ICTs, social thinking and subjective well-being – The internet and its representations in everyday life

Computers in Human Behavior Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1016–1032 www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

ICTs, social thinking and subjective well-being – The Internet and its representations in everyday life A. Contarello *, M. Sarrica Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, via Venezia 8, 35131 Padova, Italy Available online 21 September 2005

Abstract The spread of ICTs constitutes an intriguing phenomenon for studying the interweaving between ways of knowing, thinking and experiencing new ÔrealitiesÕ. A suitable framework for investigating this topic is the social representations one, which addresses socially shared structures of knowledge, loaded with emotional features and symbolic values. In the present study, we explore how the internet is represented and how it is related to social well-being. The number of participants was 101. The components of the representation – information, attitude, representational field – were investigated using a qualitative–quantitative methodology; social well-being (in general, and after the internet entered oneÕs own life) was measured through KeyesÕ scale [Social Well-Being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 121–140]; levels of practice were also taken into account. Participants show a medium–high level of social well-being in its various components (integration, acceptance, contribution, actualisation and coherence). A more complex picture appears Ôafter internetÕ, with gains in terms of closeness, contribution, actualisation of society, counterbalanced by diminished trust in people and resort to oneÕs own group for security and comfort. The representational field opposes an intimate picture to a wider perspective; space to time; functional to experiential features of the internet. Participants take different positions on these dimensions, providing foreseen and unexpected patterns of images and meanings.  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Internet; Well-being; Social representations; Attitudes; Practices

*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 049 8276647; fax: +39 049 8276600. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Contarello).

0747-5632/$ - see front matter  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.08.013

A. Contarello, M. Sarrica / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1016–1032

1017

1. Introduction The spread of Information and Communication Technologies in the last decades of the 20th century constitutes an intriguing phenomenon for scholars interested in the intertwining between ways of knowing, thinking, experiencing new social ÔrealitiesÕ, on the one hand, and social practices and material supports of these knowledge structures – i.e. their underlying artefacts – on the other. Like the introduction of new devices in the eighties or, even more so, the introduction of printing at the beginning of modern times, the internet, in particular, calls for renewed interest within social sciences in order to better understand the social and social psychological processes involved with the new technologies. Within a sociological perspective, growing attention has been given to its spread, its success, its integration in everyday life from groups differing in their access, use, practice with the device (cf. Katz & Rice, 2002; Wellman & Haythornthwaite, 2002). Within a psychological framework, concerns have been expressed as regards its exponential diffusion, with increasing debate as to its costs and benefits, and its risks versus gains, mainly in terms of psychological well-being (cf. Bargh, Fritzsimons, & McKenna, 2003; Bargh, McKenna, & Fritzsimons, 2002; Do¨ring, 1999; Kraut et al., 2002; Wright, 2000; see also Joinson, 2003; Wallace, 1999). More recently, with this growing research, enthusiastic or concerned positions have slowly given way to recognition of the instrumental role of the device, as a catalyst which potentiates and enhances pre-existing individual trends (Amichai-Hamburger, 2002; Amichai-Hamburger & Ben-Artzi, 2003; Hills & Argyle, 2003; McDonough, 2001; Mundorf & Laird, 2002; Sheperd & Edelmann, 2001). Similarly, the deterministic assumption of the impact of the internet on social life has been challenged and put aside in favour of a view of the device as a social production (cf. Fisher, 1992; Mantovani, 2001, 2002), in which technology and society co-construct each other (Latour & Woolgar, 1979). Within this lively debate, being particularly interested in the social aspect of the phenomenon, we consider the theoretical approach of social representations particularly suitable for research. Such an approach focuses its attention on the development of everyday knowledge in order to cope with novelties of a theoretical, ideological and technological nature. Social representations are considered ÔwarmÕ social structures of knowledge, loaded with emotional features and symbolic values, actively co-constructing the meaning of these new ÔrealitiesÕ (Moscovici, 1961/1976, 1989). The internet is no longer a Ônew realityÕ, it has been on the scene for the last twenty or more years, with a mass level diffusion in the last seven years. Moreover, like previous communication technologies, in western societies it entered everyday life somewhat surreptitiously, and we only became aware of its powerful presence as we got used to it. For these reasons, some scholars raise doubts as to whether it is right to speak of social representations of ICTs and particularly of the internet (Lahlou, personal communication). However, because of the symbolic charge which is linked to it and its position as a social issue at stake on which individuals and groups are fiercely divided, we consider the internet a good candidate for study in this framework. For a topic to become an object of representation, there has to be a problem, contextualised in a specific framework, and widely shared (Farr & Moscovici, 1984). There has also to be polymorphism, with different aspects and voices given by different groups, so that the ÔobjectÕ has a specific value to specific groups (Moliner, 1993). As we already noted, this seems to be the case with ICTs.

1018

A. Contarello, M. Sarrica / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1016–1032

Since its early beginnings, the social representation approach has enhanced the interplay between socially shared knowledge, on the one hand, and individual attitudes, practices, values, on the other (Jodelet, 1989; Moscovici, 1961/1976). This stance is particularly salient in DoiseÕs sociodynamic perspective (Doise, Cle´mence, & Lorenzi-Cioldi, 1993), which aims to highlight the underlying principles governing social representations and the anchoring of such shared knowledge into pre-existing sociological and psychological systems (Doise, 1992). Along these lines, by exploring the representation of the internet in relation to endorsed social well-being, we can shed some new light on the much-debated relationship between the internet and the risks and benefits involved. Adopting a social representations perspective, in previous research we explored knowledge and images linked to the mobile phone (Fortunati & Contarello, forthcoming). We also considered the internet – as well as the computer which constitutes its technical support and the mobile – as emblematic of the ever-growing importance of mediate communication. In particular, we studied the relations between these devices as well as health and well-being technologies, on the one hand, and the human body, on the other, with the aim of deepening our understanding of the reception within social thinking of the progressive penetration by the former of the latter (Fortunati, Katz, & Riccini, 2003). We also studied similarities, complementarities, oppositions between the internet and the mobile phone experienced in everyday life (Fortunati & Contarello, 2002). A growing corpus of research is gathering around the topic of New Technologies within a social representations theoretical framework and related approaches, both with theoretical and methodological concerns. It suffices here to mention FlickÕs (1995) studies on the social representation of technological change in everyday life, Capozza, Falvo, Robusto, and Orlando (2003) on the internet, Wagner, Kronberger, and Seifert (2002) on biotechnologies. In the present study, our aim is to explore: (a) how the internet, seen as emblematic of ICTs, is perceived and constructed in relation to different forms and levels of practice by its users and, particularly, (b) how these constructions are related to selfreported social well-being. 2. Method 2.1. Participants One hundred and one undergraduate male and female students in Psychology at Padua University (Italy) took part in the study. They volunteered while attending a first year class. Data were collected in the spring of 2003. 2.2. Procedure In the present work, we focus on the representation of the internet (as well as in part the computer which is fundamental to it). In particular, we investigate the different components of the representation – information, attitude, representational field – adopting a qualitative–quantitative methodology (Le Bouedec, 1984; cf. also Abric, 2003). In order to study the first and the third component, we explored the symbolic and emotional texture relating to the internet, and more generally the information and communication technologies (mobile and computer) via free associations (Di Giacomo, 1980; Le Bouedec, 1984). In order to measure attitudes towards the internet and the computer,

A. Contarello, M. Sarrica / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1016–1032

1019

we collected answers to a semantic differential scale prepared for our purpose. We also gathered information on practices relative to the internet and monitored perceived social well-being both in general and as experienced after the internet entered oneÕs own life. Accordingly, our instrument is composed of five sections. Firstly, we gave our participants a free association exercise proposing the key stimuli – the internet, computer, mobile phone – followed by journey, fashion and myself which were introduced for different aims and are not considered in the present paper (Write spontaneously the images and ideas which come to your mind. . .). A second section (which also will not be considered in the present context) was devoted, more generally, to the ICTs. Here, the participants were asked to respond to the following prompts: they are; they are the opposite of; they are similar to; they might be. These two stimuli were presented one per page in the form of graphs. A third section contained a semantic differential to measure participantsÕ attitudes towards the internet, mobile phone and computer. This scale consists of four bipolar couples derived from Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957) research (in the Italian adaptation, Capozza, 1977) which measures general evaluation (desirable–undesirable, agreeable– disagreeable, worthwhile–worthless, pleasant–unpleasant) and by 13 further couples derived from a pre-test carried out with a smaller group of students (these were invited to associate adjectives, nouns or brief phrases to the three stimuli, the most relevant features were then retained and presented in a bipolar scale format; they are 7 point scales). In order to measure perceived well-being, KeyesÕs (1998) Social Well-being scale was chosen. This scale (Table 1), originally created to explore and measure Ôthe nature of a well-lived lifeÕ and correlating with measures of anomie, generativity, perceived social constraints and community involvement, is composed of five thematic nuclei: social integration, social acceptance, social contribution, social actualisation and social coherence. Cicognani and ZaniÕs (1999) Italian translation was used, first as originally proposed, using five-point ratings, and secondly by asking respondents to rate on a three-point scale whether each item was more, equally or less endorsed than before using the internet, as well as the mobile phone (the term community, used in the scale was changed to Ôgroup/communityÕ). Between the first and the second presentation of the Social Well-being scale, the participants answered questions monitoring ownership, familiarity with the internet, the computer and the mobile phone. Gender, age, education and residence were asked for, as well as information on the participantsÕ social networks and status of relationships with others. 2.3. Data analysis As mentioned above, we opted for a qualitative–quantitative approach; that is, as regards the associated words, first we worked on them, giving extensive space to the exploration of meanings conveyed by the respondents to the stimuli. Secondly, the distinct lexical forms associated were examined through analyses allowed by the Spad.T package (Lebart, Morineau, Becue, & Haeusler, 1989). After reducing the synonyms and fixing the inclusion frequencies threshold, we submitted the matrixes to correspondence analysis (Benze´cri et al., 1973), an exploratory technique very similar to principal component analysis (one reason why the French term is analyse factorielle des correspondences), whose aim is primarily to reveal features in the data rather than to confirm or reject hypotheses

1020

Table 1 Social Well-Being after internet: rotated matrix – principal component analysis; Varimax rotation Factors 1 14. I believe other people in society value me as a person 27. I think that my work provides an important product for society 23. My daily activities do not produce anything worthwhile for my group/community 33. I feel like I am an important part of my group/community 31. I think it is worthwhile to understand the world I live in 29. I believe that people are more and more dishonest these days 32. I feel I have nothing important to contribute to society 22. I see my group/community as a source of comfort 16. Scientists are the only people who can understand how the world works 19. For me there is such thing as progress 28. I believe that society has stopped making progress 30. I see society as continually evolving 6. I do not have the time or energy to give anything to my group/community 8. Society is not improving for people like me 26. I feel close to other people in my group/community 10. I think our society is a productive place for people to live in

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

.765 .709 .614

.465

.483

.496

.793 .48

.403

.560 .546

.418

.805 .794 .585 .708

.701 .743 .674

(continued on next page)

A. Contarello, M. Sarrica / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1016–1032

Items

Table 1 (continued) Items

Factors 1

Variance explained Cronbach a

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

.547

.737 .704 .514 .512 .744 .540

.763 .717 .435

.423

.762 .620

.419

.775

.737 .823

.481

.432

14.4 .53

7.98 .60

7.37 .74

7.09 .39

5.82 .61

5.39 .60

4.93 .30

4.52 .60

3.98 /

3.52 .44

A. Contarello, M. Sarrica / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1016–1032

25. My behaviour has some impact on other people in my group/community 18. I feel that people are not trustworthy 2. I believe that people are kind 5. I think that other people live only for themselves 15. I believe that people are selfcentred 11. I think the world is becoming a better place for everyone 7. Most cultures are so strange that I cannot understand them 21. I think that people care about other peopleÕs problems 17. I find it hard to predict what will happen next in society 13. I cannot make sense of what is going on in the world 9. I think I have something valuable to give to the world 4. I think that other people are unreliable 1. I do not feel I belong to anything I would call a social group/community 20. I think social institutions like law and government make my life better 24. The world is too complex for me 12. If I had something to say, I do not think my group/ community would take me seriously 3. If I had something to say, I believe people in my group/ community would listen to me

3.24 /

1021

1022

A. Contarello, M. Sarrica / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1016–1032

regarding generating underlying processes. It is especially suitable for categorical data and allows us to present visually the results pertaining to two (or more) sets of them (Clausen, 1998; Greenacre, 1984; Greenacre & Blasius, 1994; Lebart & Salem, 1988). The participants · words matrix, referring to the stimulus internet (Aspar procedure) was analysed. We were thus able to explore the emerging representational field and the role played by the following illustrative variables with its regard.1 Gender, practice, attitude and social well-being were taken into account in the analysis. As regards practices, we considered frequency of use and services used by the participants. As regards attitudes and social wellbeing, both scales were exploited through factor analysis. The single factors which emerged were considered as sub-scales and, on the basis of a median-split on the composite factor scores, the participants were subdivided into those with higher and lower scores. 3. Results 3.1. Practices Our participants were students enrolled in the Psychology Faculty, men (31.7%) and women (68.3%) of age 21 (s.d. = 4.04). Nearly all of them (92.1%) own a computer, most of them (85.1%) have access to an internet connection. More than half of them claimed to use a computer daily (25.40) or weekly (26.80), but there were also some (13.5%) who said they never used it. As regards the internet, its use is more varied (16.8 = daily, 29.6 = weekly, 26.8 = monthly, 18 = rarely, 9.3% = never), as well as the use of email (5.4 = several times a day, 16.8 = daily, 35 = weekly, 18.2 = monthly, 20.4 = never, 4.3% = other). The reasons for its use are mainly work/study (80.2), but also doing research (52.1), having contact with friends (47.9), playing (15.9), other (9.4). The services used are information retrieval (94.8), email (79.2), chat (18.8), games (10.4), e-commerce (7.3), other (5.2). On the basis of these results, which confirm the priority of email exchange among the various services, we considered as variables for analysis: frequency of use (re-coded into daily, weekly, monthly), frequency of use of email (into daily, weekly, monthly and never), reasons for use – work/study, research, contact with friends, play, use of chat – and possession of an email address (each variable with two levels: yes and no). 3.2. Social well-being The Social Well-Being Scale, submitted to exploratory factor analysis, revealed a pattern close to the predicted one. The principal component factor analysis shows eleven factors with eigenvalues above one; a second solution requiring five factors and a Varimax rotation shows dimensions which account for 45% of the total variance and good or fair levels of internal coherence, which may be interpreted as Social Integration (ChronbachÕs alpha = .75), Social Acceptance (alpha = .75), Social Contribution (alpha = .72), Social Actualisation (alpha = .63), Social Coherence (alpha = .58). With minor variations, the resulting structure matches the one proposed by the authors.

1 The positioning of an illustrative variable on a dimension is measured by valeurs-test. If a v-t is greater than 2 in absolute value, the chances that this positioning is not due to mere chance is 95%. Only variables with v-t equal or greater than j2j are presented and discussed.

A. Contarello, M. Sarrica / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1016–1032

1023

The participants, on the whole, show a medium to high level of social well-being in its various components, endorsing good integration in their group/community, much higher than the central point of the scale (M = 3.78; t[100] = 11.88, p < .001), medium trust and acceptance towards people (mean = 3.07; t[100] = 1.16, n.s.), the feeling of providing some important contribution to society (M = 3.68; t[100] = 19.15, p < .001), the belief that society is improving (M = 3.36; t[100] = 5.33, p < .001), the search for social organisation and coherence (M = 3.57; t[100] = 10.06, p < .001). 3.3. Changes in social well-being after the internet entered oneÕs life The correlation matrix between the items of the second version of the scale, each proposed with a three-point rating (1 = less than before, 2 = same as before, 3 = more than before internet), was also submitted to principal component analysis and Varimax rotation.2 Eleven factors with eigenvalues above one were extracted; on the basis of their internal coherence and psychological meaning, we interpreted six factors (Table 1). The first factor, loading items originally included in the integration and contribution subscales, may be interpreted as Personal Contribution to Society. The second groups together concerns with peopleÕs increasing dishonesty (item 29) and reliance upon oneÕs own group/ community for comfort (item 22), thus pointing to an Ingroup Buffer role to cope with increasing distrust in people at large. The third loads items referring to Social Actualisation. The fifth mingles items originally relating to social integration, actualisation and contribution and may be seen as Contribution and Closeness to Community. The sixth loads items pertaining to Social Acceptance. The eighth gathers items connected with Social Coherence. The fourth and the seventh factors do not reach an acceptable alpha level. A reading of the means, always differing from the central point of the scale (Table 2), shows that, after the internet entered their lives, the respondents report they feel closer to their community and perceive they contribute more actively to society, and find it easier to make sense of it, despite considering that the latter evolves at a faster pace. These gains, however, are counterbalanced by a diminished trust in people, which is stemmed by resorting to oneÕs own group for security and comfort. 3.4. Attitudes From an exploratory factor analysis performed on the correlation matrix between the 19 items composing the Semantic Differential scale, six factors resulted with eigenvalue above one, the first two of which reached a good level of coherence. The first factor groups together the four scales meant to be pure measures of evaluation with items referring to functional and facilitating features of the device (leads to ignorance vs. fosters knowledge, amusing vs. boring, repressive vs. liberating and causes problems vs. offers solutions). Such general evaluation of the internet (alpha = .84), on a seven-point scale, resulted positive, but not extreme: Mean = 5.14 (t[99] = 11.796; p < .001). The second factor indicates an artificial– natural dichotomy, where naturalness is connected with easiness and harmlessness while artificiality with difficulty and harmfulness (alpha = .54). The mean reveals some concern

2

The factors were also rotated obliquely (Oblimin) without gains in the interpretation. In the resulting structure many items have multi factor loadings; only the first and the fifth factors show to be correlated (r = .35).

1024

A. Contarello, M. Sarrica / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1016–1032

Table 2 Gains and losses in social Well-Being after the advent of internet (1 – less than before, 2 – same as before, 3 – more than before internet) Factor

Mean

DF

t-Student

P<

Personal contribution to society IngroupÕs buffer Social actualisation Contribution and closeness to community Social acceptance Social coherence

2.09 2.05 2.41 2.08 1.92 2.13

96 96 96 96 96 97

3.133 1.942 9.285 2.813 2.862 2.711

0.05 0.05 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.01

with a device which is experienced as artificial and difficult: Mean = 3.45 (t[99] = 5.725; p < .001). 3.5. Content and field of the representation The lexical forms associated to the stimulus internet were 338 of which 176 were distinct (52.1%). After reducing them in terms of synonyms and antonyms, through the Corte procedure, the most frequent ones (with frequency greater than 8%) appeared to be information, communication, computer, usefulness, speed, world contact, globalisation, technology, navigation, knowledge, contacts and future. The twofold nature of the device – informative and relational – is enhanced, as is the faster pace it evokes. The matrix categories · participants (47 · 101) was submitted to correspondence analysis, following the Aspar procedure. In the illustration of the results, we retained lexical forms with absolute contribution P2.13.3 On the basis of the eigenvalues histogram, we chose to illustrate the first three dimensions, which account overall for 13.76% of total inertia. The first factor gathers at one pole associations to the computer and its parts (screen), to services of the internet such as email, chat and navigating, and to reasons of its use such as studying and cultivating friendship; the web is also evoked as a synonym. On the other pole, the internet evokes the future, it is dynamic, useful, linked to the world of work, the cornerstone of modernity. On the whole, the factor depicts an internal–external dimension which we propose to name A room of oneÕs own versus A window on a changing world. The second dimension presents on a single pole a blending of the two ends of the previous one, merging together (with high absolute contributions) the modernity and dynamics of a device projected into the future with its connections with study, work and friendship. The other pole assembles terms such as communication, knowledge and global contact. The opposition here seems to be between, on the one hand, the Present and future of the internet – evoking the time dimension – and on the other its extended opportunities of Communication and knowledge through space. The third factor opposes opportunities offered by the device, such as amusement, information, work, to ways in which it is perceived. This instrumental vs. expressive dimension – What the internet is for versus How the internet is experienced – is qualified at this second pole by the co-presence of positive and negative nuances in the way the internet is 3 The absolute contribution of a point to a dimension is the proportion of inertia (variance) explained by the point. The sum of the contributions of the points to each factor is equal to 100. Only points with considerable value (i.e. >100/n where n is the number of points) are discussed.

A. Contarello, M. Sarrica / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1016–1032

1025

encountered: it is attractive but cold, a waste of time and a danger but it is also useful and concrete. 3.6. Representation and practice As regards the different positions of our respondents, we found that more participants who do not use the device frequently (i.e. use it monthly) are present at the first pole of the first factor – depicting a more intimate and small range environment – as well as those who use it on a relational ground, to chat and to make contacts with friends, and do not use it for play or to do research. Respondents who use the internet frequently (weekly) and for research reasons give rise to the set of meanings defining the second pole, which points towards a wider, changing world (Fig. 1 shows the graphical display of the first and second dimension). Use of different services and frequency of use of the device do not appear to be systematically related with the second and third factor. The only variable which plays a role in both of them is possession of an email address: participants who have one are more prone to refer to the extension in space afforded by the internet and to what it can provide (first pole of both factors), while those who do not own one refer more frequently to the time dimension and speak about their experience with the device (second pole of both factors). 3.7. Representation and attitude As far as the attitude measures are concerned (Table 3), an ambivalent experience of the technology (cf. third factor) is more frequently reported by participants with lower general evaluation scores, whereas those who show higher appreciation of the internet more frequently mention what it can provide. Those participants who are more concerned with the artificiality of the internet refer to it as a changing dynamic world (first factor) extended in time (second factor), while those who talk about a chance of communicating through space (second factor) are the ones who judge the instrument as more natural. 3.8. Representation and well-being Coming to the main question of the present research, interesting relations between the three factors and the social well-being sub-scales emerge. Participants who perceive higher social coherence after the device entered their lives mention a more intimate sphere in association to the internet, while those who find it more difficult to make sense of what is going on mention a wider changing world (first factor). A view of the device as the cornerstone of modernity which enhances the time dimension goes hand in hand with reported higher personal contribution and higher social acceptance, but also with a lower sense of coherence (second pole of the second factor); participants with lower social acceptance more frequently speak about communication as extended through space (first pole of the second factor). Finally (third factor), those participants who report both a reduced trust in people at large and find comfort in their own group are those who refer more frequently to their experience of the internet in terms of chiaroscuro; on the other hand, those with a lower score in the factor we named ingroup buffer and those who report a lower social coherence, after using internet, are more prone to indicate functional aspects of it.

1026

2.130 2.057 1.985 1.913 1.841 1.769 1.696 1.624 1.552 1.480 1.408

A. Contarello, M. Sarrica / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1016–1032

Present and Future of the Internet

screen study

friendship

1.335

future

1.263 1.191 1.119 1.047 .975 .902

images

don’t-love-use

surf

.830 .758 .686 .614

wide-range

Contact with friends Do research Use monthly Use weekly Use to chat Don’t play technology useful

.253 .180 .108 .036 -.036

-.180 -.253 -.325 -.397

computer

e-mail

.541 .469 .397 .325

-.108

important dynamic work modernity

A room of one’s own

-.469 -.541 -.614 -.686 -.758 -.830

web chat Don’t research

interaction

V.R. cold mystery

informations globalisation contacts

speedy

expensive

A changing world

comfortableness

gl-contact confusion communication big knowledge search easy practical world freedom facilitate

amusement

danger disorganized attractive

contradictory isolation

connection opportunity

-.902 -.975 -1.047 -1.119 -1.191 -1.263 -1.335 -1.408 -1.480 -1.552 -1.624 -1.696 -1.769 -1.841 -1.913 -1.985 -2.057 -2.130 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---2.196 -1.318 -.439 .439 1.318 2.196

Communication

Fig. 1. Correspondence analysis. The internet – first and second factor.

4. Discussion The internet entered everyday life in the western world with extraordinary and exponential speed, together with discourses, words, and ideas which concur to shape a common view of the device. The social representation approach emphasises the role of shared thoughts and images in the effort to make sense of something new or at least muchdebated within a community, as well as offering instruments and methods to study these topics. Considering the internet a suitable topic for research in this vein, we adopted a free association task in order to explore the texture of the everyday language – or one could say Ômicro-languageÕ – linked to this relatively new technology.

Factor

A room of oneÕs own Words

First, inertia = 4.89%

Second, inertia = 4.60%

Coordinates

A changing world Absolute contributiona

Words

Coordinates

Computer 1.09 8.5 0.18 Screen 2.98 8.0 0.13 Study 2.15 8.4 0.16 Email 1.56 7.7 0.18 Surf 1.31 6.2 0.12 Chat 1.08 3.2 0.06 Friendship 1.30 3.0 0.06 Web 0.88 2.1 0.04 [Use monthly; Do not use to play; Use to chat; Do not use to do research; Use to make contact with friends; Higher social coherence]b

Useful Dynamic Modernity Work Future

1.12 2.50 2.41 2.35 0.92

Extension – Space

Present and future of the internet – Time

Communication Global contact Knowledge

0.60 0.53 0.66

3.8 1.6 1.6

[Own email; Lower social acceptance; Natural]

Relative contribution

0.10 0.04 0.04

Absolute contribution 9.1 8.4 7.8 7.5 3.0

Relative contribution 0.24 0.17 0.19 0.15 0.06

[Use weekly; Use to do research; Lower social coherence; Artificial]

Dynamic 2.98 12.8 0.24 Modernity 2.77 11.0 0.25 Work 2.70 10.5 0.20 Screen 3.07 9.0 0.13 Study 2.03 7.9 0.14 Future 1.21 5.6 0.11 Important 2.27 4.9 0.13 Computer 0.78 4.6 0.09 Friendship 1.32 3.3 0.06 [Do not own email; Higher social acceptance; Higher personal contribution; Lower social coherence; Artificial] (continued on next page)

A. Contarello, M. Sarrica / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1016–1032

Table 3 Correspondence analysis

1027

1028

A room of oneÕs own Words

Coordinates

A changing world Absolute contributiona

Relative contribution

10.6 3.8 3.0 2.7

0.13 0.10 0.05 0.06

What the internet is for Third, inertia = 4.27%

Amusement Information Work Modernity

1.86 0.52 1.40 1.31

Words

Coordinates

Absolute contribution

Relative contribution

How the internet is experienced

[Own e-mail; Lower ingroup buffer; Lower social coherence; Higher general evaluation]

Attractive 2.78 15.9 0.29 Cold 3.46 12.3 0.20 Disorganized 1.61 8.0 0.13 Screen 2.71 7.6 0.10 Danger 1.71 7.5 0.16 Study 1.28 3.4 0.06 Computer 0.58 2.8 0.05 Useful 0.53 2.3 0.05 [Do not own e-mail; Higher ingroup buffer; Lower general evaluation]

Terms associated to internet, their coordinates and contributions, and illustrative variables on the first three factors. a Only relevant contributions are displayed. b Groups positioning significatively are in brackets.

A. Contarello, M. Sarrica / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1016–1032

Table 3 (continued) Factor

A. Contarello, M. Sarrica / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1016–1032

1029

Analysed through correspondence factor analysis, the terms associated by our respondents – a convenience sample of one hundred and one university students – gave rise to a structure which we interpreted as governed by three underlying principles: an inwards versus outwards perspective; space versus time extension; function versus experience. The first dichotomy emphasises the importance of the location in which the internet is encountered: contained and protected on the one hand, boundless and challenging on the other. The emphasis on a specific place which allows and gathers different services recalls previous empirical results and interpretations (Hills & Argyle, 2003); in the present case, however, the focus is not so much on a physical station characterised by temporal and social constraints as on a virtual environment into which the user projects his or her agency. As regards the time extension, the thematic kernel which we entitled ‘‘The Present and Future of the Internet’’ presents a powerful iconic facet: the dynamics and modernity of the device point to the future in a way which reminds us of the modernist manifesto, interestingly enough including in this acceleration process the world of relationships and friendships. Lastly, while ‘‘What the Internet is for’’ is straightforward, indicating fun, information, work as the options it basically provides (as also seen in Capozza et al., 2003), the experience linked to it is much more complex with both promising and threatening nuances. Familiarity with the technology and practices related to it, as well as the attitude expressed, enter into the picture: a relational use of the technology is linked with a more intimate and well-known virtual and connected space, while an instrumental use, mainly to do research, is linked to some willingness to lean out into the world. Analysing the contents of the representation and different practices, attitudes, and values expressed by those who mould these specific contents allows us to portray the views held by the various groups. It thus appears that attitudes towards the device are in general moderately positive, with some concern as regards its artificiality. However, those who are more concerned with the artificiality of the device are the ones who refer to the theme of acceleration provided by it. Considering that in our research a judgement of artificiality also includes elements of difficulty and danger, the resulting picture seems charged with worry and discomfort. On the contrary, judging the internet as more natural is linked to a view of it in terms of a boundless (in space) opportunity for communication and contact, supporting the idea that developing and reinforcing the naturalness and friendliness of the device will facilitate a full exploitation of its potentialities in communication and knowledge. Coming more directly to the relationship between the internet and well-being, we see that among our participants – already characterised by positive levels of social well-being – the perception of any change which has occurred since the internet entered there lives is, overall, one of improvement. They endorse a feeling of higher contribution and closeness both to society in general and to their own group/community; they experience a growing sense of actualisation; they perceive higher levels of coherence and understanding with respect to what is happening in the world. However, on the whole they have less trust in people at large and tend to resort to their own group/community for comfort and certainty. How are these measures of well-being related to views of the internet? Correspondence analysis shows that the participants who report they personally contribute more to society and those who feel greater trust in people since they encountered the internet, mention a dynamic acceleration in study, work and friendship. This view is shared by those who

1030

A. Contarello, M. Sarrica / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1016–1032

complain of a diminished sense of coherence, who also mention a rapidly changing world and functional aspects of the internet: fun, work and information. It thus seems that the device can give greater opportunities and access to rich and varied information, at the cost, however of greater levels of uncertainty and fuzziness. Stressing time and its acceleration as the quintessential feature of this technology appears thus to be linked to a feeling of keeping up with ‘‘modern times’’ – where people participate actively in social life and rely on each other – but at the cost of feeling overwhelmed. On the contrary, those who refer to a greater sense of coherence conceive the space offered by the internet as virtual, connected outside, but still under control and filled with friends and one-to-one direct relations. To better understand the relation between the various different components of well being and the internet, it is also useful to scrutinise the role played by the groups the participants belong to. On the third factor of the correspondence analysis, we find that an ambivalent experience of the device is bound to a diminished trust in people outside, counterbalanced by help and comfort from oneÕs own ingroup. It would be useful to discover which groups have this buffering function, if they are online or ‘‘offline’’ ones and what characteristics they have. Further exploration of the kind of individuals and groups people are thinking of when invited to express their trust in others, as well as a richer measure of the construct, might help to better locate the present results within the broader framework outlined by previous research. In our case, we found an increased concern with other peopleÕs (at large) dishonesty after the introduction of the internet, counterbalanced by higher reliance on oneÕs own group. Various studies have been conducted on relations between trust and the internet suggesting, on the whole, a positive link between the two: trust and internet adoption, in particular, seem to go together, leading some authors to speak about a digital divide between countries based on their level of trust (Huang, Keser, Leland, & Schachat, 2003). In the range of the 28 countries scrutinised in these authorsÕ research, Italy appears to be located at a medium level of trust, supporting our general results. But why should our participants perceive trust as having diminished over the last few years? Though not excluding possible external events (e.g. focus on the risks and security policies in the first years of the present century), this result might be explained by the relative low use by the participants of internet services which involve strangers. With higher experience of these, we might expect higher social well-being and thus trust, in a ‘‘rich get richer’’ circle shown elsewhere (Keser, 2002; Kraut et al., 2002). However, a more varied and sophisticated measure of trust would be required to fully explain the trend outlined. We can think of trust as a psychological device for reducing complexity in the environment (Luhmann, 2000); this view is supported by the finding which shows greater trust in people at large by participants who stress the acceleration process of the internet. However, the general result indicating reduced trust after the internet came into the lives of the participants who are not greatly familiar with the device suggests that a long run construction of psychological compensations is required. We can think of trust as the anticipation of reciprocating behaviour (Keser, 2002); but again this would require the experience and/or a more explicit awareness of such interexchange. Or we can think of trust as an interpersonal phenomenon, opposed to individual disposition, and linked to commitment and interdependence (Wieselquist, Rusbult, Foster, & Agnew, 1999); in this case we would need a composite measure able to disentangle the various features involved. Our measurement of trust was simple, resulting from factor analysis in a not anticipated way, something which deserves further development.

A. Contarello, M. Sarrica / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1016–1032

1031

Considering the exploratory nature of the present study, some caveats are in order. Our group of participants is not meant to be representative, neither of young users nor of university students; moreover, it revealed itself highly homogeneous, with high access and medium use of the technology. We can say that the relation between social well being and the internet, as socially represented, is mainly positive, but with some shadows. Intriguing differences in this relation seem to concern two main aspects: the mode of use (relational vs. instrumental) and the range of communication (intimate and located vs. wide and ‘‘wild’’). We do not intend to generalise these results to a wider population. However, our participants offered us ‘‘food for thought’’, providing foreseen and unexpected patterns of images and meanings. It would be interesting to extend the research to include groups who are different in terms of access, knowledge and use. It would also be advisable to monitor use using direct measures. As regards the theoretical framework adopted, it seems that the most powerful metaphors for the device are provided by the participants who declare less familiarity and lower rates of use of this new technology. This suggests once again that the social representations approach is mostly suitable for the study of ‘‘new’’, emotionally charged, social realities and particularly in the early phases of their insertion in everyday life. Their relations with perceived costs and benefits, and particularly with social wellbeing, appear to be worth-studying, especially considering the interplay between individual differences and shared knowledge. References Abric, J. C. (Ed.). (2003). Me´thodes d Õe´tude des repre´sentations sociales. Ramonville Saint-Agne: Ere`s. Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2002). Internet and personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(1), 1–10. Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Ben-Artzi, E. (2003). Loneliness and internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(1), 71–80. Bargh, J. A., Fritzsimons, G. M., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2003). The self on line: free to be the ‘‘real me’’ on the internet. In S. J. Spencer, S. Fein, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.). Motivated social perceptions: the Ontario symposium (Vol. 9, pp. 195–213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fritzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the ‘‘True Self’’ on the internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 33–48. Benze´cri, J. P., Benze´cri, F., Birou, A., Blumenthal, S., De Bœck, A., Bordet, J. P., et al. (1973). LÔanalyse de donne´es. LÔanalyse des correspondances (Vol. 2). Paris: Dunod. Capozza, D. (1977). Il differenziale semantico. Bologna: Pa`tron. Capozza, D., Falvo, R., Robusto, E., & Orlando, A. (2003). Beliefs about internet: Methods of elicitation and measurement. Papers on Social Representations, 12(1), 1–14. Cicognani, E., & Zani, B. (1999). Le vie del benessere. Roma: Carocci. Clausen, S. E. (1998). Applied correspondence analysis. London: Sage. Di Giacomo, J. P. (1980). Intergroup alliance and rejections within a protest movement. Analysis of the social representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10(4), 329–344. Doise, W. (1992). LÕancrage dans lÕe´tudes sur le repre´sentations sociales. Bulletin de Psychologie, 45, 195–198. Doise, W., Cle´mence, A., & Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1993). The quantitative analysis of social representations. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Do¨ring, N. (1999). Sozialpsychologie des internet. Go¨ttingen: Hogrefe. Farr, R., & Moscovici, S. (Eds.). (1984). Social representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fisher, C. (1992). America calling. A social history of the telephone to 1940. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press. Flick, U. (1995). Social representations. In J. A. Smith, R. Harre´, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking psychology. London: Sage.

1032

A. Contarello, M. Sarrica / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 1016–1032

Fortunati, L., & Contarello, A. (2002). Internet–mobile convergence. Via similarity or complementarity? Trends in Communication, 9, 81–97. Fortunati, L., & Contarello, A. (forthcoming). Social representation of the mobile: An Italian study. Fortunati, L., Katz, J., & Riccini, R. (Eds.). (2003). Mediating the human body: Technologies, communication and fashion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Greenacre, M. (1984). Theory and applications of correspondence analysis. London: Academic Press. Greenacre, M., & Blasius, J. (1994). Correspondence analysis in the social sciences. London: Academic Press. Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2003). Uses of the internet and their relationships with individual differences in personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(1), 59–70. Huang, H., Keser, C., Leland, J., & Schachat, J. (2003). Trust. The internet, and the digital divide. IBM Systems Journal, 42(3), 507–518. Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of internet use: access, involvement, and interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Keser, C. (2002). Trust and reputation building in e-commerce. Working Paper, CIRANO, Scientific Series 2002s–75. Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 121–140. Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49–74. Jodelet, D. (Ed.). (1989). Les repre´sentations sociales. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Joinson, A. N. (2003). Understanding the psychology of internet behaviour. Virtual worlds, real lives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage. Lebart, L., Morineau, A., Becue, M., & Haeusler, L. (1989). Syste`me portable pour lÕanalyse des donne´es textuelles (SPAD.T). Paris: Cisia. Lebart, L., & Salem, A. (1988). Analyse statistique des donne´es textuelles. Paris: Dunod. Le Bouedec, G. (1984). Contribution a` la me´thodologie dÕe´tude des repre´sentations sociales. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 4(3), 245–272. Luhmann, N. (2000). Vertrauen. Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion Sozialer Komplexitat (fourth ed.). Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius. Mantovani, G. (2001). The psychological construction of the internet from information foraging to social gathering to cultural mediation. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 4(1), 47–56. Mantovani, G. (2002). Internet haze: Why new artifacts can enhance situation ambiguity. Culture and Psychology, 8(3), 307–326. McDonough, J. E. (2001). Time to recognise net gains, not just losses. Psychologist, 14(12), 627. Moliner, P. (1993). Cinq questions a` propos des repre´sentation sociales. Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 20, 5–14. Moscovici, S. (1961/1976). La psychanalise, son image, son public. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Moscovici, S. (1989). Des repre´sentations collectives aux repre´sentations sociales. In D. Jodelet (Ed.), Les repre´sentations sociales (pp. 62–86). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Mundorf, N., & Laird, K. R. (2002). Social and psychological effects of information technologies and other interactive media. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed.) (pp. 583–602). Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Sheperd, R. M., & Edelmann, R. J. (2001). Caught in the web. Psychologist, 14(10), 520–521. Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., & Seifert, F. (2002). Collective symbolic coping with new technology: Knowledge, images and public discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 323–343. Wallace, P. (1999). The psychology of the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wright, K. (2000). Computer-mediated social support, older adults, and coping. Journal of Communication, 50(3), 100–118. Wellman, B., & Haythornthwaite, C. (Eds.). (2002). The internet in everyday life. Oxford: Blackwell. Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 942–966.