Restricted accessOtherFirst published online 2010-11
How the internet is changing the implementation of traditional research methods,people’s daily lives,and the way in which developmental scientists conduct research
Recent years have seen an impressive increase in web-based research, of which we review and discuss two main types. First, researchers can create online versions of traditional questionnaires. Using the internet in this way usually does not compromise the psychometric properties of such measures, and participants are typically not less representative of the general population than those of traditional studies. Technical guidelines are provided to set up such studies, and thorny issues such as participants’ anonymity are discussed. We will also discuss issues regarding the assessment of minors and the repeated assessment of participants to assess developmental changes via the web. Second, the internet has changed the way people interact with each other. The study of the psychosocial consequences of this development is called cyberpsychology. We review emerging findings from this young discipline, with a focus on developmentally-relevant implications such as the use of the internet by adolescents to disclose personal information.
Alterovitz, S.S.-R., & Mendelsohn, G.A. (2009). Partner preferences across the life span: Online dating by older adults. Psychology & Aging, 24, 513-517.
2.
Bargh, J.A., & McKenna, K.Y.A. (2004). The internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573-590.
3.
Baumer, D.L., Earp, J.B., & Poindexter, J.C. (2004). Internet privacy law: A comparison between the United States and theEuropean Union. Computers and Security, 23, 400-412.
4.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. ( 2008). The ‘‘digital natives’’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 775-786.
5.
Birnbaum, M.H. ( 2004). Human research and data collection via the internet. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 803-832.
6.
Blais, J., Craig, W.M., Pepler, D.J., & Connolly, J. ( 2008). Adolescents online: The importance of internet activity choices to salient relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 37, 49-58.
7.
Block, J. ( 1997). Studying personality the long way. In D.C. Funder & D.J. Ozer (Eds.), Pieces of the personality puzzle (pp. 33-40). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
8.
Block, J.J. ( 2008). Issues for DSM-V: Internet addiction. American Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 306-307.
9.
Bosnjak, M., & Tuten, T.L. ( 2001). Classifying response behaviors in web-based surveys. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6. Retrieved from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue3/boznjak.html
10.
Buchanan, E.A. ( 2003). Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies . Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
11.
Buchanan, T. ( 2007). Personality testing on the internet: What we know, and what we do not. In A.N. Joinson, K. McKenna, T. Postmes , & U.-D. Reips (Eds.), Oxford handbook of internet psychology (pp. 447-459). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
Campbell, A.J., Cumming, S.R., & Hughes, I. ( 2006). Internet use by the socially fearful: Addiction or therapy ? CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9, 69-81.
13.
Carstensen, L.L. ( 1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 7, 331-338.
14.
Chen, Y., & Persson, A. ( 2002). Internet use among young and older adults: Relation to psychological well-being. Educational Gerontology, 28, 731-744.
Denissen, J.J.A. ( 2005-2008). The Berlin diary study. Humboldt University Institute for Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.psychologie.hu-berlin.de/prof/perdev/downloadentwper/diarystudy
17.
Ess, C. ( 2007). Internet research ethics. In A.N. Joinson, K.Y.A. McKenna, T. Postmes, & U.-D. Reips (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of internet psychology (pp. 487-502). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
Ess, C., & Association of Internet Researchers ( 2002). Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee. Retrieved from http://aoir.org/documents/ethics-guide/
19.
EU Information Directive (1995). Directive 95/46/EC of the European parliament and of the council. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/index_en.htm
20.
Fan, W., & Yan, Z. ( 2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 132-139.
21.
Fielding, N.G., Lee, R.M., & Blank, G. ( 2008). The SAGE handbook of web-based research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
22.
Fraley, R.C. ( 2004). How to conduct behavioral research over the internet: A beginner’s guide to HTML and CGI/Perl. New York : Guilford.
23.
Friedman, B., Lin, P., & Miller, J.K. ( 2005). Informed consent by design. In L. Cranor & S. Garfinkel (Eds.), Security and usability (pp. 477-504). Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
24.
Frijns, T., Keijsers, L., Branje, S.J.T., & Meeus, W.H.J. (2009). What parents don’t know and how it may affect their children: Qualifying the disclosure-adjustment link. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 261-270.
25.
Gaiser, T.J., & Schreiner, A.E. (2009). A guide to conducting web-based research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
26.
Göritz, A.S. ( 2006). Incentives in web studies: Methodological issues and a review. International Journal of Internet Science, 1, 58-70.
27.
Gosling, S.D., Gaddis, S., & Vazire, S. ( 2007). Personality impressions based on facebook profiles. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Boulder, CO, March 26-28, 2007.
28.
Gosling, S.D., & Johnson, J.A. (Eds.). (2010). Advanced methods for behavioral research on the internet. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
29.
Gosling, S.D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O.P. ( 2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93-104.
30.
Greenfield, P.M. ( 2004). Developmental considerations for determining appropriate internet use guidelines for children and adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 751-762.
31.
Internet World Stats (2001-2009 ). Internet usage statistics: The internet big picture. Retrieved from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
32.
Johnson, J.A. ( 2005). Ascertaining the validity of individual protocols from web-based personality inventories. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 103-129.
33.
Joinson, A., McKenna, K., Postmes, T., & Reips, U-D. ( 2007). Oxford handbook of internet psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
Joinson, A.N., Woodley, A., & Reips, U.-D. ( 2007). Personalization, authentication and self-disclosure in self-administered internet surveys. Computers in Human Behavior , 23, 275-285.
35.
Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. ( 2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring . Developmental Psychology, 36, 366-380.
36.
Kiiski, S., & Pohjola, M. ( 2002). Cross-country diffusion of the internet. Information Economics and Policy, 14, 297-310.
Krantz, J.H., & Dalal, R. ( 2000). Validity of web-based psychological research. In M.H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the internet (pp. 35-60). New York: Academic Press.
39.
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J.N., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A.M. (2002). Internet paradox revisited . Journal of Social Issues, 58, 49-74.
40.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. ( 1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist , 53, 1017-1031.
41.
Kraut, R.M., Olson, J., Banaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J., & Couper, M.P. ( 2004). Psychological research online: Report of board of scientific affairs’ advisory group on the conduct of research on the internet. American Psychologist, 59, 106-117.
42.
Ladd, G., & Petry, N.M. ( 2002). Disordered gambling among university-based medical and dental patients: A focus on internet gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16, 76-79.
43.
Livingstone, S. ( 2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Society, 10, 393-411.
44.
Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. ( 2009). EU kids online: Final report. LSE, London: EU Kids Online.
45.
Marcus, B., Bosnjak, M., Lindner, S., Pilischenko, S., & Schütz, A. (2007). Compensating for low topic interest and long surveys: A field experiment on nonresponse in web surveys . Social Science Computer Review, 25, 372-383.
46.
McGraw, K.O., Tew, M.D., & Williams, J.E. (2000). The integrity of web-delivered experiments: Can you trust the data? Psychological Science , 11, 502-506.
47.
McKee, H., & Porter, J.E. ( 2008). The ethics of digital writing research: A rhetorical approach. College Composition and Communication, 59, 711-749.
48.
Meerkerk, G.-J., Van den Eijnden, R.J.J.M., & Garretsen, H.F.L. (2006). Predicting compulsive internet use: It’s all about sex! CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9, 95-103.
49.
Michalek, E.E., & Szabo, A. ( 1998). Guidelines for internet research: An update. European Psychologist, 3, 70-75.
50.
Nosek, B.A., Banaji, M.R., & Greenwald, A.G. (2002). eResearch: Ethics, security, design, and control in psychological research on the internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 161-176.
51.
Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S. ( 2006). Bullies move beyond the school-yard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 148-169.
52.
Peden, B.F., & Flashinski, D.P. (2004). Virtual research ethics: A content analysis of surveys and experiments online. In E.A. Buchanan (Ed.), Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 1-26). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
53.
Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P.M. (2009). Adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit internet material and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Human Communication Research, 35, 171-194.
54.
Pullmann, H., Allik, J., & Realo, A. ( 2009). Global self-esteem across the life span: A cross-sectional comparison between representative and self-selected internet samples. Experimental Aging Research, 35, 20-44.
55.
Reips, U.D. ( 2000). The Web experiment method: Advantages, disadvantages, and solutions. In M.H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the internet (pp. 89-117). New York: Academic Press.
56.
Reips, U.D. ( 2002). Internet-based psychological experimenting: Five dos and five don’ts. Social Science Computer Review, 20, 241-249.
57.
Rentfrow, P.J., & Gosling, S.D. ( 2003). The do re mi’s of everyday life: Examining the structure and personality correlates of music preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1236-1256.
58.
Selfhout, M.H.W., Branje, S.J.T., Denissen, J.J.A., van Aken, M.A.G., & Meeus, W.H.J. ( 2010). Who benefits from chatting, and why? The roles of social skills and extraversion in chatting and emotional adjustment. Manuscript submitted for publication.
59.
Selfhout, M.H.W., Branje, S.J.T., Ter Bogt, T., Delsing, M., & Meeus, W.H.J. (2009). Different types of internet use, depression, and social anxiety: The role of perceived friendship quality. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 819-833.
60.
Skitka, L.J., & Sargis, E.G. ( 2006). The internet as psychological laboratory. Annual Review of Psychology, 7, 529-555.
61.
Soto, C.J., John, O.P., Gosling, S.D., & Potter, J. ( 2008). The developmental psychometrics of Big Five self-reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 718-737.
62.
Spears, R., & Lee, M. ( 1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427-459.
63.
Srivastava, S., John, O.P., Gosling, S.D., & Potter, J. ( 2003). Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1041-1053.
64.
Steinfield, C., Ellison, N.B., & Lampe, C. ( 2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 434-445.
65.
Subrahmanyam, K., Garcia, E.C., Harsono, S.L., Li, J., & Lipana, L. ( 2009). In their words: Connecting Online weblogs to developmental processes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 219-245.
66.
Valkenburg, P.M., & Peter, J. ( 2008). Adolescents’ identity experiments on the internet: Consequences for social competence and self-concept unity. Communication Research, 35, 208-231.
67.
Valkenburg, P.M., & Peter, J. ( 2009). Social consequences of the internet for adolescents. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 1-5.
68.
Valkenburg, P.M., Schouten, A.P., & Peter, J. ( 2005). Adolescents’ identity experiments on the internet . New Media & Society, 7, 383-402.
69.
Vazire, S., & Gosling, S.D. ( 2004). E-perceptions: Personality impressions based on personal websites. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 123-132.
70.
Vogt, D.S., & Colvin, C.R. ( 2005). Assessment of accurate self-knowledge. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 239-251.
71.
Widyanto, L., & Griffiths, M. ( 2006). ‘‘Internet addiction’’: A critical review. International Journal of Mental Health Addiction, 4, 31-51.
72.
Williams, D., Caplan, S., & Xiong, L. ( 2007). Can you hear me now? The impact of voice in an online gaming community. Human Communication Research, 33, 427-449.
73.
Wright, R. ( 2005). Researching internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10, Article 11. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/wright.html
74.
Young, K.S. ( 1998). Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder . CyberPsychology and Behavior, 1, 237-244.
75.
Zur, O., Williams, W.H., Lehavot, K., & Knapp, S. ( 2009). Psychotherapist self-disclosure and transparency in the internet age. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice , 40, 22-30.
