turku Finland Turku Center for ComputerScience General Publication 8 p 11-31
Steiner G A 1963 The People Look at Television A Study of Audience
Att i tudes New York KnopfUCLA Internet Report 2000 Surveying th e Dig i ta l Fut ur e (SDF) Los AngelesCA October
Ulsaner E 2000 Social Capital and the Net Proceedings of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) 43 (December) p 60-64
Wellman B Haase A Q Witte J and Hampton K 2001 Does the InternetIncrease Decrease or Supplement Social Capital Social NetworksParticipation and Community Commitment American Behavioral
Scientist 45(3) p 437-456Wellman B and Wortley S 1990 Different Strokes from Different Folks
Community Ties and Social Support Am er ican Jour nal of Sociology 96p 558-588
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1529
15IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX AK NOWLEDGE NETWORKS METHODOLOGY
The data used in this analysis were collected by Knowledge Networksusing a new time-diary methodology that needs further explanation In order toovercome the fact that close to half of all Americans did not have access to theInternet at the time of the study Knowledge Networks provides representativenational samples with Internet equipment in exchange for participation insurveys Respondents in the Knowledge Networks (KN) panel are randomlyrecruited through Random Digit Dial (RDD) sampling methods on a quarterly-updated sample frame consisting of the entire US telephone population and areprovided with WebTV equipment All telephone numbers have an equalprobability of selection and sampling is done without replacement Although
this sampling technique entails the coverage error of excluding householdswithout telephones (less than 5 of population) this approach has significantlybroader coverage than sampling techniques that draw only from computersusers with I nternet access (eg Harris I nteractive)
Before the initial telephone calls are made households in the RDDsample with listed addresses are sent letters describing the proposed exchangerelationship During the initial RDD telephone interview respondents are toldthey have been selected to participate in an important national study and theywill be given a WebTV receiver that will allow them free access to the Internet if they will answer brief surveys on their television I t is emphasized thatconfidentiality and privacy are always upheld and that no other household canreplace theirs Respondents are immediately polled regarding the extent towhich members of their households are experienced with the Internet andproficient with computers
Once the WebTV equipment is installed in their homes respondents areasked to respond to some profile surveys that record the key attributes of eachhousehold member For example respondents are asked about their genderdate of birth ethnicity education income etc All adults (aged 18 and older) of the selected household are asked to respond to surveys via WebTV Eachmember is sent one short survey per week usually not taking more than 15minutes to complete In rare instances when panel members are asked torespond to longer surveys they would be given a week off or some other form of incentive Respondents can respond to the surveys at any time at their
convenience and are permitted to stop before they complete the survey andreturn to it at a later time Respondents who fail to respond to eight consecutivesurveys will have the WebTV receiver removed from their homes Detailedinformation on the methodology can be found at wwwknowledgenetworkscom
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1629
16IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX BDIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 6
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activitycategorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity they were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking Kitchen Cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard WorkInternetEmail Telephone Calls PlantPet Care Paperwork OrganizeUnpackOther (user defined)
For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone and ComputerWork were included as options This picks up Internet use whether that usewas say educational professional or simply recreational
The respondents were then asked how longthe activity lasted (10 min to20 min to 1 hour or more) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whetheralone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother)
Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the same
time as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a check list of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked toidentify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown their completeddiary form based on their answers to ensure that their results were accurate
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of I nternet use the content and number of emails (personal vs work related) their types of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed) their amount of TV watching sleep and social interactionsBesides providing supplemental information these follow-up questions provided
an additional measure of the independent and dependent variables (andanalysis were replicated using these measures with identical results)mdashas wellas proving an accuracy check for their time-diary estimates For sample diaryscreens see NieHillygusAppendixBdoc
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1729
17IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 6 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activitiesHousework Cleaning chores cooking home financesChild Care Feeding clothing playing with childrenErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail readSocial Outing Socializing parties events moviesRecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies gamesOrganizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacksDressWash Dress shower bathe groomSleep Sleep nap or dozeOther User Defined
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1829
18IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX CREPL ICATION WITH ldquoESTIMATEDrdquo INTERNET USE
For comparabil ity with the first Internet study the results are replicated usingthe follow-up measure of Internet use in which respondents are asked toestimate the number of hours and minutes spent on the Internet and Emailyesterday The results are reported in Table 7 The relationship betweenestimated time online and time spent with family friends and on socialactivities remains negative and significant though the relationship is not quiteas crisp as those reported in Table 3 (generally weaker relationships on thecoefficients and slightly smaller R -squared values)
TABLE 7 ANALYSIS WITH ESTIMATED INTERNET TIME (FOLLOW-UP MEASURE)
Diary Minute
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 53254 1370 37296 1323 20805 1182
Background Factor
Education 190 158 026 030 064 116
Male -3211 -502 1915 413 815 282
Married 10085 1065 -2782 -405 -1533 -357
African-American -1905 -186 706 095 -490 -106
Hispanic -1156 -105 -861 -107 -1178 -235
Asian and other -2198 -152 -619 -059 -248 -038
Age 221 120 -441 -330 -176 -210
Age square -004 -180 004 239 001 148
Number of children 477 123 -775 -277 -637 -364
Weekday -9346 -1290 -3681 -701 -3279 -999
Living alon -8228 -771 -1755 -227 -225 -047Single parents 3098 233 -129 -013 -493 -082
Time Factors
TV time 000 005 -018 -1187 -015 -1528
Sleep time -032 -1819 -017 -1308 -008 -1015
WORK TIME -037 -3091 -012 -1345 -010 -1914
ONLINE TIME (EST) -029 -777 -013 -487 -004 -219
Adjusted R Square 029 009 013
F 15060 3644 5320
N 5738 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Active Time wFamil Active Time wFriend Time on Social Activitie
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1929
19IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX DREPL ICATION FOR TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND TIME ON CHILD CARE
The analysis was also replicated for two other measures of sociabilitytime spent on organization activities and time spent on child care The resultsfor this analysis can be found in Table 8 Once again the results find asignificant negative relationship between time spent on the Internet at homeand the dependent variables The results are substantively smaller than theresults found in previous analysis but they nonetheless offer support for thedisplacement hypothesis
TABLE 8 TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 4238 1090 8562 1303
Background FactorsEducation 019 231 013 092
Male 068 155 -570 -769
Married 188 289 681 619
African-American 348 495 002 002
Hispanic -105 -138 128 099
Asian and other -011 -011 -010 -006
Age 005 040 022 104
Age square 000 -009 -001 -249
Number of children 007 025 247 551
Weekday -757 -1064 2643 2198
Living alone 041 056 167 135
Single parents 055 060 329 213 Time Factor
TV time -004 -744 -008 -942
Sleep time -003 -661 -007 -751
Work time -003 -981 -009 -1636
ONLINE AT HOME -004 -337 -010 -510
ONLINE AT WORK 006 210 -001 -029
Adjusted R Square 013 014
F 5150 5634
N 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Organization Time on Child Car
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1329
13IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
REFERENCES
Cole J I Suman M Schramm P Van Bel D Lunn B Maguire P
Hanson K Singh R and Aquino J S 2000 The UCL A I nternet Report Sur veying t he Digita l Fut ur e Los Angeles UCLA Center forCommunication Policy
Franzen A 2000 Does the Internet Make Us Lonely European Sociological
Review 16(4) p 427-438Hafner K 2000 Working at Home TodayNew York Tim es November 2Hampton K N and Wellman B 1999 Netville On-Line and Off-L ine
Amer ican Behavioral Scient ist 43(3) p 478-495Kadushin C 1982 Social Density and Mental Health In Marsden P V and
Lin N (eds) Social Str uctur e and Netw or k A nalysis Beverly Hi lls CASage
National Public Radio Kaiser Family Foundation and Kennedy School of
Government 2000 Survey Shows Widespread Enthusiasm for High TechnologyNPR Onli ne Repor t 3 (February)
Nie N 1999 Tracking Our Techno Future Am er ican Demograph ics 21(7) p
50-52Nie N 2001 Sociabil ity Interpersonal Relations and the Internet Reconciling
Conflicting Findings Am eri can Behavioral Scienti st 45(3) p 420-435Nie N and Erbring L 2000 I nt ern et and Society A Prel imi nary Report
Stanford CA Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society
Repr in ted in t hi s issue
Nie N and Sackman H 1970 The Information U ti l i t y and Social Choice Montvale NJ AFIPS
PEW Internet and American Life Project 2000 Tracking Online Life HowWomen Use the Internet to Cultivate Relationships with Family andFriends Onli ne Int ern et L ife Report May 10
Putnam R 1995 Bowling Alone Americarsquos Declining Social Capital Journ al of Democracy 6 p 65-78
Putnam R 2000 Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival of American
Communi ty New York Simon and SchusterRobinson J and Godbey G 1997 Time for Life The Surpris ing Ways
Am er icans U se Their T im e University Park PA Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press
Robinson J P Kestnbaum M Neustadtl A and Alvarez A 2001Information Technology the Internet and Time Displacement Revision
of paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Associationof Public Opinion Research in Portland OR May 2000 Next ar t i cle in
t hi s issue
Salaff J Wellman B and Dimitrova D 1998 There is a Time and Place for Teleworking In R Suomi P J ackson L Hollman M Aspnas (eds)Teleworking Environments Proceedings of the Third International
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1429
14IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
Work shop on Telework Turku Finland Turku Center for ComputerScience General Publication 8 p 11-31
Steiner G A 1963 The People Look at Television A Study of Audience
Att i tudes New York KnopfUCLA Internet Report 2000 Surveying th e Dig i ta l Fut ur e (SDF) Los AngelesCA October
Ulsaner E 2000 Social Capital and the Net Proceedings of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) 43 (December) p 60-64
Wellman B Haase A Q Witte J and Hampton K 2001 Does the InternetIncrease Decrease or Supplement Social Capital Social NetworksParticipation and Community Commitment American Behavioral
Scientist 45(3) p 437-456Wellman B and Wortley S 1990 Different Strokes from Different Folks
Community Ties and Social Support Am er ican Jour nal of Sociology 96p 558-588
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1529
15IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX AK NOWLEDGE NETWORKS METHODOLOGY
The data used in this analysis were collected by Knowledge Networksusing a new time-diary methodology that needs further explanation In order toovercome the fact that close to half of all Americans did not have access to theInternet at the time of the study Knowledge Networks provides representativenational samples with Internet equipment in exchange for participation insurveys Respondents in the Knowledge Networks (KN) panel are randomlyrecruited through Random Digit Dial (RDD) sampling methods on a quarterly-updated sample frame consisting of the entire US telephone population and areprovided with WebTV equipment All telephone numbers have an equalprobability of selection and sampling is done without replacement Although
this sampling technique entails the coverage error of excluding householdswithout telephones (less than 5 of population) this approach has significantlybroader coverage than sampling techniques that draw only from computersusers with I nternet access (eg Harris I nteractive)
Before the initial telephone calls are made households in the RDDsample with listed addresses are sent letters describing the proposed exchangerelationship During the initial RDD telephone interview respondents are toldthey have been selected to participate in an important national study and theywill be given a WebTV receiver that will allow them free access to the Internet if they will answer brief surveys on their television I t is emphasized thatconfidentiality and privacy are always upheld and that no other household canreplace theirs Respondents are immediately polled regarding the extent towhich members of their households are experienced with the Internet andproficient with computers
Once the WebTV equipment is installed in their homes respondents areasked to respond to some profile surveys that record the key attributes of eachhousehold member For example respondents are asked about their genderdate of birth ethnicity education income etc All adults (aged 18 and older) of the selected household are asked to respond to surveys via WebTV Eachmember is sent one short survey per week usually not taking more than 15minutes to complete In rare instances when panel members are asked torespond to longer surveys they would be given a week off or some other form of incentive Respondents can respond to the surveys at any time at their
convenience and are permitted to stop before they complete the survey andreturn to it at a later time Respondents who fail to respond to eight consecutivesurveys will have the WebTV receiver removed from their homes Detailedinformation on the methodology can be found at wwwknowledgenetworkscom
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1629
16IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX BDIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 6
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activitycategorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity they were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking Kitchen Cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard WorkInternetEmail Telephone Calls PlantPet Care Paperwork OrganizeUnpackOther (user defined)
For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone and ComputerWork were included as options This picks up Internet use whether that usewas say educational professional or simply recreational
The respondents were then asked how longthe activity lasted (10 min to20 min to 1 hour or more) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whetheralone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother)
Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the same
time as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a check list of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked toidentify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown their completeddiary form based on their answers to ensure that their results were accurate
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of I nternet use the content and number of emails (personal vs work related) their types of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed) their amount of TV watching sleep and social interactionsBesides providing supplemental information these follow-up questions provided
an additional measure of the independent and dependent variables (andanalysis were replicated using these measures with identical results)mdashas wellas proving an accuracy check for their time-diary estimates For sample diaryscreens see NieHillygusAppendixBdoc
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1729
17IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 6 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activitiesHousework Cleaning chores cooking home financesChild Care Feeding clothing playing with childrenErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail readSocial Outing Socializing parties events moviesRecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies gamesOrganizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacksDressWash Dress shower bathe groomSleep Sleep nap or dozeOther User Defined
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1829
18IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX CREPL ICATION WITH ldquoESTIMATEDrdquo INTERNET USE
For comparabil ity with the first Internet study the results are replicated usingthe follow-up measure of Internet use in which respondents are asked toestimate the number of hours and minutes spent on the Internet and Emailyesterday The results are reported in Table 7 The relationship betweenestimated time online and time spent with family friends and on socialactivities remains negative and significant though the relationship is not quiteas crisp as those reported in Table 3 (generally weaker relationships on thecoefficients and slightly smaller R -squared values)
TABLE 7 ANALYSIS WITH ESTIMATED INTERNET TIME (FOLLOW-UP MEASURE)
Diary Minute
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 53254 1370 37296 1323 20805 1182
Background Factor
Education 190 158 026 030 064 116
Male -3211 -502 1915 413 815 282
Married 10085 1065 -2782 -405 -1533 -357
African-American -1905 -186 706 095 -490 -106
Hispanic -1156 -105 -861 -107 -1178 -235
Asian and other -2198 -152 -619 -059 -248 -038
Age 221 120 -441 -330 -176 -210
Age square -004 -180 004 239 001 148
Number of children 477 123 -775 -277 -637 -364
Weekday -9346 -1290 -3681 -701 -3279 -999
Living alon -8228 -771 -1755 -227 -225 -047Single parents 3098 233 -129 -013 -493 -082
Time Factors
TV time 000 005 -018 -1187 -015 -1528
Sleep time -032 -1819 -017 -1308 -008 -1015
WORK TIME -037 -3091 -012 -1345 -010 -1914
ONLINE TIME (EST) -029 -777 -013 -487 -004 -219
Adjusted R Square 029 009 013
F 15060 3644 5320
N 5738 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Active Time wFamil Active Time wFriend Time on Social Activitie
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1929
19IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX DREPL ICATION FOR TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND TIME ON CHILD CARE
The analysis was also replicated for two other measures of sociabilitytime spent on organization activities and time spent on child care The resultsfor this analysis can be found in Table 8 Once again the results find asignificant negative relationship between time spent on the Internet at homeand the dependent variables The results are substantively smaller than theresults found in previous analysis but they nonetheless offer support for thedisplacement hypothesis
TABLE 8 TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 4238 1090 8562 1303
Background FactorsEducation 019 231 013 092
Male 068 155 -570 -769
Married 188 289 681 619
African-American 348 495 002 002
Hispanic -105 -138 128 099
Asian and other -011 -011 -010 -006
Age 005 040 022 104
Age square 000 -009 -001 -249
Number of children 007 025 247 551
Weekday -757 -1064 2643 2198
Living alone 041 056 167 135
Single parents 055 060 329 213 Time Factor
TV time -004 -744 -008 -942
Sleep time -003 -661 -007 -751
Work time -003 -981 -009 -1636
ONLINE AT HOME -004 -337 -010 -510
ONLINE AT WORK 006 210 -001 -029
Adjusted R Square 013 014
F 5150 5634
N 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Organization Time on Child Car
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1429
14IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
Work shop on Telework Turku Finland Turku Center for ComputerScience General Publication 8 p 11-31
Steiner G A 1963 The People Look at Television A Study of Audience
Att i tudes New York KnopfUCLA Internet Report 2000 Surveying th e Dig i ta l Fut ur e (SDF) Los AngelesCA October
Ulsaner E 2000 Social Capital and the Net Proceedings of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) 43 (December) p 60-64
Wellman B Haase A Q Witte J and Hampton K 2001 Does the InternetIncrease Decrease or Supplement Social Capital Social NetworksParticipation and Community Commitment American Behavioral
Scientist 45(3) p 437-456Wellman B and Wortley S 1990 Different Strokes from Different Folks
Community Ties and Social Support Am er ican Jour nal of Sociology 96p 558-588
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1529
15IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX AK NOWLEDGE NETWORKS METHODOLOGY
The data used in this analysis were collected by Knowledge Networksusing a new time-diary methodology that needs further explanation In order toovercome the fact that close to half of all Americans did not have access to theInternet at the time of the study Knowledge Networks provides representativenational samples with Internet equipment in exchange for participation insurveys Respondents in the Knowledge Networks (KN) panel are randomlyrecruited through Random Digit Dial (RDD) sampling methods on a quarterly-updated sample frame consisting of the entire US telephone population and areprovided with WebTV equipment All telephone numbers have an equalprobability of selection and sampling is done without replacement Although
this sampling technique entails the coverage error of excluding householdswithout telephones (less than 5 of population) this approach has significantlybroader coverage than sampling techniques that draw only from computersusers with I nternet access (eg Harris I nteractive)
Before the initial telephone calls are made households in the RDDsample with listed addresses are sent letters describing the proposed exchangerelationship During the initial RDD telephone interview respondents are toldthey have been selected to participate in an important national study and theywill be given a WebTV receiver that will allow them free access to the Internet if they will answer brief surveys on their television I t is emphasized thatconfidentiality and privacy are always upheld and that no other household canreplace theirs Respondents are immediately polled regarding the extent towhich members of their households are experienced with the Internet andproficient with computers
Once the WebTV equipment is installed in their homes respondents areasked to respond to some profile surveys that record the key attributes of eachhousehold member For example respondents are asked about their genderdate of birth ethnicity education income etc All adults (aged 18 and older) of the selected household are asked to respond to surveys via WebTV Eachmember is sent one short survey per week usually not taking more than 15minutes to complete In rare instances when panel members are asked torespond to longer surveys they would be given a week off or some other form of incentive Respondents can respond to the surveys at any time at their
convenience and are permitted to stop before they complete the survey andreturn to it at a later time Respondents who fail to respond to eight consecutivesurveys will have the WebTV receiver removed from their homes Detailedinformation on the methodology can be found at wwwknowledgenetworkscom
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1629
16IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX BDIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 6
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activitycategorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity they were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking Kitchen Cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard WorkInternetEmail Telephone Calls PlantPet Care Paperwork OrganizeUnpackOther (user defined)
For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone and ComputerWork were included as options This picks up Internet use whether that usewas say educational professional or simply recreational
The respondents were then asked how longthe activity lasted (10 min to20 min to 1 hour or more) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whetheralone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother)
Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the same
time as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a check list of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked toidentify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown their completeddiary form based on their answers to ensure that their results were accurate
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of I nternet use the content and number of emails (personal vs work related) their types of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed) their amount of TV watching sleep and social interactionsBesides providing supplemental information these follow-up questions provided
an additional measure of the independent and dependent variables (andanalysis were replicated using these measures with identical results)mdashas wellas proving an accuracy check for their time-diary estimates For sample diaryscreens see NieHillygusAppendixBdoc
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1729
17IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 6 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activitiesHousework Cleaning chores cooking home financesChild Care Feeding clothing playing with childrenErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail readSocial Outing Socializing parties events moviesRecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies gamesOrganizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacksDressWash Dress shower bathe groomSleep Sleep nap or dozeOther User Defined
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1829
18IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX CREPL ICATION WITH ldquoESTIMATEDrdquo INTERNET USE
For comparabil ity with the first Internet study the results are replicated usingthe follow-up measure of Internet use in which respondents are asked toestimate the number of hours and minutes spent on the Internet and Emailyesterday The results are reported in Table 7 The relationship betweenestimated time online and time spent with family friends and on socialactivities remains negative and significant though the relationship is not quiteas crisp as those reported in Table 3 (generally weaker relationships on thecoefficients and slightly smaller R -squared values)
TABLE 7 ANALYSIS WITH ESTIMATED INTERNET TIME (FOLLOW-UP MEASURE)
Diary Minute
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 53254 1370 37296 1323 20805 1182
Background Factor
Education 190 158 026 030 064 116
Male -3211 -502 1915 413 815 282
Married 10085 1065 -2782 -405 -1533 -357
African-American -1905 -186 706 095 -490 -106
Hispanic -1156 -105 -861 -107 -1178 -235
Asian and other -2198 -152 -619 -059 -248 -038
Age 221 120 -441 -330 -176 -210
Age square -004 -180 004 239 001 148
Number of children 477 123 -775 -277 -637 -364
Weekday -9346 -1290 -3681 -701 -3279 -999
Living alon -8228 -771 -1755 -227 -225 -047Single parents 3098 233 -129 -013 -493 -082
Time Factors
TV time 000 005 -018 -1187 -015 -1528
Sleep time -032 -1819 -017 -1308 -008 -1015
WORK TIME -037 -3091 -012 -1345 -010 -1914
ONLINE TIME (EST) -029 -777 -013 -487 -004 -219
Adjusted R Square 029 009 013
F 15060 3644 5320
N 5738 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Active Time wFamil Active Time wFriend Time on Social Activitie
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1929
19IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX DREPL ICATION FOR TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND TIME ON CHILD CARE
The analysis was also replicated for two other measures of sociabilitytime spent on organization activities and time spent on child care The resultsfor this analysis can be found in Table 8 Once again the results find asignificant negative relationship between time spent on the Internet at homeand the dependent variables The results are substantively smaller than theresults found in previous analysis but they nonetheless offer support for thedisplacement hypothesis
TABLE 8 TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 4238 1090 8562 1303
Background FactorsEducation 019 231 013 092
Male 068 155 -570 -769
Married 188 289 681 619
African-American 348 495 002 002
Hispanic -105 -138 128 099
Asian and other -011 -011 -010 -006
Age 005 040 022 104
Age square 000 -009 -001 -249
Number of children 007 025 247 551
Weekday -757 -1064 2643 2198
Living alone 041 056 167 135
Single parents 055 060 329 213 Time Factor
TV time -004 -744 -008 -942
Sleep time -003 -661 -007 -751
Work time -003 -981 -009 -1636
ONLINE AT HOME -004 -337 -010 -510
ONLINE AT WORK 006 210 -001 -029
Adjusted R Square 013 014
F 5150 5634
N 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Organization Time on Child Car
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1529
15IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX AK NOWLEDGE NETWORKS METHODOLOGY
The data used in this analysis were collected by Knowledge Networksusing a new time-diary methodology that needs further explanation In order toovercome the fact that close to half of all Americans did not have access to theInternet at the time of the study Knowledge Networks provides representativenational samples with Internet equipment in exchange for participation insurveys Respondents in the Knowledge Networks (KN) panel are randomlyrecruited through Random Digit Dial (RDD) sampling methods on a quarterly-updated sample frame consisting of the entire US telephone population and areprovided with WebTV equipment All telephone numbers have an equalprobability of selection and sampling is done without replacement Although
this sampling technique entails the coverage error of excluding householdswithout telephones (less than 5 of population) this approach has significantlybroader coverage than sampling techniques that draw only from computersusers with I nternet access (eg Harris I nteractive)
Before the initial telephone calls are made households in the RDDsample with listed addresses are sent letters describing the proposed exchangerelationship During the initial RDD telephone interview respondents are toldthey have been selected to participate in an important national study and theywill be given a WebTV receiver that will allow them free access to the Internet if they will answer brief surveys on their television I t is emphasized thatconfidentiality and privacy are always upheld and that no other household canreplace theirs Respondents are immediately polled regarding the extent towhich members of their households are experienced with the Internet andproficient with computers
Once the WebTV equipment is installed in their homes respondents areasked to respond to some profile surveys that record the key attributes of eachhousehold member For example respondents are asked about their genderdate of birth ethnicity education income etc All adults (aged 18 and older) of the selected household are asked to respond to surveys via WebTV Eachmember is sent one short survey per week usually not taking more than 15minutes to complete In rare instances when panel members are asked torespond to longer surveys they would be given a week off or some other form of incentive Respondents can respond to the surveys at any time at their
convenience and are permitted to stop before they complete the survey andreturn to it at a later time Respondents who fail to respond to eight consecutivesurveys will have the WebTV receiver removed from their homes Detailedinformation on the methodology can be found at wwwknowledgenetworkscom
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1629
16IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX BDIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 6
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activitycategorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity they were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking Kitchen Cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard WorkInternetEmail Telephone Calls PlantPet Care Paperwork OrganizeUnpackOther (user defined)
For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone and ComputerWork were included as options This picks up Internet use whether that usewas say educational professional or simply recreational
The respondents were then asked how longthe activity lasted (10 min to20 min to 1 hour or more) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whetheralone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother)
Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the same
time as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a check list of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked toidentify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown their completeddiary form based on their answers to ensure that their results were accurate
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of I nternet use the content and number of emails (personal vs work related) their types of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed) their amount of TV watching sleep and social interactionsBesides providing supplemental information these follow-up questions provided
an additional measure of the independent and dependent variables (andanalysis were replicated using these measures with identical results)mdashas wellas proving an accuracy check for their time-diary estimates For sample diaryscreens see NieHillygusAppendixBdoc
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1729
17IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 6 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activitiesHousework Cleaning chores cooking home financesChild Care Feeding clothing playing with childrenErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail readSocial Outing Socializing parties events moviesRecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies gamesOrganizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacksDressWash Dress shower bathe groomSleep Sleep nap or dozeOther User Defined
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1829
18IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX CREPL ICATION WITH ldquoESTIMATEDrdquo INTERNET USE
For comparabil ity with the first Internet study the results are replicated usingthe follow-up measure of Internet use in which respondents are asked toestimate the number of hours and minutes spent on the Internet and Emailyesterday The results are reported in Table 7 The relationship betweenestimated time online and time spent with family friends and on socialactivities remains negative and significant though the relationship is not quiteas crisp as those reported in Table 3 (generally weaker relationships on thecoefficients and slightly smaller R -squared values)
TABLE 7 ANALYSIS WITH ESTIMATED INTERNET TIME (FOLLOW-UP MEASURE)
Diary Minute
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 53254 1370 37296 1323 20805 1182
Background Factor
Education 190 158 026 030 064 116
Male -3211 -502 1915 413 815 282
Married 10085 1065 -2782 -405 -1533 -357
African-American -1905 -186 706 095 -490 -106
Hispanic -1156 -105 -861 -107 -1178 -235
Asian and other -2198 -152 -619 -059 -248 -038
Age 221 120 -441 -330 -176 -210
Age square -004 -180 004 239 001 148
Number of children 477 123 -775 -277 -637 -364
Weekday -9346 -1290 -3681 -701 -3279 -999
Living alon -8228 -771 -1755 -227 -225 -047Single parents 3098 233 -129 -013 -493 -082
Time Factors
TV time 000 005 -018 -1187 -015 -1528
Sleep time -032 -1819 -017 -1308 -008 -1015
WORK TIME -037 -3091 -012 -1345 -010 -1914
ONLINE TIME (EST) -029 -777 -013 -487 -004 -219
Adjusted R Square 029 009 013
F 15060 3644 5320
N 5738 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Active Time wFamil Active Time wFriend Time on Social Activitie
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1929
19IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX DREPL ICATION FOR TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND TIME ON CHILD CARE
The analysis was also replicated for two other measures of sociabilitytime spent on organization activities and time spent on child care The resultsfor this analysis can be found in Table 8 Once again the results find asignificant negative relationship between time spent on the Internet at homeand the dependent variables The results are substantively smaller than theresults found in previous analysis but they nonetheless offer support for thedisplacement hypothesis
TABLE 8 TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 4238 1090 8562 1303
Background FactorsEducation 019 231 013 092
Male 068 155 -570 -769
Married 188 289 681 619
African-American 348 495 002 002
Hispanic -105 -138 128 099
Asian and other -011 -011 -010 -006
Age 005 040 022 104
Age square 000 -009 -001 -249
Number of children 007 025 247 551
Weekday -757 -1064 2643 2198
Living alone 041 056 167 135
Single parents 055 060 329 213 Time Factor
TV time -004 -744 -008 -942
Sleep time -003 -661 -007 -751
Work time -003 -981 -009 -1636
ONLINE AT HOME -004 -337 -010 -510
ONLINE AT WORK 006 210 -001 -029
Adjusted R Square 013 014
F 5150 5634
N 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Organization Time on Child Car
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1629
16IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX BDIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 6
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activitycategorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity they were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking Kitchen Cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard WorkInternetEmail Telephone Calls PlantPet Care Paperwork OrganizeUnpackOther (user defined)
For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone and ComputerWork were included as options This picks up Internet use whether that usewas say educational professional or simply recreational
The respondents were then asked how longthe activity lasted (10 min to20 min to 1 hour or more) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whetheralone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother)
Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the same
time as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a check list of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked toidentify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown their completeddiary form based on their answers to ensure that their results were accurate
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of I nternet use the content and number of emails (personal vs work related) their types of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed) their amount of TV watching sleep and social interactionsBesides providing supplemental information these follow-up questions provided
an additional measure of the independent and dependent variables (andanalysis were replicated using these measures with identical results)mdashas wellas proving an accuracy check for their time-diary estimates For sample diaryscreens see NieHillygusAppendixBdoc
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1729
17IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 6 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activitiesHousework Cleaning chores cooking home financesChild Care Feeding clothing playing with childrenErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail readSocial Outing Socializing parties events moviesRecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies gamesOrganizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacksDressWash Dress shower bathe groomSleep Sleep nap or dozeOther User Defined
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1829
18IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX CREPL ICATION WITH ldquoESTIMATEDrdquo INTERNET USE
For comparabil ity with the first Internet study the results are replicated usingthe follow-up measure of Internet use in which respondents are asked toestimate the number of hours and minutes spent on the Internet and Emailyesterday The results are reported in Table 7 The relationship betweenestimated time online and time spent with family friends and on socialactivities remains negative and significant though the relationship is not quiteas crisp as those reported in Table 3 (generally weaker relationships on thecoefficients and slightly smaller R -squared values)
TABLE 7 ANALYSIS WITH ESTIMATED INTERNET TIME (FOLLOW-UP MEASURE)
Diary Minute
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 53254 1370 37296 1323 20805 1182
Background Factor
Education 190 158 026 030 064 116
Male -3211 -502 1915 413 815 282
Married 10085 1065 -2782 -405 -1533 -357
African-American -1905 -186 706 095 -490 -106
Hispanic -1156 -105 -861 -107 -1178 -235
Asian and other -2198 -152 -619 -059 -248 -038
Age 221 120 -441 -330 -176 -210
Age square -004 -180 004 239 001 148
Number of children 477 123 -775 -277 -637 -364
Weekday -9346 -1290 -3681 -701 -3279 -999
Living alon -8228 -771 -1755 -227 -225 -047Single parents 3098 233 -129 -013 -493 -082
Time Factors
TV time 000 005 -018 -1187 -015 -1528
Sleep time -032 -1819 -017 -1308 -008 -1015
WORK TIME -037 -3091 -012 -1345 -010 -1914
ONLINE TIME (EST) -029 -777 -013 -487 -004 -219
Adjusted R Square 029 009 013
F 15060 3644 5320
N 5738 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Active Time wFamil Active Time wFriend Time on Social Activitie
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1929
19IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX DREPL ICATION FOR TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND TIME ON CHILD CARE
The analysis was also replicated for two other measures of sociabilitytime spent on organization activities and time spent on child care The resultsfor this analysis can be found in Table 8 Once again the results find asignificant negative relationship between time spent on the Internet at homeand the dependent variables The results are substantively smaller than theresults found in previous analysis but they nonetheless offer support for thedisplacement hypothesis
TABLE 8 TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 4238 1090 8562 1303
Background FactorsEducation 019 231 013 092
Male 068 155 -570 -769
Married 188 289 681 619
African-American 348 495 002 002
Hispanic -105 -138 128 099
Asian and other -011 -011 -010 -006
Age 005 040 022 104
Age square 000 -009 -001 -249
Number of children 007 025 247 551
Weekday -757 -1064 2643 2198
Living alone 041 056 167 135
Single parents 055 060 329 213 Time Factor
TV time -004 -744 -008 -942
Sleep time -003 -661 -007 -751
Work time -003 -981 -009 -1636
ONLINE AT HOME -004 -337 -010 -510
ONLINE AT WORK 006 210 -001 -029
Adjusted R Square 013 014
F 5150 5634
N 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Organization Time on Child Car
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1729
17IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
TABLE 6 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activitiesHousework Cleaning chores cooking home financesChild Care Feeding clothing playing with childrenErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail readSocial Outing Socializing parties events moviesRecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies gamesOrganizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacksDressWash Dress shower bathe groomSleep Sleep nap or dozeOther User Defined
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1829
18IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX CREPL ICATION WITH ldquoESTIMATEDrdquo INTERNET USE
For comparabil ity with the first Internet study the results are replicated usingthe follow-up measure of Internet use in which respondents are asked toestimate the number of hours and minutes spent on the Internet and Emailyesterday The results are reported in Table 7 The relationship betweenestimated time online and time spent with family friends and on socialactivities remains negative and significant though the relationship is not quiteas crisp as those reported in Table 3 (generally weaker relationships on thecoefficients and slightly smaller R -squared values)
TABLE 7 ANALYSIS WITH ESTIMATED INTERNET TIME (FOLLOW-UP MEASURE)
Diary Minute
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 53254 1370 37296 1323 20805 1182
Background Factor
Education 190 158 026 030 064 116
Male -3211 -502 1915 413 815 282
Married 10085 1065 -2782 -405 -1533 -357
African-American -1905 -186 706 095 -490 -106
Hispanic -1156 -105 -861 -107 -1178 -235
Asian and other -2198 -152 -619 -059 -248 -038
Age 221 120 -441 -330 -176 -210
Age square -004 -180 004 239 001 148
Number of children 477 123 -775 -277 -637 -364
Weekday -9346 -1290 -3681 -701 -3279 -999
Living alon -8228 -771 -1755 -227 -225 -047Single parents 3098 233 -129 -013 -493 -082
Time Factors
TV time 000 005 -018 -1187 -015 -1528
Sleep time -032 -1819 -017 -1308 -008 -1015
WORK TIME -037 -3091 -012 -1345 -010 -1914
ONLINE TIME (EST) -029 -777 -013 -487 -004 -219
Adjusted R Square 029 009 013
F 15060 3644 5320
N 5738 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Active Time wFamil Active Time wFriend Time on Social Activitie
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1929
19IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX DREPL ICATION FOR TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND TIME ON CHILD CARE
The analysis was also replicated for two other measures of sociabilitytime spent on organization activities and time spent on child care The resultsfor this analysis can be found in Table 8 Once again the results find asignificant negative relationship between time spent on the Internet at homeand the dependent variables The results are substantively smaller than theresults found in previous analysis but they nonetheless offer support for thedisplacement hypothesis
TABLE 8 TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 4238 1090 8562 1303
Background FactorsEducation 019 231 013 092
Male 068 155 -570 -769
Married 188 289 681 619
African-American 348 495 002 002
Hispanic -105 -138 128 099
Asian and other -011 -011 -010 -006
Age 005 040 022 104
Age square 000 -009 -001 -249
Number of children 007 025 247 551
Weekday -757 -1064 2643 2198
Living alone 041 056 167 135
Single parents 055 060 329 213 Time Factor
TV time -004 -744 -008 -942
Sleep time -003 -661 -007 -751
Work time -003 -981 -009 -1636
ONLINE AT HOME -004 -337 -010 -510
ONLINE AT WORK 006 210 -001 -029
Adjusted R Square 013 014
F 5150 5634
N 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Organization Time on Child Car
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1829
18IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX CREPL ICATION WITH ldquoESTIMATEDrdquo INTERNET USE
For comparabil ity with the first Internet study the results are replicated usingthe follow-up measure of Internet use in which respondents are asked toestimate the number of hours and minutes spent on the Internet and Emailyesterday The results are reported in Table 7 The relationship betweenestimated time online and time spent with family friends and on socialactivities remains negative and significant though the relationship is not quiteas crisp as those reported in Table 3 (generally weaker relationships on thecoefficients and slightly smaller R -squared values)
TABLE 7 ANALYSIS WITH ESTIMATED INTERNET TIME (FOLLOW-UP MEASURE)
Diary Minute
β t-stat β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 53254 1370 37296 1323 20805 1182
Background Factor
Education 190 158 026 030 064 116
Male -3211 -502 1915 413 815 282
Married 10085 1065 -2782 -405 -1533 -357
African-American -1905 -186 706 095 -490 -106
Hispanic -1156 -105 -861 -107 -1178 -235
Asian and other -2198 -152 -619 -059 -248 -038
Age 221 120 -441 -330 -176 -210
Age square -004 -180 004 239 001 148
Number of children 477 123 -775 -277 -637 -364
Weekday -9346 -1290 -3681 -701 -3279 -999
Living alon -8228 -771 -1755 -227 -225 -047Single parents 3098 233 -129 -013 -493 -082
Time Factors
TV time 000 005 -018 -1187 -015 -1528
Sleep time -032 -1819 -017 -1308 -008 -1015
WORK TIME -037 -3091 -012 -1345 -010 -1914
ONLINE TIME (EST) -029 -777 -013 -487 -004 -219
Adjusted R Square 029 009 013
F 15060 3644 5320
N 5738 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Active Time wFamil Active Time wFriend Time on Social Activitie
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1929
19IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX DREPL ICATION FOR TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND TIME ON CHILD CARE
The analysis was also replicated for two other measures of sociabilitytime spent on organization activities and time spent on child care The resultsfor this analysis can be found in Table 8 Once again the results find asignificant negative relationship between time spent on the Internet at homeand the dependent variables The results are substantively smaller than theresults found in previous analysis but they nonetheless offer support for thedisplacement hypothesis
TABLE 8 TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 4238 1090 8562 1303
Background FactorsEducation 019 231 013 092
Male 068 155 -570 -769
Married 188 289 681 619
African-American 348 495 002 002
Hispanic -105 -138 128 099
Asian and other -011 -011 -010 -006
Age 005 040 022 104
Age square 000 -009 -001 -249
Number of children 007 025 247 551
Weekday -757 -1064 2643 2198
Living alone 041 056 167 135
Single parents 055 060 329 213 Time Factor
TV time -004 -744 -008 -942
Sleep time -003 -661 -007 -751
Work time -003 -981 -009 -1636
ONLINE AT HOME -004 -337 -010 -510
ONLINE AT WORK 006 210 -001 -029
Adjusted R Square 013 014
F 5150 5634
N 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Organization Time on Child Car
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 1929
19IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
APPENDIX DREPL ICATION FOR TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND TIME ON CHILD CARE
The analysis was also replicated for two other measures of sociabilitytime spent on organization activities and time spent on child care The resultsfor this analysis can be found in Table 8 Once again the results find asignificant negative relationship between time spent on the Internet at homeand the dependent variables The results are substantively smaller than theresults found in previous analysis but they nonetheless offer support for thedisplacement hypothesis
TABLE 8 TIME ON ORGANIZATIONS AND CHILD CARE ACTIVITIES
Diary Minutes
β t-stat β t-stat
(Constant) 4238 1090 8562 1303
Background FactorsEducation 019 231 013 092
Male 068 155 -570 -769
Married 188 289 681 619
African-American 348 495 002 002
Hispanic -105 -138 128 099
Asian and other -011 -011 -010 -006
Age 005 040 022 104
Age square 000 -009 -001 -249
Number of children 007 025 247 551
Weekday -757 -1064 2643 2198
Living alone 041 056 167 135
Single parents 055 060 329 213 Time Factor
TV time -004 -744 -008 -942
Sleep time -003 -661 -007 -751
Work time -003 -981 -009 -1636
ONLINE AT HOME -004 -337 -010 -510
ONLINE AT WORK 006 210 -001 -029
Adjusted R Square 013 014
F 5150 5634
N 5738 5738
Note
p lt05 p lt01 p lt001
Time on Organization Time on Child Car
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2029
20IMPACT OF INTERNET USE ON SOCIABILITY NIE amp H ILLYGUS
ITampSOCIETY Vol 1 Issue 1 Summer 2002 httpwwwITandSociety
ENDNOTES
1 Preliminary studies suggest that although email may promote some types of contact with friendsand family virtual contact may be more superficial than that which occurs in more personalsettings (Pew 2000) Forwarding a joke to a friend or family member does not have the samecommunicative value as engaging in a discussion about the latest news of the day2 In Nie Erbring and Hillygus (for thcoming ) the analysis relies solely on measures based on theldquowith whomrdquo information in the time diary3 An Internet user was defined as a respondent with Internet access either inside the home atwork at school or another location A ldquoheavyrdquo Internet user was one who spent at least five hoursper week on the Internet4 The findings were consistent with the research of an earlier longitudinal panel study (Kraut et al 1998) which found greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participantscommunication with family members in the household declines in the size of their social circleand increases in their depression and loneliness5 There are some exceptions in this regard (Nie and Erbring 2000 Wellman et al 2001)6 The sampling time blocks were Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour
4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm7 The questionnaire asks how long the activity lasted where the activity took place with whomthe respondent did the activity and if the respondent was doing anything else at the same timeSeeAppendix C for more detailed description of the survey questionnaire8 Two different hypotheses about the differences in the measures are possible (1) the follow-upmeasure relies on summary recall and thus is susceptible to all of the estimation problems suchas over reporting that has already been mentioned however (2) this diary measure mayunderestimate time spent on the Internet because respondents choose main activity by substancerather than by mode In other words individuals who were say doing research on the Internetmust choose between reporting their activity as research or reporting it as Internet use not bothImproved estimates of such Internet use should be expected in future surveys9 The respondent replied that ldquoOthers participated in the activity with merdquo (rather than ldquoI did theactivity alonerdquo or ldquoOthers were around but did not participaterdquo) and then selected ldquoSpousechildren or other familyrdquo (or ldquoFriendsrdquo) as the individuals that participated in the activity10 For ease of interpretation all diary measures are reported as 24-hour estimates Estimates of the 18 hours not selected for each of the respondents are obtained through imputation of themissing data Assuming a multivariate normal distribution for the activity times by hour thefollow-up questions and the demographics the corresponding likelihood function is maximizedusing the EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm as implemented in SPSSrsquo MVA function11 Because Internetemail is used as an independent variable in the multivariate analysis timespent on Internetemail when coded in the social activity organization or childcare categorieswere excluded This time accounted only for a minimal amount of total time on Internetemail12 For comparison analyses were also replicated using recall estimates from the follow-upquestions (seeAppendix C) as an alternative measure of Internet use the analysis was alsoreplicated on two other measures of sociability time spent on organizations and time spent onchild care (seeAppendix D ) Al l three of these replications find support for the displacementhypothesis13 I t should be remembered that weekday vs weekend was used as a dichotomous variable in the
prior analyses so as not to distort or bias the results But using a dummy variable as a controlaverages out its impact across the sample Here one is looking for structural changes in thestrength of the relationship by splitting the sample weekday vs weekend14Similarly the analysis was replicated for time of day (evening Internet use vs daytime Internetuse) Primetime (6-8pm) Internet use has a much stronger affect than Internet use during the restof the day
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2129
NIE amp H ILLYGUS SUPPLEMENT DIARY SURVEY DESIGN
The time diary survey was structured such that respondents were askedabout their main activities during six randomly selected hours distributed overthe course of the previous day (ldquoyesterdayrdquo) Respondents could select from a listof 13 main activities (or enter one of their own) These activities and thedefinitions provided are listed in Table 7
TABLE 7 MAIN ACTIVITIES
Main Activity Definition
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments officesTVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Other U ser Defined
Respondents were then asked to identify their specific activity
categorized under the main activity they selected For instance if they selectedHousework as their main activity the were asked to select among the followingspecific activities Cooking K itchen cleanup Laundry Repairs Yard workInternetEmail Telephone calls PlantPet care Paperwork OrganizeUnpack
Other (user defined) For each of the main activities InternetEmail Telephone Computer Work was included as an option Thus Internet use couldbe identified whether it was used for educational professional or simplyrecreational purposes The respondents were then asked how long the activitylasted (10 min to 1 hour+) where the activity took place (home otherrsquos homeofficefactory vehicle store outdoorspark school restaurantbartheatrestadium other) and with whom the activity was performed (whether
alone with other people present but not participating or with othersparticipatingmdashand in addition the specific individuals participating spousechildren other family roommates friends business associates strangers orother) Respondents were finally asked if they did anything else at the sametime as this (pr imary ) activity Respondents were provided with a checklist of 21 (secondary ) activities (including user-defined other ) and were asked to
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2229
identify any or all secondary activities they did at the same time as the mainactivity After each sampled hour respondents were shown a diary form thatwas filled out and completed based on their answers to facilitate orientation
After finishing these questions for each of the activities recorded in theirsix selected hours respondents were then asked a series of follow-up questionsincluding estimates of the amount of Internet use content and number of emails(personal vs work related) type of Internet use (eg type of websites browsed)amount of TV watching sleep and social interactions Besides providingsupplemental information these follow-up questions provided an additionalmeasure of our independent and dependent variables (and analyses werereplicated using these measures with identical results) as well as an accuracychecking mechanism for the time diary estimates
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2329
SAMPLE DIARY SCREENS
After an introductory screen the respondents are asked about a randomly
selected hour from each of the time blocks (Hour 1 midnight-5am Hour 2 6-9am Hour 3 10am-1pm Hour 4 2-5pm Hour 5 6-8pm Hour 6 9-11pm)
First we would like to know about all of the things that you didbetween 500 am and 600 am What was the main thing you weredoing at 500 am yesterday
Select Definitions below for a more detailed description of thecategories
Work (for pay) TVInternetMedia Eat
Education Social Activity DressWash
Housework RecreationHobby Sleep
Child Care Organizations Other
ErrandsShop TRAVEL
Please select the category that best describes what you were doing
(even though these categories may not exactly match your activity atthe time please select the category that best describes what you weredoing
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2429
I f respondents are uncertain of which category to select they can select thedefinitions link (shown next)
DEFINITIONS
Work (for pay) Any work or business activity
Education In class doing homework other school activities
Housework Cleaning chores cooking home finances
Child Care Feeding clothing playing with children
ErrandsShop Groceries appointments offices
TVInternetMedia Watch TV InternetEmail read
Social Outing Socializing parties events movies
RecreationHobby Sports fitness outdoors hobbies games
Organizations Church volunteer or club activities
Travel All traveling and commuting (including walking)
Eat Meals or snacks
DressWash Dress shower bathe groom
Sleep Sleep nap or doze
Back to Questionnaire
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2529
As an example suppose that this respondent was preparing breakfast for herfamily She returns to the main screen (shown above) and selects HouseworkShe is then asked about the specific housework activity that she performed She
would select cook and then she would be asked how long she was doing thisactivity (see below)
What was your specific HOUSEWORK activity Even if you weredoing several things at the same time select what you consider to beyour primary activity
Cook InternetEmail
Kitchen Cleanup Telephone calls
Clean House PlantPet Care
Laundry Paperwork
Repairs OrganizeUnpack
Yard Work Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2629
Starting at 500 am for how long were you doing thisactivity Please remember that if possible we would like
you to think in time blocks of 1 hour or less
This activity lasted
About 10 minutes orless
About 20 minutes
About 30 minutes
About 45 minutes
At least one hour
Next Question
The respondent is then asked about the location of that activity
Where did you do this activity
Home OutdoorsPark
Others Home School
OfficeFactory RestaurantBar
Vehicle TheatreStadium
Store Other
Definitions Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2729
And then if someone was doing this activity with her Suppose her kids were inthe room but were not helping to cook She would select the middle response
Was anyone with you while you were doing this activity
Select one answer only
NO I was alone
PARTLY other people were there but did not participatewith me
YES others participated in this activity with me
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2829
She would then be asked about who specifically was with her
Who else was with you
Select all answers that apply
SpousePartnerSignificant Other
Friends
Children Business Associates
Other Family Strangers
Roommates Other
Next Question
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other
7282019 2Internet Use and Sociability
httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2internet-use-and-sociability 2929
Finally she would be asked about other activities she was doing at the sametimemdash whether listening to the radio making phone calls child care orwhatever
While you were doing this activity did you do anythingelse at the same time
Select all answers that apply
TVVideos InternetEmail RestDoze
RadioMusic Other Computer On Break
Read Telephone DressGroom
Talk Chores Recreation Socialize ErrandsShop Entertainment
Eat Work (for pay) Nothing Else
Child Care School Work Other