Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

For a growing cohort of Americans, Internet tools have become a significant conduit of social life and work life. The surveys of the Pew Internet & American Life Project in 2000 show that more than 52 million Americans went online each day, and there are significant differences in use between men and women, young and old, those of different races and ethnic groups, and those of different socioeconomic status. A user typology can be built around two variables: the length of time a person has used the Internet and the frequency with which he or she logs on from home. The authors contend that use of e-mail helps people build their social networks by extending and maintaining friend and family relationships.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beniger, J. (1987). Personalization of mass media and the growth of pseudo-community. Communication Research, 14, 352-371.

Bennett, C. , & Grant, R. (2000). Visions of privacy: Policy choices for the digital age. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Borsook, P. (2000). Cyberselfish: A critical romp through the terribly libertarian culture of high tech. New York: Public Affairs.

Dizard, W. (1997). MegaNet: How the global communications network will connect everyone on earth. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Etzioni, A. (1997). Communities: Virtual vs. real. Science, 277(5324), 295.

Fishkin, J. (1992). The dialogue of justice: Toward a self-reflective society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Moore, D. (1987). Political campaigns and the knowledge-gap hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51(2), 186-200.

Nie, N. H., & Erbring, L. (2000). Internet and society: A preliminary report [Online]. Available: http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/

Oldenburg, R. (1991). The great good places: Cafés, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. New York: Marlow.

10.

Rochlin, G. (1998). Trapped in the Net: The unanticipated consequences of computerization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

11.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

12.

Schwartz, E. (1996). Netactivism: How citizens use the Internet. Sebastopol, CA: Songline Studies.

13.

Shenk, D. (1997). Data smog: Surviving the information glut. San Francisco: Harper Edge.

14.

Sproull, L. , & Kiesler, S. (1992). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

15.

Sudweeks, F. (1998). Network and Netplay: Virtual groups on the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

16.

Wellman, B. (1999). The network community: An introduction to networks in the global village. In B. Wellman (Ed.), Networks in the global village (pp. 1-47). Boulder, CO: Westview.

17.

Wellman, B. , & Gulia, M. (1999). Net surfers don't ride alone: Virtual communities as communities. In B. Wellman (Ed.), Networks in the global village (pp. 331-367). Boulder, CO: Westview.

18.

Wellman, B. , & Hampton, K. (1999). Living networked on and offline. Contemporary Sociology, 28(6), 648-654.

19.

Willock, R. (1998). Soundbite culture: The death of discourse in a wired world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Witte, J. , Amoroso, L. , & Howard, P. (2000). Method and representation in Internet-based survey tools: Mobility, community, and cultural identity in Survey2000. Social Science Computer Review, 18(2), 179-195.

Days and Nights on the Internet

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References