THE IMPACT OF NEW MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES ON SOCIAL INTERACTION

WITHIN A HOUSEHOLD

A Research Proposal Submitted to MAM UME LAILA

In Fulfillment of the requirement for the course

BSC HONORS

BY

MAHAM IMRAN

Roll # 17187029

DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY

GIFT UNIVERSITY GUJRANWALA

 CHAPTER NO 1

INTRODUCTION:

New media technologies are having a huge impact on the society since a time. The use of these

modern technologies within a household, is imparting a major affect within the interaction of

people living together in the same house. Technologies such as “video games, televisions, mobile

phones, internet” are being used in every household to connect to world around them. These

media technologies also impact social interaction within the people of a household. It can bring

the family together as well as create a digital bridge. On the other hand, these media technologies

within a household can lead to an increase of privatization and individualization within their

family life, with increased use of these technologies in an individual manner rather than using

them collectively. For this reason, I proposed a research question “How new media technologies

are impacting social interaction within a household?” I want to explore if media technologies are

brining families together and have increased social interaction or they really have built a digital

bridge or a gap between members of a same house.

For this study, I first of all became interested to study the impact of these modern technologies

on social interaction, from within the people of my own family. In a recent time, I have noticed

how much people of my family, and their lifestyle is revolving around these media technologies

and how they are influencing them. I became more interested to conduct a research on this topic,

when I examined each and every person in my family only being connected to these technologies

even in family gatherings and family events. As well as when I came to know how these media

technologies are impacting social interaction in other households. Also when I explored

teenagers in my university over their use of technology every time, and how life of two siblings

revolved around technologies whenever they had free time from their classes. Therefore, I
further wanted to investigate and see if technology in a household is really increasing

privatization within the family members. And to see if the people in a household are using

technology individually rather than using it collectively. And to explore if media technologies

are bringing digital bridges.

Title:

Impacts of New Media Technologies

Problem Statement:

The impact of new media technologies on social interaction within a household

Hypothesis:

“New Media technologies have led to increased privatization and individualization within the

people of a household”

Objective:

1. To estimate how much people of a same house are connected to each other, in this

modern era of new technologies.

2. To analyse, the impacts of new media technologies in the society, how they are affecting

lifestyles.

Justification:

As in my intervention, new media technologies are now a part of every household and they have

made the world a global village, new media technologies impart a great reflection on our private

and individual life, in a same house people are more prone towards using these technologies at a

time at different levels, so it was need of the time to know if it is really so or it’s just a myth.
 Definition of Terms:

1. Household: It is consisted of one or more people who live together at same place and

share food and living accommodations and other necessary things to live, it may consist of a

single family or more.

2. Media Technologies: Media technologies consist of every kind of media used by people,

it is a generic term, produces and provides media content.

3. Privatization: Here, it refers to being more private or personal in your belongings and

daily life activities on any media platform and not sharing them with people you live within.

4. Individualization: It is referred to as, for people of a same household feeling free on their

own about everything in life.

5. Digital Bridge: Here, digital bridge refers to as a gap between older and younger people

of a household, also known as generation gap, due to the use of media technologies in lesser or

more ways.
 CHAPTER NO 2

Review of Literature:

The family is defined by the Irish constitution as “the natural primary and fundamental unit

group of society” (Lalor et al. 2009:58). The family is a group of people that “live together in a

permanent arrangement separated from the rest of the world by the walls of the family dwelling”

(Cheal 2002:4). As argued by Lalor et al. (2009) the family is essential to a young person as it is

their “most important source of security, love, belonging and identity” This traditional notion of

the “nuclear family” which consists of a husband; a wife; and one or more children; and the

household were often considered as one for “practical purposes” (Cheal 2002:4). In recent years

however, the Irish family has experienced considerable change with the moving away from the

traditional concept of the family unit to more varying forms of the family. As a result, the family

and the household are now considered as two entirely different entities. Modern society has

given rise to a complexity and diversity of personal relationships, which has lead to an

“increased questioning about the future of family structures” (Cheal 2002:35). According to

Scott (1997) there has been a decline in “traditional nuclear family households” as people have

become “more individualistic” (p. 592) and families are spending “less and less time together”

(Turtiainen et al. 2007:478). For that reason, it has been advocated that the family’s position in

society has changed, and so “traditional family values and the family itself have eroded”

(Turtiainen et al. 2007:478). Along with the rise of individualism and the decline in family

values, new media technologies are now much more immersed into people’s daily routines than

ever before. Some of the changing dynamics that are impacting on Irish families in modern

society include: the increased participation of women in the workforce, a falling birth rate, a

fluctuating marriage rate, an increase in divorce and the number of children being born outside of
marriage (Lalor et al. 2009). (Scott 1997:593). For that reason, the household includes any

individuals within the social setting which may incorporate the nuclear family, extended family

members, as well as, friends and peers. In other words, individuals don’t have to be related to

one another and the notion of the household is therefore extended to include more individuals.

As Mesch (2006) outlines “families with access to information and communication technology

differ from those without them, not only in access to technology but in family dynamics as well”

New media technologies have become embedded within daily domestic routines and are now an

“intrinsic part of contemporary life” (Church et al. 2010:264). As Mesch (2006) delineates “the

introduction of new technologies such as the Internet into the household can potentially change

the quality of family relationships” Plowman et al. (2008) revealed from their UK based study

that almost all children aged three and four are growing up in homes which have a range of

different technologies. They found that 98% of their survey respondents’ children were living in

a household with access to a mobile phone and 75% had access to a television with interactive

features. Most of the children surveyed also had access to laptops, games consoles, handheld

games, laptops and interactive books In addition to this, “all children encountered a wide range

of leisure technologies, such as television and DVD players, as well as cameras and MP3

players” (Plowman et al. 2008:308). Technology has affected the life of a household in a number

of different ways and has become “a basis for future social behaviour” (Venkatesh and Vitalari

1985:3). Church et al. (2010) argue that human interaction is now “mediated, if not governed, by

the situation or the portability of particular devices” One of the main impacts that new media

technologies have had on the household and its inhabitants is the introduction of a digital divide.

A digital divide is “a generation gap between those who master and do not master digital

technology” (Aarsand 2007:235). Essentially, a digital divide is “the difference between those
who know and those who do not know how to act in a digital environment” (Aarsand 2007:236).

Technology within the home has many benefits for a household and a family and it has changed

the “meanings of family time” (Mesch 2006:124). New media technologies have created new

prospects for individuals within a household by “enhancing different patterns of social

interaction, access to information, and allocation of time” (Venkatesh and Vitalari 1985:12).

According to Mesch (2006), access to technology such as personal computers and laptops “has

made the boundary between work time and family time more permeable than ever” This can

have a negative impact on social interaction within a household as well as providing individuals

with the opportunity “for shared activity within the home” (Mesch 2006:124). Morrison and

Krugman (2001) argue that new media technologies can be regarded as being “internal” or

“external” Internal social functions facilitate “social interaction among members of the

household” whilst external social functions promotes “interaction with persons not physically

present in the home (Morrison and Krugman 2001:142). Modern society is so “technology-

driven” which has resulted in childhood being “toxic” (Plowman et al. 2010:72). Plowman et al.

(2010) establishes three main negative impacts that the technologisation of childhood has

resulted in “through television, computers and games consoles” These refer to risks that children

are prone to as a result of using digital technologies on a daily basis. One of the main arguments

that Plowman et al. (2010) presents that is central to this study, is that “opportunities for

interactions with family members that promote emotional development are reduced.” Children

and young people are becoming more individualised and socially excluded and as a result, they

are spending less time with their family members. This is having a major impact on family

communication and social interaction. There is a negative association “between spending time in

the bedroom and spending free time with the family” (Bovill and Livingstone 2001:9).
Communication tasks in a society include sharing of knowledge, socializing new members,

entertaining people, and gaining consensus through persuasion or control (Schramm, 1977). The

person or the institution responsible for carrying out the communication tasks changes with time.

For example, parents used to be the major socializing agents in a traditional society, while the

schools and the mass media are now playing a more important role in socializing new members

in a modern society (Schramm, 1977). Exposure to mass media, in particular the television, was

considered a major socializing agent for adolescents (Mangleburg and Bristol, 1998). With new

forms of media emerge and the convergence of media technology, the patterns of media usage

will inevitably be undergone rapid changes. The Internet represents a fantastic world of

opportunity for children and young people, filled with both good and bad consequence.

Considerable attention and concern are now focused on how the young consumers use the

Internet because they are seen as the ‘digital generation,’ at the vanguard of new skills and

technologies, yet also vulnerable and at risk (Livingstone, 2003). In a survey of 11,368 young

people aged 6 to 16 in 12 European countries and Israel, Livingstone and Bovill (2001) found

that, the percentage of respondents with a personal computer connected to a modem varied from

7 percent for Great Britain to 32 percent for Israel. Time spent on television and audio media was

significantly higher than that spent on electronic games, video and books. Cluster analysis

resulted in four major media user styles labeled as low media users, traditional media users,

specialists, and screen entertainment fans.

New media is becoming the preferred term for a range of media practices that employ digital

technologies and the computer in some way or another (Dewdney & Ride, 2006). It is used as a

term in educational settings as the title of university departments and courses and also as a title

of certain artistic practices, making new media both an academic and intellectual subject, and a
practice (Dewdney & Ride, 2006). New media definitions remain fluid and are evolving, with

some definitions of new media focusing exclusively upon computer technologies and digital

content production whilst others stress the cultural forms and contexts in which technologies are

used (Dewdney & Ride, 2006). One key feature of new and emerging media technologies is that

they are often portable and facilitate.

Conceptual Framework:

Privatization
Household
Media
Digital Bridge
Technologies

Individualization
 CHAPTER NO 3

Research Methodology:

In proposing this research, I want to explore how new media technologies are creating a digital

bridge between people of a family and how these technologies are impacting social interaction

within a household, if it is increasing individualization due to private use of media technologies

rather than using it collectively. For this research to be proposed the methodological approach

according my study or problem statement is stated in detail.

Study Design:

According the approach of my research the best possible and appropriate method would be

Qualitative research design. As, qualitative research design allows us to explore. Qualitative

designed research gives us a descriptive study for the research we are conducting, as well as it

describes every detail of the topic in an elaborative method. It is suitable on my topic as I want to

explore the impact of new media technologies in different aspects of it in a household.

Study Population:

According to the need of my research topic, the population needed for the study would be

households that can be selected according to the availability and informed consent from families.

These households can be selected randomly because I want to explore different aspects of a topic

and there will be variety of information collected.

Sample Size:

The minimum sample required for my research to be conducted would be 3 to 4 households and

variety of family members in it, including male and female, older people, young children and
parents as it would allow a precise data according to my need. And I can begin from my family

first and other households I know and visit can be included easily.

Instrumentation:

The instruments that are according to my research design, are survey-based interviews. I can

conduct survey based interviews and also deign a questionnaire which can be handed to the

families I would conduct interviews on. This is the most precise instrumentation according to my

research topic need and availability and accessibility.

Specific Procedures:

For my research to be conducted i would need to make a questionnaire and as well as list down

all the questions I need to ask to the participants in my research population, after that I would ask

them to answer all the questions in detail and fill up the questionnaire. As described above the

design of my research is qualitative according to the need of the topic, so I would conclude the

results in detail in descriptive methods, also I can use quantitative analysis to statistically analyse

the results from my questionnaire data, it would be more precise and accurate and would support

my research.
 References:

Aarsand, Pål André. 2007. “Computer and Video games in Family Life: The Digital Divide

as a Resource in Intergenerational interactions.” Childhood. 14(2):235-256. Retrieved

February 29, 2012 http://chd.sagepub.com.jproxy.nuim.ie/content/14/2/235.full.pdf+html

Cheal, David J. 2002. Sociology of Family Life. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Mesch, Gustavo S. 2006. “Family Relations and the Internet: Exploring a Family Boundaries

Approach.” The Journal of Family Location. 6(2):119-138. Retrieved February 22,

2012 http://web.ebscohost.com.jproxy.nuim.ie/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b66230f0-ad5d-

4aed-ad99-f81f0129aa0c%40sessionmgr104&vid=4&hid=110

Church, Kate., Jenny Weight, Marsha Berry, and Hugh MacDonald. 2010. “At Home with

Media Technology.” Home Cultures. 7(3):263-286. Retrieved February 22, 2012

http://web.ebscohost.com.jproxy.nuim.ie/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=89c272e9-a356-4dfa-

bcd2-1dc9bf61d487%40sessionmgr111&vid=4&hid=126

Plowman, Lydia., Joanna McPake and Christine Stephen. 2008. “Just Picking it Up? Young

Children Learning with Technology at Home.” Cambridge Journal of Education.

38(3):303-319. Retrieved February 22, 2012

http://web.ebscohost.com.jproxy.nuim.ie/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=f3a1b68f-0050-4e0c-

8796-9e0b90a4690d%40sessionmgr14&vid=4&hid=108

Plowman, Lydia., Joanna McPake and Christine Stephen. 2010. “The Technologisation of

Childhood? Young Children and Technology in the Home.” Children & Society. 24(1):63-74.

Retrieved February 22, 2012

http://web.ebscohost.com.jproxy.nuim.ie/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=f3a1b68f-0050-4e0c-

8796-9e0b90a4690d%40sessionmgr14&vid=4&hid=108
Scott, Christopher F., Richard A. Fabes and Patricia M. Wilson. 1989. “Family Television

Viewing: Implications for Family Life Education.” Family Relations. 38(2):210-214.

Retrieved February 27, 2012

http://www.jstor.org.jproxy.nuim.ie/stable/pdfplus/583677.pdf?acceptTC=true

Scott, Jacqueline. 1997. “Changing Households in Britain: Do Families Still Matter?” The

Sociological Review. 45(4):591-620. Retrieved March 21, 2012

http://www.swetswise.com.jproxy.nuim.ie/FullTextProxy/swproxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline

library.wiley.com%2Fresolve%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%3FDOI%3D10.1111%2F1467-

954X.00079&ts=1332327445557&cs=1969023740&userName=8240013.ipdirect&emCondId=4

7368&articleID=42491203&yevoID=2586329&titleID=188304&referer=2&remoteAddr=149.1

57.1.168&hostType=PRO&swsSessionId=Rta45tBUWIWZqxStL1lxSg__.pasc1

Turtiainen, Pirjo., Sakari Karvonen and Ossi Rahkonen. 2007. “All in the Family? The

Structure and Meaning of Family Life among Young People.” Journal of Youth

Studies. 10(4):477-493. Retrieved February 22, 2012

http://web.ebscohost.com.jproxy.nuim.ie/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=92c4bf97-9c56-46c7-

9455-313a2d4b6137%40sessionmgr112&vid=4&hid=127

Venkatesh, Alladi. 1997. “New Technologies for the Home-Development of a Theoretical

Model of Household Adoption and Use.” Advances in Consumer Research. 24:522-

528. Retrieved February 27, 2012 http://www.crito.uci.edu/NOAH/paper/AdvConsumerRsh.pdf

Venkatesh, Alladi and Nicholas Vitalari. 1985. “Households and technology: The Case of

Home Computers-Some Conceptual and Theoretical Issues.” Marketing to the

Changing Household. Pp. 187-203. Retrieved February 27, 2012

http://www.crito.uci.edu/papers/1985/Household%26TechBk.pdf
Jane D. Lanigan (2009). Family Science Review. [PDF file]. Washington, DC. Retrieved from

http://www.familyscienceassociation.org/sites/default/files/2Jane_Lanigan.pdf

Siobhan Mcgrath (2012). The Impact of New Media Technologies on Social Interaction in The Household.
[PDF file]. Ireland, Maynooth. Retrieved from
https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/sites/default/files/assets/document/SiobhanMcGrath.pdf

Melanie James (2007). A Review Of The Impact OF The New Media On Public Relations. [PDF
file].Australia .Retrieved from http://www.pria.com.au/sitebuilder/forms/forms/file/34-
174/Melanie%20James%20article%20Asia%20Pacific%20PR%20Journal.pdf