Social Indicators Research

, Volume 100, Issue 3, pp 375–389 | Cite as

Internet Communication Versus Face-to-face Interaction in Quality of Life

  • Paul S. N. Lee
  • Louis Leung
  • Venhwei Lo
  • Chengyu Xiong
  • Tingjun Wu
Article

Abstract

This study seeks to understand the role of the Internet in quality of life (QoL). Specifically, it examines the question of whether Internet communication serves, like face-to-face interactions, to enhance quality of life. It is hypothesized that the use of the Internet for interpersonal communication can improve quality of life among Internet users, just like face-to-face communication in everyday life. Sample survey data were collected in four Chinese cities, namely Hong Kong, Taipei, Beijing, and Wuhan, to serve as replicates to test the hypothesis. The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) of Diener (1984) was used to measure quality of life in the four cities. It was found that contrary to our expectation, Internet communication cannot predict quality of life while face-to-face communication with friends and family members can. The result was the same across the four Chinese cities. Possible reasons for this finding are examined and discussed.

Keywords

Quality of life Internet communication Interpersonal relationship Satisfaction with life Social support Social interactions 

References

  1. Beijing City Administration Portal. (2009). Beijing figures. Retrieved from www.beijing.gov.cn/rwbj/bjgm/bjsz/t354363.htm.
  2. Birdwhistell, R. (1970). Kinesics and context. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boase, J., Horrigan, J., Wellman, B., & Rainie, L. (2006). The strength of internet ties. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/The-Strength-of-Internet-Ties.aspx.
  4. Clark, H. (1996). Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Culnan, M., & Markus, M. (1987). Information technologies. In F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. Roberts, & L. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420–443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. In M. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 191–233). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  8. Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.Google Scholar
  9. Department of Budget, Accounting & Statistics, Taipei Government. (2008). Significant statistical indicators in recent years. (in Chinese). Retrieved from http://w2.dbas.taipei.gov.tw/news_weekly/stindex/A_96.pdf.
  10. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R., & Smith, H. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gove, W., & Geerken, M. (1977). The effect of children and employment on the mental health of married men and women. Social Forces, 56, 66–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 73, 1361–1380.Google Scholar
  14. Hampton, K, Sessions, L., Her, E., & Rainie, L. (2009). Social isolation and new technology. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/18–Social-Isolation-and-New-Technology.aspx.
  15. Hong Kong Government. (2008). Hong Kong statistics yearbook (2008th ed.). Hong Kong: Government Printer.Google Scholar
  16. Krackhardt, D. (1994). The strength of strong ties: The importance of Philos in organizations. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kraut, R., Mukhopadhyay, T., Szczypulia, J., Kiesler, S., & Scherlis, B. (2000). Information and communication: Alternative uses of the internet in households. Information Systems Research, 10, 287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukhopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53, 1017–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Smith, A., & Macgill, A. (2007). Teens and social media. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens-and-Social-Media.aspx.
  21. Leung, L. (2001). College student motives for chatting on ICQ. New Media & Society, 3(4), 483–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ni, P. F. (2007). Report on the competitive power of Chinese cities. Beijing: Social Science Literature Press. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  23. Parks, M., & Roberts, L. (1998). Making MOOsic: The development of personal relationships on line and a comparison to their off-line counterparts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 517–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  26. Rice, R. (1984). Mediated group communication. In R. Rice & Associates (Ed.), The new media: Communication, research, and technology (pp. 129–156). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunication. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thoits, P. (1983). Multiple identities and psychological well-being: A reformulation and test of the social isolation hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 48, 174–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Walther, J. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wellman, B., Smith, A., Wells, A., & Kennedy, T. (2008). Networked families. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/Networked-Families.aspx.
  32. Wellman, B., & Wortley, S. (1990). Different strokes for different folks: Community ties and social support. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 558–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Williams, A., Ware, J., & Donald, C. (1981). A model of mental health, life events, and social supports applicable to general populations. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22, 324–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wuhan Statistics Bureau. (2008). Wuhan statistics yearbook, 2008. (in Chinese). Retrieved from www.whtj.gov.cn/documents/tjnj2008/index.htm.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul S. N. Lee
    • 1
  • Louis Leung
    • 1
  • Venhwei Lo
    • 1
  • Chengyu Xiong
    • 2
  • Tingjun Wu
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Journalism and CommunicationThe Chinese University of Hong KongShatinHong Kong
  2. 2.School of CommunicationTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.School of Journalism and CommunicationHuazhong University of Science & TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations