Advertisement

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

, Volume 37, Issue 5, pp 522–536 | Cite as

Adolescents Online: The Importance of Internet Activity Choices to Salient Relationships

  • Julie J. BlaisEmail author
  • Wendy M. Craig
  • Debra Pepler
  • Jennifer Connolly
Empirical Research

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether using the Internet for different activities affects the quality of close adolescent relationships (i.e., best friendships and romantic relationships). In a one-year longitudinal study of 884 adolescents (Mean age = 15, 46% male), we examined whether visiting chat rooms, using ICQ, using the Internet for general entertainment, or participating in online gaming predicted changes in the quality of best friendships and romantic relationships. Multiple regression analyses indicated that Internet activity choice influenced later relationship quality in both best friendships and romantic relationships. Using instant messaging (ICQ) was positively associated with most aspects of romantic relationship and best friendship quality. In contrast, visiting chat rooms was negatively related to best friendship quality. Using the Internet to play games and for general entertainment predicted decreases in relationship quality with best friends and with romantic partners. These findings reflect the important and complex functions of online socialization for the development and maintenance of relationships in adolescence.

Keywords

Romantic relationships Best friendships Internet Instant messaging Online games Relationship quality Chat rooms 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Canadian Institute for Health Research. The authors are grateful to the high school students who participated in the study and the many undergraduate and graduate students who facilitated the data collection and analyses.

References

  1. Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 16(5), 427–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aukett, R., Ritchie, J., & Mill, K. (1988). Sex differences in friendship patterns. Sex Roles, 19, 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bayraktar, F., & Gun, Z. (2007). Incidence and correlates of Internet usage among adolescents in North Cyprus. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 10(2), 191–197.Google Scholar
  5. Bergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. (1997). A person-oriented approach in research on developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 291–319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blyth, D. A., & Foster-Clark, F. S. (1987). Sex differences in perceived intimacy with different members of adolescents’ social networks. Sex Roles, 17, 689–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, B. B., Feiring, C., & Furman, W. (1999). Missing the love boat: Why researchers have shied away from adolescent romance. In W. Furman, B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1987). The development of companionship and intimacy. Child Development, 58, 1101–1111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Children Now (2001). Fair play? Violence, sex, and race in video games. http://www.publications.childrennow.org/assets/pdf/cmp/fairplay/fair-play-video-01.pdf. Accessed on October 20, 2007.
  10. Claes, M., & Poirier, L. (1993). Caractéristiques et fonctions des relations d’amitié à l’adolescence. Psychiatrie de l’Enfant, 36(1), 289–308.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, M. L., & Ayers, M. (1988). The role of reciprocity and proximity in junior high school friendships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17(5), 403–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colwell, J., & Kato, M. (2003). Short note: Investigation of the relationship between social isolation, self-esteem, aggression and computer game play in Japanese adolescents. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Colwell, J., & Payne, J. (2000). Negative correlates of computer game play in adolescents. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 295–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Connolly, J., & Konarski, R. (1994). Peer self-concept in adolescence: Analysis of factor structure and of associations with peer experience. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4(3), 358–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Connolly, J., Craig, W., Goldberg, A., & Pepler, D. (2004). Mixed-sex groups, dating, and romantic relationships in early adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14, 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Darling, N., Dowdy, B., Van Horn, M. L., & Caldwell, L. (1999). Mixed sex setting and the perceptions of competence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23(4), 461–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Descy, D. E. (2007). All aboard the Internet: IM set to talk with you with text! TechTrends, 51(1), 3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feiring, C. (1999). Other-sex friendship networks and the development of romantic relationships in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 495–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21(6), 1016–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103–115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gross, E. F. (2004). Adolescent Internet use: What we expect, what teens report. Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 633–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hartup, W. W. (1993). Adolescents and their friends. In B Laursent (Ed.), Close friendships in adolescence. New directions for child development (Vol. 60, pp. 3–22, 110 pp). San Fransisco: Jossey-Brass.Google Scholar
  23. Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in the life course. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ho, S. M. Y., & Lee, T. M. C. (2001). Computer usage and its relationship with adolescent lifestyle in Hong Kong. Journal of Adolescent Health, 29(4), 258–266.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ICQ (2007). The ICQ story. http://www.icq.com/info/icqstory.html. Accessed on December 6, 2007.
  26. Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017–1031.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lansford, J. E., Criss, M. M., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (2003). Friendship quality, peer group affiliation, and peer antisocial behavior as moderators of the link between negative parenting and adolescent externalizing behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12(2), 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lenhart, A., Rainie, L., & Lewis, R. (2001). Teenage life online: The rise of the instant-message generation and the Internet’s impact on friendship and family relationships. Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington, DC. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Report.pdf. Accessed on June 19, 2007.
  30. Leung, L. (2001). College student motives for chatting on ICQ. New Media & Society, 3(4), 483–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Locke, J. L. (1998). The de-voicing of society: Why we don’t talk to each other anymore. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  32. Maczewski, M. (2002). Exploring identities through the Internet: Youth experiences online. Child and Youth Care Forum, 31(2), 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McKenna, K., & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(1), 57–75. Special issue: Personality and social psychology at the interface: New direction for interdisciplinary research.Google Scholar
  34. McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McNelles, L. R., & Connolly, J. A. (1999). Intimacy between adolescent friends: Age and sex differences in intimate affect and intimate behaviors. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9(2), 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Media Awareness Network (2001). Young Canadians in a wired world: The students’ view. Report prepared by Environics, Media Awareness Network. http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/special_initiatives/survey_resources/students_survey/yciww_students_view_2001.pdf. Accessed on June 19, 2007.
  37. Media Awareness Network (2005). Young Canadians in a wired world: Phase II student survey. Research conducted by ERIN Research, Media Awareness Network. http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/research/YCWW/phaseII/upload/YCWWII_Student_Survey.pdf. Accessed on June 19, 2007.
  38. Nie, N. H., & Erbring, L. (2002). Internet and society: A preliminary report. IT & Society, 1(1), 275–283.Google Scholar
  39. Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., Rideout, V. J., & Brodie, M. (1999). Kids & media @ the new millennium. A comprehensive national analysis of children’s media use. A Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Report, Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
  40. Scholte, R. H., van Lieshout, C. F. M., & Aken, M. A. G. (2001). Perceived relational support in adolescence: Dimensions, configurations, and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11(1), 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32(11), 1492–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Statistics Canada (2001, March 26). General social survey: Internet use. The Daily. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/010326/d010326a.htm. Accessed on June 19, 2007.
  43. Statistics Canada (2003, January 21). Profile of citizenship, immigration, birthplace, generation status, ethnic origin, visible minorities and aboriginal peoples, for Canada, Provinces, Territories, Census Divisions and Census Subdivisions, 2001 Census. Catalogue # 95F0489XCB2001001.Google Scholar
  44. Subrahmanyam, K., Smahel, D., & Greenfield, P. (2006). Connecting developmental constructions to the Internet: Identity presentation and sexual exploration in online teen chat rooms. Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 395–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tidwell, L. S., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 317–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Turkle, S. (1997). Constructions and reconstructions of self in virtual reality: Playing in the MUDs. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet (Vol. xvi, pp. 143–155, 463 pp). Manwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  47. Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Preadolescents’ and adolescents’ online communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 43(2), 267–277.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wolak, J., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2003). Escaping or connecting? Characteristics of youth who form close online relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 105–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie J. Blais
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wendy M. Craig
    • 1
  • Debra Pepler
    • 2
  • Jennifer Connolly
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations