Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement, and Interaction

By Frank Parry. 2003

445 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/21c8a2bff863880f7fecbedf51926db4e1e626dc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

Citations in the corpus

The Role of Motivation and Media Involvement in Explaining Internet Dependency (2008, background): “In a later study, Kaye and Johnson (2002) found people who obtained political information used the Internet for guidance, information seeking/surveillance, entertainment, and social utility.”
The digital divide shifts to differences in usage (2014, unknown): “However, there are studies that show an independent effect of income on, for example, physical and material Internet access (e.g. Katz and Rice, 2002).”
Digital Divides From Access to Activities: Comparing Mobile and Personal Computer Internet Users (2013, background): “While we reject this notion, and argue that there are good and bad implications (sometimes simultaneously) of all media use (see Katz & Rice, 2002), we do agree with van Dijk and van Deursen (2013) that ‘‘[S]ome activities offer users more chances and resources in moving forward in their career,…”
Rethinking Internet skills: The contribution of gender, age, education, Internet experience, and hours online to medium- and content-related Internet skills (2011, background): “Katz and Rice (2002) argue that lower educated groups are unable to apply the content provided by the Internet to their functional needs.”
The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors (2016, unknown): “This specific digital divide across age groups has been documented by various Internet studies (Demunter, 2005; Katz and Rice, 2002; Latzer et al., 2013; Loges and Jung, 2001; Smith, 2014; Wei, 2012).”
Weblogs, traditional sources online and political participation: an assessment of how the internet is changing the political environment (2009, background): “This debate has been characterized in terms of utopian versus dystopian views of CMC, and has been particularly acute for the internet and some of its applications (see for example Graber et al., 2004; Katz and Rice, 2002).”
Internet Use and Social Networking Among Middle Aged and Older Adults (2010, background): “The Internet affects the way people communicate and interact (Coget et al., 2002; Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Katz & Rice, 2002), a phenomenon that may influence social network characteristics (Coget et al., 2002; Kraut et al., 1998; Nie &Hillygus, 2002; Kraut et al., 2002; Bargh & McKenna, 2004).”
The Digital Divide: Current and Future Research Directions (2005, unknown): “These conclusions are similar to those drawn by Katz and Rice (2002), who conduct extensive telephone surveys of Internet use from 1995 to 2000.”
Theories of Computer-Mediated Communication and Interpersonal Relations (2011, background): “Large-scale, sophisticated surveys enumerate what people are doing online and why they say they are doing them (e.g., Katz & Rice, 2002; the Pew Internet & American Life Project at http://pewinternet.org/).”
Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships (2011, unknown): “The metaphor of the panopticon, developed by philosopher Jeremy Bentham and later explicated by Foucault (1977), is often applied to the Internet culture (Katz & Rice, 2002; Lyon, 1993; Spears & Lea, 1994).”
Adolescents’ identity experiments on the internet (2005, background): “There is general consensus among researchers that the internet can offer its users tremendous opportunities to experiment with their identities (e.g. Katz and Rice, 2002; Rheingold, 1993; Smith and Kollock, 1999; Turkle, 1995; Wallace, 1999).”
Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in People's Online Skills (2002, background): “While most reports identify differences among various segments of the population, over time studies emphasize the increasing diffusion of the medium among the population at large (Howard, Rainie and Jones 2001; Katz and Rice 2002; NTIA 2000; 2002; Pew Internet and American Life Project 2000).”
Digital Inequality (2008, background): “Previous research has found that Internet use is associated with heightened, rather than diminished, social capital for users (Best & Krueger, 2006; Katz & Rice, 2002), knowledge of current events (Tewksbury, Weaver, & Maddex, 2001), and civic engagement (Wellman, Haase, Witte, & Hampton, 2002).”
User-generated content on the internet: an examination of gratifications, civic engagement and psychological empowerment (2009, unknown): “This confirms the idea in past research that psychological empowerment and civic engagement are linked (Katz and Rice, 2002; Price, 1990; Zimmerman and Rappaport, 1988).”
Digital Divide: Impact of Access (2017, background): “An early social explanation was that “the Internet does not have appeal for low-income and low-educated people” (Katz & Rice, 2002, p. 93).”
Ethnicity and Contemporary American Culture (2013, background): “As such, the digitalization of American life has fostered new behaviors that may promote cultural exchange and serve to reduce past cultural divides (cf., Hiltz & Turoff, 1993; Katz & Rice, 2002).”
Comparing internet and mobile phone usage: digital divides of usage, adoption, and dropouts (2003, methodology): “, 2001 ; Katz & Rice , 2002 ) , and when the independently conducted Pew studies of 2000 found a nearly identical pattern to that described in this paper .”
Influences, usage, and outcomes of Internet health information searching: Multivariate results from the Pew surveys (2006, background): “Social capital, such as the value of belongng to a network or community, grows much more apidly than the number of participants, because t is the total number of possible relationships that enerates potential resources [4].”
The Evolution of the Digital Divide - The Digital Divide Turns to Inequality of Skills and Usage (2012, background): “A primary social explanation that is barely ten years old holds that “the Internet does not have appeal for low-income and low-educated people” [14].”