Russian Psychological Issues PsyJournals.ru
OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS
JournalsTopicsAuthorsEditor's Choice For AuthorsAbout PsyJournals.ruContact Us

  Previous issue (2020. Vol. 11, no. 1)

Included in Web of Science СС (ESCI)

Included in Scopus

Social Psychology and Society

Publisher: Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

ISSN (printed version): 2221-1527

ISSN (online): 2311-7052

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/sps

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Started in 2010

Published quarterly

Free of fees
Open Access Journal

 

Information and communication technologies and family relations: harm or benefit? 127

Dubrov D.I.
PhD in Psychology, Researcher Fellow, International Laboratory for Socio-Cultural Research, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8146-4197
e-mail: ddubrov@hse.ru

Abstract
Objectives. Summarizing the results of research on the impact of information and communication technologies on family social capital. Background. In recent years, public and scientific discourse has constantly raised questions about how modern information and communication technologies (ICT) af¬fect interpersonal relations and family relations in particular. Studies on the impact of information and communication technologies on family social capital show conflicting results. Conclusions. Conventionally, the results of these studies can be combined around four hypotheses: 1) “Displacement hypothesis” — ICT displace direct interaction between family members and reduce the level of social capital in the family; 2) “Activation hypothesis” — ICT on the contrary contribute to the development and maintenance of relations between family members; 3) “Enrichment hypothesis” — families with inherently strong bonds and social resources benefit even more from the use of ICTs in terms of social interaction, and in families with inherently weak bonds, they will be further weakened by the use of ICTs; 4) “Social compensation hypothesis” — ICT is a kind of copping strategy that allows an individual to cope with stress due to family conflicts, low social capital, as well as to develop social interaction skills and create strong social ties for those individuals who initially did not develop these relations due to external (disability, etc.) and personal reasons (isolation, introversion, etc.). Each of the distinguished hypotheses is considered in more detail.

Keywords: information and communication technologies, digital technologies, family social capital, child-parent relations, social connections

Column: Theoretical Research

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2020110105

For Reference

Funding

The reported study was funded by RSF, project number 19-18-00169.

References

 

1.                   Aysina R.M., Nesterova A.A. Cyber socialization of youth in the information and communication space of the modern world: effects and risks. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo [Social Psychology and Society], 2019. Vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 42—57. doi:10.17759/ sps.2019100404. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)

2.                   Belinskaya E.P., Martsinkovskaya T.D. Identichnost’ v tranzitivnom obshchestve: virtual’nost’ i real’nost’ [Identity in the transitive society: virtuality and reality]. In R.V. Ershova (ed.) Tsifrovoe obshchestvo kak kul’turno-istoricheskii kontekst razvitiya cheloveka: sbornik nauchnykh statei [Digital Society as cultural and Historical context of human development]. Kolomna: Gosudarstvennyi sotsial’no-gumanitarnyi universitet, 2018, pp. 43—48. (In Russ., abstr. in Engl.).

3.                   Dubrov D.I. Vnutrisemejnyj sotsial’nyj kapital kak prediktor sub”ektivnogo blagopoluchiya roditelej i podrostkov [Family social capital as a predictor of subjective well-being of parents and adolescents]. Kazanskij pedagogicheskij zhurnal [Kazan pedagogical journal], 2016, no 6, pp. 184—190.

4.                   Dubrov D.I. Vnutrisemejny`j social`ny`j kapital kak faktor mezhpokolennoj transmissii cennostej. Diss. kand. psikhol. nauk. [Family social capital as a factor of intergenerational value transmission. PhD (Psychology) diss.]. Moscow: National Research University Higher School of Economics, 2019. 132 p.

5.                   Krainyukov S.V. Influence of modern information technologies on the worldview. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo [ Social Psychology and Society], 2019. Vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 23—41. doi:10.17759/sps.2019100403. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)

6.                   Kryukova T.L., Ekimchik O.A. Phubbing as a Possible Threat to Close Relationships’ Welfare. Konsul’tativnaya psikhologiya i psikhoterapiya [ Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy], 2019. Vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 61—76. doi:10.17759/cpp.2019270305. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)

7.                   Soldatova G.U. Digital socialization in the cultural-historical paradigm: a changing child in a changing world. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo [Social Psychology and Society], 2018. Vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 71—80. doi:10.17759/sps.2018090308. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)

8.                   Soldatova G.U., Lvova E.N. Adolescents Encountering Online Risks: Characteristics of Parental Mediation. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 2018. Vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 29—41. doi:10.17759/pse.2018230303. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)

9.                   Soldatova G.U., Rasskazova E.I., Nestik T.A. Cifrovoe pokolenie Rossii: kompetentnost` i bezopasnost` [Russian digital generation: competence and security]. Moscow: Smy`sl, 2017. 375 p.

10.               Sorokina A.B. Internet in the lives of children and adolescents: problems and resources [Elektronnyi resurs]. Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya psikhologiya [Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology], 2015. Vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 45—64. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)

11.               Aarseth E., Bean A.M., Boonen H. et al. Scholars’ open debate paper on the World Health Organization ICD-11 Gaming Disorder proposal. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2017, no. 6 (3), pp. 267270. doi: 10.1556/2006.5.2016.088.

12.               Abar C.C., Farnett S., Mendola K., Koban K., Sarra Sh. Relationships between parent—child social media interactions and health behaviors. Journal of Substance Use, 2018, no. 23 (3), pp. 335337. doi: 10.1080/14659891.2017.1410586.

13.               Attewell P.A., Suazo-Garcia B., Battle J. Computers and young children: Social benefit or social Problem. Social Forces, 2003, no. 82(1), pp. 277296.

14.               Bax T. Internet addiction in China: The battle for the hearts and minds of youth. Deviant Behavior, 2014, no. 35, pp. 687—702.

15.               Boyd D. It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014. 281 р.

16.               Boyd D., Hargittai E. Connected and concerned: Variation in Parents’ Online Safety concerns. Policy & Internet, 2013, pp. 245269.

17.               Bronfenbrenner U., Evans G.W. Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings. Social Development, 2000, no. 9 (1), pp. 115125.

18.               Caplan S., Williams D., Yee N. Problematic internet use and psychosocial well-being among MMO players. Computers in Human Behavior, 2009, no. 25(6), pp. 1312—1319. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.06.006.

19.               Coleman J.S., Hoffer T.B. Public and private high schools: The impact of communities. New York: Basic Books, 1987. 282 p.

20.               Cummings J.N., Butler B., Kraut R. The quality of online social relationships. Communication of the ACM, 2002, no. 45 (7), pp. 103—108.

21.               Duerager A., Livingstone S. How can parents support children’s internet safety? EU Kids Online, London, UK. 2002. URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/42872/ (Accessed 14.09.2019).

22.               Falling through the Net: Toward digital inclusion [Electronic resource]. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. 2000. URL: www.ntia.doc.gov/ ntiahome/fttn00/contents00.html (Accessed 12.09.2019).

23.               Fukuyama F. Social capital and development: The coming agenda. SAIS Review, 2002, no. 22 (1), pp. 23—37.

24.               George M., Odgers C. Seven fears and the Science of How Mobile Technologies May Be Influencing Adolescents in the Digital Age. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2015, no. 10(6), pp. 832—851.

25.               Griffiths M.D. Does internet and computer “addiction” exist? Some case study evidence. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 2000, no. 3(2), pp. 211—218. doi:10.1089/109493100316067.

26.               Johnson G., Puplampu K.A. Conceptual framework for understanding the effect of the Internet on child development: The ecological techno-subsystem. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 2008, no. 34, pp. 19—28.

27.               Kardefelt-Winther D. Conceptualizing internet use disorders: addiction or coping process? Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 2016, no. 71 (7), pp. 459—466, doi: 10.1111/pcn.12413.

28.               Kardefelt-Winther D., Heeren A., Schimmenti A. et al. How can we conceptualize behavioral addiction without pathologizing common behaviors? Addiction, 2017, no. 112 (10), pp. 1709—1715. doi: 10.1111/add.13763.

29.               Kobayashi T., Ikeda K.I., Miyata K. Social capital online: Collective use of the Internet and reciprocity as lubricants of democracy. Information, Communication & Society, 2006, no. 9, pp. 582—611.

30.               Kraut R., Kiesler S., Boneva B. et al. Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 2002, no. 58, pp. 49—74.

31.               Kraut R., Patterson M., Lundmark V., Kiesler S., Mukopadhyay T., Scherlis W. Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 1998, no. 53, pp. 1017—1031.

32.               Kushlev K., Heintzelman S.J. Put the phone down: Testing a complement-interfere model of computer-mediated communication in the context of face-to-face interactions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2018, no. 9 (6), pp. 702—710. doi: 10.1177/1948550617722199.

33.               Lam T., Peng Z., Mai J. et al. Factors associated with Internet addiction among adolescents. Cyber psychology & Behavior, 2009, no. 12 (5), pp. 551—555.

34.               Lee S.J. Online communication and adolescent social ties: Who benefits more from Internet use? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2009, no. 14, pp. 509—531. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01451.x.

35.               McKenna K.Y.A., Bargh J.A. Plan 9 from Cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2000, no. 4, pp. 57—75.

36.               Merton R.K. The Matthew Effect in science. Science, 1968, no. 159 (3810), pp. 56— 63.

37.               Mesch G. The family and the Internet: The Israeli case. Social Science Quarterly, 2003, no. 84 (4), pp. 1038—1050.

38.               Mesch G. Family relations and the Internet: Exploring a family boundaries approach. Journal of Family Communication, 2006, no. 6 (2), pp. 119—138.

39.               Morgan M., Alexander A., Shanahan J., Harris C. Adolescents, VCRs, and the family environment. Communication Research, 1990, no. 10, pp. 175—194.

40.               Neuman S.B. The displacement effect: Assessing the relation between television viewing and reading performance. Reading Research Quarterly, 1998, no. 23, pp. 414—440, doi:10.2307/747641

41.               Nie N.H., Hillygus D.S., Erbring L. Internet Use, interpersonal relations, and sociability: A time diary study. In B. Wellman, C. Haythornthwaite (ed.). The Internet in Everyday Life. Malden: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2002, pp. 215—243.

42.               Orleans M., Laney M.C. Children’s computer use in the home: Isolation or sociation? Social Science Computer Review, 2000, no. 8(1), pp. 56—72.

43.               Papacharissi Z., Rubin A. Predictors of Internet Use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 2000, no. 44, pp. 175—196, doi: 10.1207/s15506878jobem4402_2

44.               Parks M.R. Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 1996, no. 46 (1), pp. 80—97.

45.               Peter J., Valkenburg P.P., Shouten A. Developing a Model of Adolescent Friendship Formation on the Internet. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 2005, no. 8(5), pp. 423—429.

46.               Przybylski A., Weinstein N.A. Large-Scale Test of the Goldilocks Hypothesis: Quantifying the Relations Between Digital-Screen Use and the Mental Well- Being of Adolescents. Psychological Science, 2017, no. 28 (2), pp. 204—215, doi: 10.1177/0956797616678438.

47.               Putnam R.D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000. 544p.

48.               Resnick P. Beyond Bowling together: Sociotechnical Capital. In J. Carroll (ed.). HCI in the New Millennium. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional, 2000, pp. 247—272.

49.               Siraj S.A. Impact of Internet Use on Social Capital: Testing Putnam’s Theory of Time Displacement in Urban Pakistan. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 2018, no. 7 (1), pp. 456—468.

50.               Stafford L., Kline S.L., Dimmick J. Home e-mail: Relational maintenance and gratification opportunities. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 1999, no. 43, pp. 659—669.

51.               Stevenson H.C. Raising safe villages: Cultural-ecological factors that influence the emotional adjustment of adolescents. Journal of Black Psychology, 1998. Vol. 24 (1), pp. 44—59.

52.               Teachman J.D., Paasch K., Carver K. Social capital and dropping out of school early. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1996. Vol. 58, pp. 773—783.

53.               Turkle S. Alone Together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books, 2011, 384 р.

54.               Valkenburg P.M., Peter J. Online communication and adolescent well-being: Testing the stimulation versus displacement hypothesis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007, no. 12, pp. 1169—1182, doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00368.x.

55.               Valkenburg P.M., Schouten A.P., Peter J. Adolescents’ identity experiments on the Internet. New Media & Society, 2005, no. 7(3), pp. 383—402.

56.               Van Rooij A.J., Schoenmakers T.M., Van de Mheen D. Clinical validation of the C-VAT 2.0 assessment tool for gaming disorder: A sensitivity analysis of the proposed DSM-5 criteria and the clinical characteristics of patients with ‘game addiction’. Addictive Behaviours, 2017, no. 64, pp. 269—274, doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.10.018.

57.               Wellman B., Haase A.Q., Witte J., Hampton K. Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? American Behavioral Scientist, 2001, no. 45, pp. 436—455.

58.               Wang J-L, Wang H-Z, Gaskin J, et al. The role of stress and motivation in problematic smartphone use among college students. Computers in Human Behaviour, 2015, no. 53, pp. 181—188.

59.               Whitty M.T., McLaughlin D. Online recreation: The relationship between loneliness, Internet self-efficacy and the use of the Internet for entertainment purposes. Computers in Human Behavior, 2007, no. 23, pp. 1435—1446.

60.               Widyanto L., McMurran M. The psychometric properties of the Internet addiction test. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 2004, no. 7, pp. 443—450.

61.               Yao-Guo G., Lin-Yan S., Feng-Lin C. A research on emotion and personality characteristics in junior high school students with Internet addiction disorders. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2006, no. 14, pp. 153–155.

 

 
About PsyJournals.ru

© 2007–2020 Portal of Russian Psychological Publications. All rights reserved

PsyJournals.ru in Russian

Publisher: Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

Catalogue of academic journals in psychology & education MSUPE

Creative Commons License Open Access Repository

RSS Psyjournals at facebook Psyjournals at Twitter Psyjournals at Youtube ??????.???????