Social Implications of The Internet

Social Implications of the Internet
Author(s): Paul DiMaggio, Eszter Hargittai, W. Russell Neuman, John P. Robinson

Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 27 (2001), pp. 307-336
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2678624 .
Accessed: 12/08/2011 23:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
Annu.Rev.Sociol. 2001. 27:307-36
? 2001 byAnnualReviews.All rightsreserved
Copyright
SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INTERNET
Paul DiMaggio1,EszterHargittai1,
W. RussellNeuman2,
andJohnP.Robinson3
'DepartmentofSociology,
PrincetonUniversity,
Princeton,NewJersey08540;
e-mail:dimaggio@princeton.edu,eszter@princeton.edu
2AnnenbergSchoolforCommunication, University
ofPennsylvania,
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania19104; e-mail:rneuman@asc.upenn.edu
3DepartmentofSociology,UniversityofMaryland,CollegePark,Maryland;
e-mail:robinson@bssl.umd.edu
Key Words WorldWideWeb,communications,

media,technology
* Abstract TheInternet is a critically
important researchsiteforsociologiststest-
ingtheories of technology diffusion andmediaeffects, particularlybecauseit is a
medium uniquely capableofintegrating modesofcommunication andforms ofcon-
tent.Current research tendsto focuson theInternet's implicationsin fivedomains:
1) inequality
(the"digitaldivide");2) community andsocialcapital;3) political
partic-
ipation;
4) organizations andother economic and5) cultural
institutions; participation
andculturaldiversity.A recurrent themeacrossdomainsis thattheInternet tendsto
complement rather thandisplaceexisting mediaandpatterns ofbehavior. Thusineach
domain, utopianclaimsanddystopic warnings basedon extrapolations fromtechni-
calpossibilities
havegivenwaytomorenuanced andcircumscribed understandings of
howInternetuseadaptstoexisting patterns,permitscertain
innovations, andreinforces
kindsofchange.Moreover,
particular ineachdomaintheultimate socialimplications
ofthisnewtechnology dependoneconomic, legal,andpolicydecisions thatareshap-
ingtheInternet as itbecomesinstitutionalized. needtostudy
Sociologists theInternet
moreactively and,particularly, tosynthesize researchfindingsonindividual userbe-
haviorwithmacroscopic analysesofinstitutionalandpolitical-economic factors
that
constrainthatbehavior.
INTRODUCTION
By "Internet"we referto theelectronicnetworkof networks thatlinkspeople

andinformationthrough computers andotherdigitaldevicesallowingperson-to-
personcommunication andinformation retrieval.
Althoughthelate1960ssawthe
ofan ancestral
inception network dedicatedtoscientific
(and,after1975,military)
communication, theInternetdid notemergeuntil1982; itbeganitsrapidascent
onlyin theearly1990s,whengraphicalinterfaces becamewidelyavailableand
commercial interests
wereallowedto participate (Abbate1999,Castells2001).
0360-0572/01/081
1-0307$14.00 307
308 DiMAGGIO ET AL
Access to and use of themediumdiffused widelyand swiftly. The numberof

Americans onlinegrewfrom25 millionin 1995(whenonly3% ofAmericans had
everused theInternet) (Pew ResearchCenterforPeople and thePress 1995) to
83 millionin 1999(Intelli-Quest 1999),with55 millionAmericans goingonlineon
a typicaldayinmid-2000(Howardetal,forthcoming). Theamountofinformation
availableon theWorldWideWeb has also risenexponentially, fromfewerthan
20,000Websitesin 1995 (Prettejohn 1996) to over10 millionin 2000 (Netcraft
2000),representing overtwobillionWebpages,withas manyas twomillionpages
addeddaily(Lake 2000).
Ourfocusinthischapter is ontheInternet'simplications forsocialchange.The
Internetpresents researchers witha movingtarget: Agre(1998a) describesitas "a
meta-medium: a setoflayeredservicesthatmakeiteasytoconstruct newmedia
withalmostanyproperties one likes."We use Internet to referbothto technical
infrastructure(publicTCP/IPnetworks, otherlarge-scale networks likeAOL, and
foundationalprotocols), andtousestowhichthisinfrastructure is put(WorldWide
Web,electronic mail,onlinemultiperson interactivespaces).We focusprimarily
on general,publicuses. Amongthetopicswe do notaddresssystematically are
theuse of digitaltechnologies forcommunication withinformalorganizations,
thetechnology's potential contributionto theconductof social-scienceresearch
andscholarly communication, orthemuchbroadertopicofsocialantecedents and
consequencesofcomputerization.
Manyobservers allegethattheInternet is changing society.Perhapsnotsurpris-
ingly,
giventhenovelty ofthenewdigitalmedia,thereis littleagreement aboutwhat
thosechangesare.Ourpurposehereis to summarize researchbysocialscientists
abouttheInternet andtoencourage moresociologists tocontribute tosuch
actively
research.We believethatitis important forsociologists toaddresstheseissuesfor
threereasons.First,themedium'srapidgrowth offers a once-in-a-lifetimeoppor-
tunityforscholarstotesttheories oftechnology diffusion andmediaeffects during
theearlystagesofa newmedium'sdiffusion and institutionalization.
Second,the
Internetis uniquebecause it integrates bothdifferent modalitiesof communi-
cation(reciprocal interaction, broadcasting,individualreference-searching, group
discussion,person/machine anddifferent
interaction) kindsofcontent (text,video,
visualimages,audio)ina singlemedium. Thisversatility renders plausibleclaims
thatthetechnology will be implicated in manykindsof social change,perhaps
moredeeplythantelevisionor radio.Finally,choicesare beingmade-systems
developed, moneyinvested, lawspassed,regulations promulgated-that willshape
thesystem's technical andnormative structurefordecadestocome.Manyofthese
choicesarebasedon behavioralassumptions abouthowpeopleandtheInternet
We believesuchassumptions
interact. shouldrepresent morethanguesswork.
THEORETICALCONTEXT
Sociology'smajortheoretical
traditions
emphasizedifferent
aspectsofelectronic
media.ForDurkheimians, communications
point-to-point medialiketelephones
reinforce whilebroadcastmedialikeradioor televisionyield
organicsolidarity,
OF INTERNET
SOCIALIMPLICATIONS 309
powerfulcollectiverepresentations (Alexander1988). Marxistsfocus upon

exploitation of communications mediato enhanceelitecontrolof bothpolitics
and production through culturalhegemony and enhancedsurveillance (Schiller
1996,Davis et al 1997). Weberiansattendto thewaysin whichpoint-to-point
mediaadvancerationalization byreducinglimitsof timeand space,and broad-
cast media provide the elementsof distinctivestatus cultures(Collins
1979).
Othertraditions also offerperspectives on thedigitalmedia.Technological de-
terminists suggestthatstructural features of new media induce social change by
enablingnewformsofcommunication andcultivating skillsandsensi-
distinctive
bilities(McLuhan1967,Eisenstein1979).In the1960s,students ofsocialchange
suggestedthatin thefaceof new developments in communications technology,
industrial societywouldyieldto the"information society," withconsequences in
everyinstitutional realm(Machlup1962,Bell 1973).Criticaltheorists problema-
tizetheeffects oftechnological changeon politicaldeliberation andtheintegrity
ofcivilsociety(Habermas1989,Calhoun1998).
DanielBell (1977) appearstohavebeenthefirst sociologistto writeaboutthe
social impactof digital communications media themselves. Bell predictedthat
major social consequences would derive from two related developments: thein-
ventionof miniature electronicand opticalcircuitscapableof speedingtheflow
ofinformation through networks; andtheimpending integrationofcomputer pro-
cessingandtelecommunications intowhatHarvard'sAnthony Oettinger dubbed
"compunications" technology. Anticipating thedemocratization ofelectronic mail
andtelefaxing, as wellas digitaltransmission ofnewspapers andmagazines,Bell
exploredthepolicydilemmasthesechangeswouldraise,calling"thesocialorgan-
izationof thenew 'compunications' technology" themostcentralissue "forthe
postindustrial society"(1977:38).
Morerecently, ManuelCastellshas arguedthattheworldis entering an "infor-
mationage" inwhichdigitalinformation technology "providesthematerial basis"
forthe"pervasive expansion"ofwhathe calls "thenetworking formoforganiza-
tion"ineveryrealmofsocialstructure (1996:468).According to Castells,theIn-
ternet's integrationofprint, oral,andaudiovisualmodalities intoa singlesystem
promisesanimpactonsocietycomparable tothatofthealphabet(p. 328),creating
newformsofidentity andinequality, submerging powerin decentered flows,and
establishing newformsofsocialorganization.
The comprehensive visionsof Bell andCastells,liketheothertheoretical tra-
ditionswe havedescribed,suggesta rangeof empiricalquestionsone mustan-
swerto understand theInternet's influence uponsociety.FromtheMarxianand
Weberian traditionscomeconcernsaboutpowerandinequality intheaccesstothe
new technology. The Durkheimian perspective sensitizesus to thenewmedia's
impacton community and social capital.The workof Habermasand Calhoun
leads us to ask howtheInternet mayalterthepracticeofpolitics.The Weberian
tradition raisesthequestionof theeffectof Internet technology on bureaucracy
and economicinstitutions. Criticaltheory raisesimportant questionsof howthe
Internet mayaffect theartsandentertainment media.
310 DiMAGGIOET AL
We addresseach of thesefivetopicsin turn,summarizing theresultsof re-

searchundertaken by social scientists In mostof these
and otherinvestigators.
areas,theresearchliterature
is limited,andmanyquestionsremain.Butthereis
a pattern:Earlywritingsprojectedutopianhopesontothenewtechnology, elic-
itinga dystopian
response.Researchon each topicyieldstwoconclusions. First,
theInternet'simpactis morelimitedthaneithertheutopianor dystopianvisions
suggest.Second,thenatureof thatimpactwill varydependinguponhow eco-
nomicactors,government regulation,
anduserscollectively
organizetheevolving
Internettechnology.
MAJORRESEARCHQUESTIONS
The Internet
and Inequality:Opportunity
or Reproduction?
Enthusiastspredictedthatthe Internetwould reduceinequalityby lowering
thecost of information and thusenhancingtheabilityof low-incomemenand
womento gain humancapital,findand competeforgood jobs, and otherwise
enhancetheirlifechances(Anderson etal 1995).By contrast,
cyber-skeptics
sug-
gestthatthegreatest benefits
willaccruetohigh-SESpersons,whomayuse their
resourcesto employtheInternet soonerand moreproductively thantheirless
privileged peers,and thatthistendency wouldbe reinforced by betterInternet
connections andeasieraccessto socialsupport (DiMaggio& Hargittai 2001).
As in otherareas,earlyresearchresultssuggestthattheoutcomeis morecom-
plexthaneither ofthesepredictions,
andthattheInternet's
effectsoninequality
will
dependon thesocialorganization ofitsuse. In thissection,we examineresearch
on individual-level
inequalityamongusers,as well as cross-nationaldifferences
in Internetpenetrationandinequalityin effective
Internetaccessforcontentpro-
ducers.
THE "DIGITAL DIVIDE" IN THE UNITED STATES Anderson etal (1995) wereamong
thefirstto highlight thepotentialof inequalityin Internet access to limitpeo-
ple's opportunitiestofindjobs,obtaineducation, accessgovernment information,
participatein politicaldialog,and buildnetworks of social support.By "digital
divide,"we refertoinequalities inaccesstotheInternet, extentofuse,knowledge
ofsearchstrategies, qualityoftechnicalconnections andsocialsupport, abilityto
evaluatethequalityof information, and diversityof uses. Althoughsomespec-
ulatethatcurrent intergroup differenceswill evaporateas theInternet diffuses
(Compaine2000), Schement(1999) pointsoutthatinequalitiesin access to in-
formation services(e.g. telephone,cable) tendto persistin contrast to therapid
diffusionofinformation goods(e.g. radio,television,VCRs) thatreachnearsatu-
rationrelatively
quickly.Thisis becausetheformer requireongoingexpenditures,
whereasthelatterarebased on one-time purchases.For example,although 94%
ofall American householdshavetelephones, thisfiguredropsbelow80% forthe
SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF INTERNET 311
low-incomeelderlyand female-headed householdsbelow the povertylevel

(Schement1996).
Because sociologists haveconductedso littleresearchon thedigitaldivide,to
chartthedimensions of inequalitywe mustrelyprimarily on studiesreporting
bivariatestatistics.
ReportsoftheNationalTelecommunications andInformation
Administration (NTIA 1995,1998,1999,2000)documented differences inInternet
accessfavoring thecollegeeducated,thewealthy, whites,peopleundertheage of
55 and,especiallyinearlieryears,menandurbandwellers.(Moreover, lessaffluent
andless well-educated usersaremorelikelytobecomenonusers aftertrying itout
[Katz& Aspden1997].)Interestingly, despitethefocusofearlyreports onincome
differences,theimpactof educationalattainment on Internet use is twicethat
of incomeaftermultivariate al
controls(Robinsonet 2000b). Researchhas also
foundthatInternet non-users reportas reasonsfornotgoingonlinethattheyare
notcomputer users,theydo notwanttheirchildren to haveInternet access,they
lacktimeorinterest, ortheycannotafford it(Strover& Straubhaar 2000). Thereis
someevidencethatmeasuresofaccessreflect resourcecontrol, whereasmeasures
of intensityofuse aredrivenmorebydemand.Thusteenagers areless likelyto
reportInternet access thanadultsbetweentheages of 25 and 54 (NTIA 1998);
butwhenhomeshaveInternet access,teenagers areonlinemuchmorethanadults
(Krautetal 1996).
Patternsofinequality arelikelytoreflect suchchanging factorsas publicconnec-
tionavailability,
privatesubscription price,servicesavailable,andthetechnology
necessaryto access themeffectively, as well as thediffusion of knowledgeand
theevolutionof informal technical-support networks. Therefore, it is crucialto
examinechangein inequality overtime.Threesurveysconducted between1996
and 1998 foundthatthegap in access betweenwhitesand AfricanAmericans
had increasedovertime(Hoffman et al 2000), butNTIA surveys(1998, 2000)
foundthatdividediminishing between1998 and 2000. Wilhelm(2000) reports
thatsignificantdifferences persistinInternet use amongracialandethnicgroups,
withsocioeconomic statusheldconstant, andhe arguesthataccesstotelecommu-
nicationstoolsandlackofeasyaccesstoSpanish-language content explainlower
usageratesamongHispanics.By contrast, broadevidencesuggeststhattwogaps,
theadvantage ofmenoverwomenandoftheyoungovertheold,havedeclinedas
thetechnology has diffused andbecomemoreuser-friendly (RoperStarch1998,
Clemente1998,Bimber2000,NTIA 2000,Howardet al forthcoming). Otherev-
idencesuggeststhatlateadoptershaveless formaleducationandlowerincomes
thanearliercohorts(Howardet al, forthcoming, Katzet al, forthcoming).
Severalexemplary studiesgo beyonddescription to analysis.In a studyno-
tableforitsuse ofmultivariate analysisandmultiple outcomemeasures,Bimber
(2000) foundthatthegap betweenmenand womenin access to theInternet re-
flectedmale/female differences in incomeand otherresources;butthatwomen
withaccess used theInternet less frequently thandid otherwisesimilarmen,a
resulthe attributedto thefactthatfull-time employment had a significant effect
on frequency ofuse formen,butnotforwomen.In a studyexemplary fortying
312 DiMAGGIO ET AL
individual-level inequalitytoinstitutionalarrangements, Strover(1999) compared

dial-upInternet connectivityin fourruralUS counties, concluding thatlowlevels
ofcommercial investment in telecommunications infrastructurein sparselypopu-
latedareaslimitsusebygenerating lesschoiceamongserviceproviders andhigher
connection fees.
Otherresearchhas focusedon publicsettings thatprovideInternet access for
pesonsunableto reachtheInternet at homeor work.A nationalsurveyofpublic
libraries
reported thaturbanlibraries arealmostthreetimesas likelyas rurallib-
rariesto offerhigh-speedInternet connections;and thatbecause manyurban
librariesservehigh-poverty areas,access to high-speed connections is relatively
availableto theurbanpoor(Bertot& McClure1998). An evaluationof Internet
accessprograms attwopubliclibraries andtwocommunity centersindicated that
effectiveness was a function of theextentto whichstaffweretrainedto assist
Internetusersandpotential usersfoundtheatmosphere welcoming andnonthreat-
ening(Lentzet al 2000). Researchon schools,another for
keysite publicaccess,
indicatesthattheproportion of US publicschoolsoffering Internet access rose
from3% in 1994 to 63% in 1999 (US Department of Education2000), butthat
trainingandsupport staffingnecessary forteachersto incorporatethetechnology
effectivelyin instructionalplanshas laggedbehind(Bolt& Crawford 2000).
Muchresearchandpolicyassumesthatpeoplecanconvert Internet accessinto
othervaluedgoods,services,andlifeoutcomes.Researchers havenotyettested
thispremiseforInternet access,butresearchon generalcomputer use sustainsits
whileleavingmuchtobe done.Krueger(1993) reported
plausibility, a substantial
wagepremium accruingtoworkers whouse computers. Attewell& Battle(1999)
foundthathomecomputer use was significantly
relatedto students'testscoresin
mathematics andreading, withhigher returnsforboys,whites,andthewell-to-do.
THE GLOBAL DIGITAL DIVIDE The number ofInternetusersgloballyskyrocketed

from16millionin 1995toalmost360 millionbymid-2000(NUA 2000a). Despite
thisrapiddiffusion,thisnumber just5% oftheworld'spopulation.
represents As
is thecase withothercommunications devices,access acrosscountriesis very
uneven,with97% ofInternet hostcomputers locatedindevelopedcountries (ITU
1998). Withrespectto content, US producersdominatetheWeb,creatingand
hostinga largepercentage of themostvisitedWeb sites(OECD 1997) and so
establishingEnglishas theInternet's dominant language.
Studiesofcross-national variationinlevelsofInternetconnectivityanduse are
few.Mostreports on globalInternetdiffusionpresentlittlemorethandescriptive
statistics,
emphasizing correlationswithnationalwealthandeducation(ITU 1997,
1999,Paltridge& Ypsilanti1997). Cross-national differences reflect
differences
in theavailabilityof local-language programming, butnotthatalone. Hargittai
(1996) calledattentiontoinstitutional
factors,
reportingthatin 1995threequarters
of highlydevelopedcountries, butonly 10% of LDCs, had commercialaccess
providers (an indicatorofprivate-sector
involvement andthusadditionalimpetus
fordiffusion). Although dataqualityconstrains thedividebetween
generalization,
developedandless developednationsappearsnottohavelessenedas theInternet

has diffused.
Betterdatamakeit possibleto analyzeInternet diffusion in OECD countries
in moredetail.Usingmultivariate analysesof OECD nations,Hargittai (1999)
demonstrated thatnationalwealthand competition in the telecommunications
sector(and regulatory environments fosteringcompetition) werethe strongest
predictors ofconnectivity (see also Guillen& Suarez2001).
Wilson(2000) distinguishes between"formalaccess" (physicalavailability)
and"effective access"(affordable connectivity anddiffusion ofskillspeopleneed
tobenefit fromthetechnology). In-depth case studieshelpdevelopthisdistinction.
Rao etal (1999) suggestthatlackoflocalcontent innativelanguagesinSouthAsia
discouragesuse. Based on a detailedreviewof statistics andcase reports, Norris
(2001) concludesthattheInternet is reproducing cross-national inequalities
inuse
ofnewspapers, telephones, radio,andtelevision becausediffusion largelydepends
on economicdevelopment and researchand development investments thatare
unequallydistributed acrosssocieties.
Yeta case studyofTrinidad reports thatby1999penetration was deep(approx-
imately30% ofhouseholdshad at leastone regularuser)and,whilestratified by
income,relatively broad.The authorsattribute thisbothto Trinidad'scompara-
tivelystrongcommunications infrastructure and healthyeconomy,and equally
important, to thepremium placedon emailbyresidents of an islandnationthat
exports itsmostsuccessful youngpeopleabroad(Miller& Slater2000).Technolo-
gies shapethemselves to thecontours oflocal prioritiesandwaysoflife:Justas
somelessdevelopedcountries werevanguard adopters ofsoundcassettesandcell
phones,somemayembracetheInternet relativelyquickly,especiallyas wireless
transmission createsconvergence betweenInternet andcell phonetechnologies.
INEQUALITY IN CONTENT PROVIDERS' ACCESS TO ATTENTION Sociologists should

be concerned notonlywithinequality inaccesstotheInternet,
butwithinequality
in accessto theattention ofthosewhouse theInternet.By dramatically reducing
thecost of thereplication of information,
and distribution theInternet has the
potentialtocreatearenasformorevoicesthananyotherpreviouscommunication
mediumbyputting product disseminationwithinthereachoftheindividual.
Information abundancecreatesa new problem,however:attention scarcity
(Goldhaber1997). Contentcreatorscan onlyreachlarge audiencesif online
gatekeepers-Webservicesthatcategorizeonlineinformation andprovidelinks
and searchfacilitiesto othersites-channelusersto them(Hargittai2000b).
Yet Internet is highlyconcentrated:
traffic 80% of sitevisitsare to just .5% of
Web sites(Waxman2000a). As was thecase withbroadcastmedia,thegrowth
and commercialization has been accompaniedby a commodi-
of the Internet
ficationof attention. A rapidlyevolvingmosaic of searchenginesand point-
of-entrysitescompetefordominance(NUA 2000a), playinga pivotalrole in
channeling users'attentiontowardsomecontents andawayfromothers(Hargittai
2000b).
314 DiMAGGIOET AL
Duringthelate 1990s,entrepreneurs developedcomprehensive and strongly

branded"portals"-Web sitescontaining searchengines,categoryguides,and
variousshopping andinformation services-tomatchusersandcontent. Suchsites
nowaccountforone infourofthemostvisiteddestinations oftheWeb(Waxman
2000b).Thesearchenginestheyfeature areoftenbiasedintheiridentification and,
especially,rankingof sitesin responseto userqueries(Introna& Nissenbaum
2000). The effectsof bias are compoundedby thetendency of engineusersto
employsimplesearchtermsand to satisficeby terminating searchesat thefirst
acceptablesite.[A 1998 analysisof almostone billionquerieson theAltavista
searchenginerevealedthat77% of sessionsincludedbutone queryand 85%
of usersviewedonlythefirstscreenof searchresults(Silverstein et al 1998)].
Thus,Web destinations thatare displayedprominently on portalsitesor ranked
highby searchenginesarelikelyto monopolizetheattention of all butthemost
sophisticatedandcommitted Internetusers.Understanding theprocessesbywhich
suchdisplayopportunities andranksareawardedis an important researchtack.
Researchon inequality in access to and use of theInternet-among individ-
ual users,groups,organizations, countries, and contentcreators-shouldbe an
important priority forsociologists.At theindividual level,thepriority shouldbe
on usingmultivariate to
methods explore the determinants of different measures
not
ofinequality: justwhether or not in
one has "access," inequality location
but
of access (home,work,publicfacilities);thequalityof hardware, software, and
connections; skillinusingthetechnology; andaccessto socialsupport networks.
Because inequality thetechnology's
reflects organization,notinherent qualities,
specialpriorityshouldbe placedon studiesofhowinequality is affected bysuch
factorsas government programs, industry structureandpricingpolicies,and ap-
proachesto theprovision andorganization ofcontent.
SocialIsolation
Impacton TimeUse and Community:
or SocialCapitalFormation
Initialenthusiasts
anticipated thattheInternet wouldboostefficiency, making
people moreproductive and enablingthemto avoidunnecessary transportation
byaccomplishing onlinetaskslikebanking, shopping,library evenso-
research,
cializingonline.The results(less stress,moretime,newonlinecontacts)would
makeindividuals morefulfilled andbuildsocialcapitalforsocietyat large.More
recently,twostudieshavesuggested thattheInternetmayinduceanomieanderode
socialcapitalbyenablinguserstoretreat world(Krautetal 1998,
intoan artificial
Nie & Erbring 2000). In thissection,we exploreresearchon whatInternet users
do withtheirtime,howtheInternet affectstheirwell-being,andhowtheInternet
influencescommunities, bothrealandvirtual.
TIME DISPLACEMENT Muchofthedebateoversocialcapitalis aboutwhetherthe

attenuates
Internet users'humanrelationships,
or whetherit servesto reinforce
them.Experience
withearliercommunications suggeststhatInternet
technologies
usersmaysubstitute timeonlineforattention to functionally equivalentsocial

andmediaactivities (Weiss 1970).Thus,whentelevision appearedin theUnited
States,ithadrapidimpactonuse ofothermedia:Audiencesabandonedtheirradio
sets,movietheaters closed,and general-interestmagazinesstoppedpublishing
fictionandeventually folded.Earlystudiesdocumented reductions in timespent
goingto themovies,listening to radio,andreadingfiction as televisionviewing
timeincreased(Coffin1954,Bogart1956). Subsequentresearchreplicated these
resultscross-nationally andalso documented significantdeclinesin out-of-home
socializing,in-homeconversation, housework,personalcareactivities, andeven
sleep(Robinson& Godby1999).
Iftelevision,a unidirectionalmassmedium, displacedso manyactivities, then
it standsto reasonthattheInternet, whichpermitsinteractive as well as one-
waycommunication, mightsubstitute forevenmore.Observershaveexpressed
particularconcern thatInternet usersmayreducethetimedevotedtooff-line social
interaction and spendless timewithprintmedia,as well as withtelevisionand
othermedia(Nie & Erbring 2000).
The functional-equivalence modelthatdescribedtheeffects oftelevision thus
farappearsnotto fittheexperience ofInternet
users.Analysesof 1995and 1998
nationalsurveys bythePew CenterforthePeopleandthePress,whichaskedre-
spondents aboutactivities "yesterday,"havefoundInternet use tobe unrelated or
positively associatedwithsocialinteraction (Robinsonet al 1997,2000a). More-
over,analysisof 1997datafromthefederalSurveyofPublicParticipation in the
ArtsindicatesthatInternet users(withappropriatecontrols)readmoreliterature,
attendedmoreartsevents,wentto moremovies,and watchedand playedmore
sportsthancomparable nonusers(Robinson& Kestnbaum1999).A morerecent
studybasedon 1998PewCenterdataindicatesintriguing changesassociatedwith
theInternet's diffusion:Amonguserswhohadbeenearlyadopters, Internet usewas
associatedwithgreateruse ofprintmedia.AmongnewInternet users,however,
thisrelationship haddisappeared (Robinsonetal 2000b).No significant declinein
TV viewingwas foundafterdemographic Overall,then,theseanalyses
controls.
providescantsupportfortimedisplacement due to functional equivalencewith
respectto othermedia.(See also Cole 2000, who foundlowerTV use among
Internet usersbutslightly higheruse ofothermedia).
The situationwithrespectto social interaction is morecomplicated.Two
well-publicized studiesreported indicationsthatInternet
use substituted forother
interactions. Krautet al (1998), who used a rarelongitudinal designto study
169 Pittsburgh-area familieswhoweregivencomputers andInternet connections
overa two-year period,reported thathigherlevelsofInternetuse were"associated
withdeclinesin communication withfamilymembers, declinesin socialcircles,
and increasedlonelinessand depression." The authorsinferred thatheavyusers
substituted interactions withweaktieson theInternet fortimespentwithclose
friends andrelatives.Yetas theresearchers followedtheirsampletheydiscovered
that,exceptforincreasedstress,negativepsychological effectsdecayedto sta-
tisticalinsignificance and somepositiveoutcomesemerged.Theyattribute these
316 DiMAGGIOET AL
changesto increasesin experienceand competenceand,morespeculatively, to

theInternet's greater in thelaterperiodandto a changein signofnetwork
utility
externalitiesfromnegativeto positiveas moreoftheseusers'friends andfamily
wentonline(Krautetal forthcoming).
An innovative studythatused specialuse-loggingsoftware to comparethe
onlinebehaviorof experienced and noviceWeb usersreinforces thenotionthat
theeffect ofInternetusemayvarywithusercompetence. Compared toexperienced
Internet users,thenovicesengagedin moreaimlesssurfing, wereless successful
in finding information,andweremorelikelyto reportfeelinga souringof affect
overthecourseoftheirsessions.Theirnegative reactionsreflectednottheInternet
experience perse butthefrustration andsenseofimpotence oftheinexperienced
userwithout immediate accessto socialsupport (Neumanet al 1996).
Nie & Erbring(2000) surveyed fourthousand Internetusersonlineandasked
howtheInternet had changedtheir lives.Most no
reported change,butheavier
usersreported declinesin socializing,mediause, shopping, and otheractivities.
By contrast, analyses of national(off-line)samplesurveys(fromboth1995 and
1998) usingmorefine-grained activitymeasuresindicatethatInternet usersare
no less likely(withcontrols)to engagein socialvisitingor to call friends on the
telephone. Morerecentsurveys(onlineand off)haverevealedthatInternet users
havehigherlevelsof generalizedtrustand largersocialnetworks thannonusers
(Uslaner1999,Robinsonet al 2000b,Hampton& Wellman2000, Cole 2000).
Resultsfromsurveyanalysesalso suggestthatInternet use servestocomplement
ratherthansubstitute forprintmediaandoffline socialization.Indeed,a detailed
timediarystudyalso foundInternet userstobe nolessactivemediausersoroffline
socializersthannonusers, thoughtheydiddo less housework, devoteless timeto
familycare,andsleepless (Robinsonetal 2000b).
COMMUNITY Wellman(2001) arguesthattheInternet has contributedto a shift

froma group-based toa network-based societythatis decoupling community and
geographic propinquity,andthusrequiring newunderstandings and operational-
izationsoftheformer. Consistentwiththisinsight,Katzetal (forthcoming) report
thatInternet usersvisitfriendsmoreand talkwiththemby telephonemorefre-
quently,butthattheyalso travelmoreandhavefewerfriends in theirimmediate
neighborhoods.
To someextent, whether oneviewstheInternet as corrosivetoorsupportive of
community dependsinparton howoneevaluatesthethings peopledo withit.For
example,Nie & Erbring (2000,p. 4) viewmoderate toheavy-users' self-reported
substitutionof emailfortelephonecontactas partof theirloss of "contactwith
theirsocialenvironment." Lin (2001) regardsonlinecommunication,
By contrast,
includingemail,as markedly expanding thestockofsocialcapital.
Indeed,an increasingbodyof literature suggeststhattheInternet enhances
socialtiesdefinedin manyways,oftenbyreinforcing existingbehaviorpatterns.
A reporton a nationalsurveyof users(Howardet al forthcoming) revealedthat
theInternet putsusersin morefrequent contactwithfamiliesand friends, with
SOCIALIMPLICATIONS
OF INTERNET 317
emailbeingan important avenueofcommunication. Thisstudyalso suggeststhat

researchon Internet use and social capitalshoulddistinguish amongdifferent
typesofInternet use:TheInternet seemsparticularly unlikelytocorrodethesocial
capitalofwomen,moreofwhomthanmenemploythemediumas a complement
tootherchannelsofsocialinteraction. Similarly,a longitudinalstudybyKrautetal
(forthcoming) foundthatInternet use increasedinteraction withfamilymembers
and reported closenessto friends, especiallyforuserswhoseperceivedsocial-
support networks werestrong beforetheybeganusingtheInternet.
The Internet is uniqueamongmediain makingiteasyforpeopleto assemble
(ata distance)andcommunicate withmanyothersatthesametimeinsuchsettings
as chatroomsor onlinediscussionforums. "Onlinecommunities" comein very
differentshapesand sizes,rangingfromvirtualcommunities thatconnectgeo-
graphicallydistant peoplewithno prioracquaintance whosharesimilarinterests,
to settings
thatfacilitate interactions amongfriendship networks orfamilymem-
bers,to community networks thatfocuson issuesrelevantto a geographically
definedneighborhood (Smith& Kollock 1999,Wellman& Gulia 1999,Preece
2000). Researchon "onlinecommunity" shoulddistinguish amongtheseforms,
lestresultsappearcontradictory andconfusing.
Earlystudiestendedto focuson onlinerole-playing games [e.g. multi-user
dungeonsor MUDs (Turkle1995)] and newsgroups (Hauben& Hauben1997).
Thesewereamongthefirst onlinecommunities andarestillpopularresearchsites,
in partbecauseresearchers can obtainfulltranscripts of discussionsand events.
Such "onlineethnography" has providedusefulinsightsintoissues of identity
formation (Paccagnella1997) and thestatusand concernsof particular groups
(e.g.,Kolkoetal 2000 onraceincyberspace). Butas thetechnology matures,ever
smallerpercentages ofInternet usersparticipate inonlinegamesandnewsgroups.
Increasingly,
researchers mustfollowusersintonewerkindsofonlinecommunities
basedon sharedinterests or (physical)community networks.
Thenumber ofcase studiesofonlinecommunities islargeandgrowing. Particip-
antsvaluesuchonlinesettings formakingiteasy(andinexpensive) tocommunicate
acrosslargedistances, providing opportunities forparticipation bythehomebound
agedorinfirm, andenabling peoplewithminority orlifestyles
interests tofindcom-
panionship andcounselunavailablein theircommunities ofresidence(Etzioni&
Etzioni1997).Rheingold's(1993) classicstudyofan onlinecommunity empha-
sizedthecapacityofonlinenetworks toprovidetheirmembers withsocialsupport.
Andotherresearchers havenotedthat,comparedtoreal-life socialnetworks, on-
linecommunities aremoreoftenbasedonparticipants' sharedinterestsratherthan
shareddemographic characteristics ormerepropinquity (Wellman& Gulia 1999).
Nonetheless,issuesrelatedtoracial,gender, andsexualdynamics do permeate and
complicateonlineinteractions [e.g.requiring communities to establishnormsfor
dealingwithintimidating oroffensive language(Lessig 1999,Silver2000)].
Whereassomestudiesfocuson "virtual"communities, othersexploretheim-
pactoftheInternet on geographic communities. An exemplary studyofa highly
wiredresidential community underscores theimportance of examiningonline
318 DiMAGGIOET AL
interactionsin thecontextof offlineeveryday life(Hampton& Wellman2000).

It revealedthat Internetusersmaintain community tiesthrough bothcomputer-
mediatedcommunication and face-to-faceinteraction.Althoughtheymaintain
morelong-distance thando non-Internet
relationships users,theycommunicate
evenmorewiththeirneighbors-andareacquaintedwiththreetimesas manyof
theirneighbors as aretheirunwiredpeers.A studyofa similarcommunity revealed
thatresidents makemuchuse of theInternet for"social-capitalbuildingactivi-
ties,"butthatindividual-levelcommunity involvement andattachment increased
onlyforresidentswho werealreadyveryactiveat theexperiment's inception
(Kavanaugh& Patterson forthcoming).Similarly,a studyof scholarlynetworks
foundthatalthough theInternethelpsmaintain contactoverlongdistances, most
emailcontacts arebetween peoplewhoalsointeract face-to-face(Kokuetal 2001).
In otherwords,research suggeststhattheInternetsustainsthebondsofcommunity
bycomplementing, otherchannelsofinteraction.
notreplacing,
SOCIALCAPITAL ManyscholarsbelievethattheInternet thecreation

facilitates
of social capitaland otherpublicgoods by makinginformation flowmoreeffi-
ciently through orprofessional
residential communities (Lin2001,Wellman2001).
YetPutnam(2000) reports that,afterdemographic controls,Internetusersareno
different thannon-users on measuresof civic engagement. He notes,however,
thatit is premature to projectthisresultontofuture usercohorts,and he is ag-
nosticabouttheInternet's contribution to social capitalat thecommunity level.
Putnamcalls attention to theneedto understand qualitativedifferences between
mediatedandface-to-face interaction andto explorea tensionbetweenthetech-
nology'spotentialand thedangersof unequalaccess and "cyberbalkanization"
(Putnam2000:177; foran operationalization, see Van Alstyne& Brynjolfsson
1997).
Otherstudiesindicatethat,undersome circumstances at least,Internet use
mayenhancesocialcapital.In a longitudinal studyofPittsburgh residents,Kraut
et al (forthcoming) foundInternet use associatedwithgreaterparticipation in
community andmoretrust
activities (though lesscommitment toremaining intheir
community), withthepositiveeffects greater formoreextroverted participants.An
analysisof onlinesurveyrespondents fromtheUnitedStates,UnitedKingdom,
Canada,and AustraliafoundthatincreasedInternet use tendedto have a direct
positiveeffecton social capital(operationalized as participationin community
networks and activities)and a positiveindirect effect(through socialcapital)on
politicalparticipation(Gibsonetal 2000).
Thereis muchanecdotalevidencethattheInternet providessignificant bene-
fitsto peoplewithunusualidentities or concerns(e.g.,raremedicalconditions).
Butthereis someevidencethat"socialcapital"producedbylessfocusednetworks
israther thin.Forexample,a survey ofusersofAmsterdam's "DigitalCity,"a multi-
use space createdto encourageInternet access and public-spirited interaction,
foundthat,despitesoaringmembership figures, mostusersparticipated relatively
infrequently andforrecreational purposes(VandenBesselaar& Beckers1998).
It has also been arguedthattheInternet buildssocial capitalby enhancing

theeffectiveness of community-level voluntary associations,butlittleresearch
evaluatesthisclaim.The Internet has also beendescribedas an inexpensive and
effectivemeansoforganizing oppositional socialmovement. Lin (2001) describes
thefascinating case ofChina'sFalunGongorganization, whichusedtheInternet
to establisha powerful, hierarchicalreligiousmovement underthenoses of an
authoritarianregime.Whether similarmovements willfollowsuitwilldependon
thesuccessofstatesinmonitoring andcontrolling suchactivities.
We drawfivemoralsfromtheresearchto date.First,theInternet has no in-
trinsiceffecton socialinteractionandcivicparticipation. Thisnonfinding should
challengescholarsto understand thecircumstances underwhichdifferent effects
areproduced,whichwilldoubtlesslead themto distinguish differentprofilesof
Webuse anddifferent orientationsofusers.Second,Internet use tendstointensify
alreadyexisting inclinations
towardsociability orcommunity involvement, rather
thancreating themab initio.Third,we needto knowmorethanwe do aboutthe
qualitativecharacterofonlinerelationships. Fourth, we knowthatvirtualcommu-
nitiesexistinlargenumber, butwe knowrelatively littleabouttheirperformance.
Researchon howvirtualcommunities addressproblemsofcommitment andtrust
(likeKollock's[1999] innovative studyof institutionalized reputationon E-Bay
andUsenetbartersites)is necessaryto understand thelimitsandpossibilities of
community online.Fifth,we needmoresystematic studiesofhowcivicassocia-
tionsand socialmovements use theInternet, so thatwe can movebeyondsingle
cases to understanding theinstitutionalconditions thatencourageor discourage
successful exploitationofthistechnology forcollectiveends.
Impacton Politics:RenewedPublicSphere
or Electronic
Battleground?
Inthepoliticaldomainwe againfindutopiansanddoomsayers atodds.Enthusiasts
findearlyevidenceof a re-engaged, moredeliberative,moreequitablepolitical
community (Browning1996,Hill & Hughes1998,Negroponte 1995). Skeptics
foreseethere-emergence of an unresponsivecommercialspheredominatedby
theusualcorporate players-butwithan increasedcapacityto invadetheprivacy
of individualcitizens(Beniger1996,Lessig 1999). Mostresearchsuggeststhat
effectsthusfarhavebeenmixedandmodest.
Drawingconclusionsat suchearlystagesof technology diffusionbeforethe
emergenceof stablenormsis riskybecauseit is difficult to disentangle:1) the
uniquecharacteristics of earlyadoptersfromthecharacteristics of themedium
in question;2) theprimitive limitations
of theearlyWeb fromthetechnology's
maturecharacteristics; and 3) theWeb's explosivegrowthfromotherpolitical
trends(Rogers1995, Bimber1999). As withothertopics,theliterature about
politicsontheInternethasprogressed through threestages:unjustifiable
euphoria,
abruptandequallyunjustifiable andgradualrealization
skepticism, thatWeb-based
humaninteraction reallydoes haveuniqueandpoliticallysignificantproperties.
320 DiMAGGIO ET AL
AN INFORMED PUBLIC Empiricalresearch on masspoliticalknowledge inindus-

trialdemocracies, andparticularly in theUnitedStates,has drawnheavilyon the
'informationcost'perspective ofDowns(1957) andSchumpeter (1947) toexplain
whythepublicis so poorlyinformed. Because it takestimeand energyto seek
out,interpret,
andremember politicalinformation, itmaybe rationalto free-ride
on thecivicattentiveness of others.The politicalpromiseof theInternet is that
it significantly
lowersthebehavioralcostsof finding, storing, and communicat-
ing specificand personallyrelevantpoliticalinformation at convenient, timely
intervals.
Theliteraturereveals,however,thataftercontrolling foreducation andpolitical
interest,
thereis littleevidenceofan effectofInternet use onpoliticalknowledge.
Thosewhoseekpoliticalinformation onlinearegenerally wellinformed tobegin
with,politically
oriented, andheavyusersofothermedia(Bimber2000,Johnson &
Kaye 1998). At present, theInternet supplements and complements ratherthan
replacestraditional sourcesofpoliticalinformation (Pew 1998, 1999,Robinson
etal 2000b).A June2000 survey revealedthat33% ofUS adults(and46% ofthose
underthirty)go onlinefornewsat leastoncea week,comparedto 20% in 1998,
and 15% theysay do so everyday.Abouthalfsay theyseekoutpoliticalnews,
fewerthanreportthattheylook forweather,technology, business,and sports
news (Howardet al forthcoming). In some cases theyaccess newsnotreadily
availablethrough printorbroadcastmedia,butoftentheWebis a supplementary
mediumthrough whichconventional news organizations distributeinformation
availablethrough othermeans.
AN ENGAGED PUBLIC The economicandpsychological dynamicsofWeb-based

humancommunication, however,are potentially
distinctenoughfromthoseof
printand broadcastnewsmediathatin timewe maysee evidenceof
traditional
an Interneteffect.For example,news sitesoftenprovideinteractive linksthat
encourageusersto "senda copyofthisarticleto a friendor colleague."The ca-
pacityforhorizontal interpersonalcommunication, to rebroadcasta newsarticle
withpersonalcommentary, enhancesthecapacityfordiscussion, engagement, and
thetwo-step flowthatservesas thecriticalantidoteto anomicmasscommunica-
tion(Kornhauser 1968).Evolvingthird-voice technologieswouldpermit usersto
convert
unilaterally everymass-medium Websiteintoan openpublicdiscussion
(Dibbell1999).DiscussiongroupsontheWebatpresent lacktheselective,highly
editedcharacterofletterstotheeditorandcitizenop-eds.Butthough theymaynot
achievetheidealofdeliberative discourseenvisioned byHabermas(1981,Elster
1998),theywouldappearto be a stepin thatdirection.
Thereis greatconcernaboutthepoliticalmalaiseanddisengagement presum-
ablyreflectedin low voterturnouts in US nationalelections.Willreducedcosts
ofgathering politicalinformationproducehighervotingrates?Probablynot,due
to thecomplexand tangledinfluences of multiplehistorical,
culturaland eco-
nomictrends,whichrenderbivariateanalysesof relationships betweenmedia
use and electoralparticipation
ill advised.Schudson(1998) pointsout thatUS
SOCIALIMPLICATIONS
OF INTERNET 321
rateswerehighest
electoralparticipation in thesecondhalfofthenineteenth cen-
tury,whencitizensweregenerally uninformed themediawere
and uneducated,
and qualityof publicdebatewas largelyundistin-
limitedand sensationalistic,
guished.Bimber(2000) arguesthatpoliticalimpactderivesless fromthechar-
acterof themediumthanfromthecharacter and theday-to-day
of information
cultureofitsuse.The successfulJesseVentura candidacyin Minnesotais widely
citedas an exampleofgrass-rootsInternetpopulism;butinthatcase theNetwas
primarilyusedtoorganizethealreadyengaged,nottomobilizedisaffected orun-
interested 2000). Onlinefinancial
voters(Stromer-Galley andvoting
contributions
onlinebythealreadypoliticallyactivemayprovemoresignificant inthelongrun
(Mintz2000).
POLITICAL POLARIZATION Perhapsthemostcentral questionforsociologicalanal-

ysisofchanging technicalstructures
ofinterpersonal andmasscommunication is
thetensionbetweenforcesofsocialintegration andpolarization(Neuman2000).
ManyfearthattheInternet willweakenthecultural centerand"politicalcommons"
thatnetwork televisionand metropolitan newspapersprovided(Neuman1991,
Hirsch1978).Negroponte, forexample,predicts intelligent
thatanartificially Web-
basedDailyMe willselectnewsandinformation basedonthepredilections andpre-
judicesoftheindividualcybercitizen andfurther displacetheculturalcommons
(Negroponte 1995).
Researchonearliermedia,however, indicatesthatindividuals
tendtobe aware
of themostpopularculturalartifacts andto monitor thelatesthotprograms and
motionpictures(Neuman1991). Ideologicallyinclinedindividualsdo choose
to attendto mediathatreinforce theirprejudices(e.g., conservatives listento
conservatively oriented but
radiotalkshows), expose themselves as well to op-
posingviews(Freedman & Sears 1965, Frey 1986).The Net'scapacityfor anony-
mouscommunication mayheighten thelevelofextremist andhatespeechin the
earlystagesof diffusion. of
But institutions self-regulation mayemergeto con-
strainsuchexpression incyberspace, as theyhavein nonelectronicpublicforums
(Lessig 1999).
DELIBERATIVE mayconcede
DEMOCRACY Webproponents that
historically
apoli-
ticalsocialstrataareunlikely tobe mobilizedovernight byInternet politicalcon-
tent,and agreethat thereare few signsthus farthat the Internet has increased
and But
politicalfragmentation polarization. they insist
that theInternet willen-
hance the of
quality political discussionand the viability,meaningfulness, and
of
diversity thepublicspherebylowering theaccess barrier to meaningful public
speech.No longeris itnecessary toowna newspaper ortelevision stationtopartici-
pate:TheWebis a two-way medium, andeveryInternet receiver canbe a publisher
as well (Compaine& Gomery2000, Todreas 1999). Such claims providecritics
ofcommercial (and especiallyAmerican)dominanceofthemassmediaandthe
internationalflowofnewsandculturewitha newfocalpointforinquiry(Bennett
1995,Bourdieu1999,Garnham1990,McChesney1996,Schiller1989).
322 DiMAGGIOET AL
Can theWebmakea realdifference? It is clearthattheInternet significantly

lowersentrybarriersand otherDownsiancost factorsforparticipation in the
electronic publicsphere.Bimberfindsthatmanyof thedistortions of groupdis-
cussionresulting fromdominant personalities andgroupdynamics arereproduced
in cyberspace, buthe concludesthatvirtualpoliticalspace (notablyUsenet-style
threadeddiscussiongroups)has its place as a significant supplement to,if not
replacement for,theface-to-facediscussionsofHabermas'idealizednineteenth-
century salon (Bimber2000, Hill & Hughes1998,Schneider1996). Lowering
theeconomiccoststo initiateandsustainan accessiblepoliticalvoice-compare
a teenager'sbedroom-based Web siteto thecost of sustaining a printedmag-
azine or broadcasting facility-canloweraccess barriersforminority voices,
as well.
Skepticsarguethatthecommercial incentives ofadvertising-basedmediamay
lead ultimately to an Internetculturallyindistinguishablefrommodemcommer-
cial television(Davis 1998,Margolis& Resnick1999,Rheingold1993). This
debateis particularly interestingin thecase ofWeb-basedpoliticalcampaigning
in theUnitedStates,whereby 2000, mostcandidateshad theirownWeb sites,
manywithdetailedissue andpolicyinformation unavailablethrough traditional
media(Schneider 2000b).Willsuchdiversesitesattract sufficient
traffictosustain
themselves? Orwilldominant commercial portalslikeAOL orspecializedstartups
likevotercom dominateattention, payingforaccessto thepublicspherethrough
politicaladvertising? As ofthiswriting thejuryis out,butresearchers areactively
studying eliteandmassbehavior(Schneider2000a).
THE POLITICS OF THE INTERNET A finalnote:Itmaybe thatthebattleforcontrol

of theNet and fordominancein theelectronic marketplace of ideas will prove
to be themostfruitful The tensionbetweenpolit-
arenaforsociologicalinquiry.
ical idealsofopennessandthestrong economicincentives to sustainandprotect
scarcity anditscorresponding
economicreturn shouldsustainsignificant
scholar-
shipin thisdomainforyearsto come (Lessig 1999,Neumanet al 1998,Shapiro
1999).
Impacton Organizations:
FlexibleNetworks
or Panopticons?
Some management writers depictinformationtechnology as transformingorg-
anizations:replacinghierarchical with
bureaucracy flat, networkedstructuresin
which localinitiative
supplantsauthoritative
command; and formal
replacing orga-
nizationsthemselves with"network organizations"in whichagencyis interstitial
and strategyconstantlyrenegotiated (Tapscott1999). Otherssuggestthatdigital
telecommunications may increasemanagement controlby permittingunprece-
denteddegreesof surveillance (Zuboff1989). thissection,we focusprimarily
In
on organizations'use of thepublicInternet,ratherthanon communications net-
worksinternal tothefirm (theuse ofwhichis reviewedinSproull& Kiesler1991,
Wellmanetal 1996,andO'Mahoney& Barley1999).
LIMITS ON INTERNET IMPACT Littleresearchbearsdirectly on theseclaims,and

whatthereis findslimitedeffects forthreereasons.First,authorswhomakethe
strongest claimsoftenconflatedifferent typesof digitaltechnology, including
workplaceapplications, local areanetworks, andtheInternet. The Internet is less
centralto somenotableorganizational trends(e.g.,theshrinkage ofmiddleman-
agement)thancomputerization ofinternal functions (Boardon Science,Technol-
ogy& EconomicPolicy1999).
Second,manystructural changesassociatedwiththe"networked firm" predate
theriseof information technologies allegedto havecausedthem(Powell2001,
Castells1996).Although somearguethattheInternet causeslargefirms todevolve
intolooselyintegratedproduction networks byreducing information andtransac-
tioncosts(Brynjolfsson et al 1994),themovetowardnetwork organizations was
underwaybeforetheInternet becamepopular.(TheInternet, thoughnotdetermi-
nant,is important.Although network formsemergedin responseto competitive
environments, new information technologies contributed to theirrapiddevelop-
ment[Castells1996].)
Third,technology'seffects reflectnotitsinherent potential, as futurists
assume,
butactivechoicesthatare shapedbytechnology owners'perceivedinterests, ex-
istingorganizationalstructuresandroutines, andbycultural norms(O'Mahoney
& Barley1999,Orlikowski & Iacono2000). Manytraditional firms heavilycon-
strainuse ofemailandtheInternet, especiallybyclericalandserviceemployees,
andsuchfirms oftenimplement systems thatfacilitate
surveillance ratherthanen-
decentralized
ablingflexible, interaction (Zuboff1989,Wellman etal 1996,Frenkel
etal 1999).
Telecommuting, oncepredicted to riseexponentially, is a goodexample.Of a
nationalsampleof1050workers interviewed inlate1999,41%believedtheycould
workeffectivelyfromhome,butonly10% reported theiremployers providedthat
option(and9% reported doingso at leastonce a week)(Heldritch Center2000).
Otherevidencesuggeststhatmostemployeesuse homeInternet connections to
supplement hoursattheworkplace, nottosubstitute forthem(O'Mahony& Barley:
131).
WORKGROUPEFFECTS onworkgroups
Research (muchofitinlaboratory
set-
tings)suggeststhatelectronic
communications influence styleandwork
interaction
flow.Use ofelectronicmailcompared totelephones,forexample,enablesworkers
tocontrolthepace oftheirresponseandthusfacilitates Digitalcon-
multitasking.
ferencingmaymakeemployees lessrisk-averse
andrender groupdecision-making
less predictable,
moretime-consuming, and moreegalitarian (Sproull& Kiesler
1991,Wellmanet al 1996). Whether sucheffectsenhanceorganizational perfor-
manceorwillpersistas thetechnologies evolveis uncertain,
inpartbecausethey
dependon detailsofsystemdesignandimplementation (Sproull& Kiesler1991,
O'Mahony& Barley1999). In vivo researchsuggeststhatformally egalitarian
"network" structuresmaycoexistwithsubstantial hierarchy in
andcentralization
of
patterns communication &
(Ahuja Carley1998).
324 DiMAGGIO ET AL
FIRM STRUCTURE EFFECTS Thereis littleevidencethattheInternet is reshaping

organizational structures.O'Mahoney& Barleyreportthat"whether informa-
tiontechnologies furthercentralization or decentralization"variesdependingon
howmanagements uses them.The fewempiricalstudiesoftherelationships be-
tweendigitaltechnology andorganizational size,buy-or-selldecisions,andorga-
nizationalboundaries areanecdotalorinconclusive (O'Mahoney& Barley1999:
143-45).TheInternet mayinducechange,butwe willnotknowuntilresearchers
undertake large-sample studiesthatspecify changesprecisely, treatseparately dif-
ferent kindsofinformation technology, anddistinguish effectson differentkinds
ofworkers anddifferent businessfunctions.
Take,forexample,technology's impacton interfirm networks. Mostelectronic
networks complement, ratherthansubstitute for,moreintimate media.Formany
"network organizations" propinquity is crucialinbreeding trustandrapport among
participants, forexampleenablingcompaniesin small-firm networks to sharein-
formation andexchangespecializedassets(Harrison1994).Spatialagglomeration
is alsocentral tothesuccessofbiotechnology firms (andtoventure capitalists
who
sustainthem)(Powell2001). The mostthorough reviewof technology-transfer
researchemphasizestheroleof "themobility and activityof technically trained
people"overthatofimpersonal networks (Boardon Science,Technology & Eco-
nomicPolicy1999).Digitaltelecommunications seemmostimportant forroutine
transactions (e.g.,inventorysystems inwhichmultiple firmssharea database) and
forcommunication amongknowledge workers accustomed to scientific
normsof
exchange(e.g.,R&D), andleastsufficient wheninteractions entailriskandrequire
interpersonal judgment.
INDUSTRY SPECIFIC EFFECTS Studiesof specificindustries indicatethatdigital

telecommunications can facilitate
transformative changewhenmarket pressures
requireitandorganizationalresources andstructures renderitpossible.Forexam-
ple,whenfierce competition andderegulation provoked changeandrisingdemand
madeitprofitable, truckingfirmsusedtheInternet (withsuchothertechnologies
as globalpositioning)to developlogisticscapacityandreposition themselves as
transportation-services
companies(NagarajanBander& White2000). Hospitals
andmedicalpractices haveusedtheInternet topoolinformation acrossentities,
en-
the
abling emergence of the"integrated healthcaresystems" thataretransforming
manyregionalhealthcare markets(Scottetal 2000,Starr1997).Otherindustries
thathave used Internet technology to effectsignificant
changeare bankingand
financialservices(Rochlin1997) and,withdistancelearning, highereducation
(Brown& Duguid2000:25).In eachcase,firms the
adapted technology tospecific
rather
strategies, thanyieldingto generaltechnological imperatives.
Thus,theInternet is implicatedin profound changesin organizational struc-
tures,practices,and strategies.
But the extentand natureof thesechanges-
whichbusinessfunctions theyrestructure, whichemployeestheyaffect-vary
markedly And ratherthancausingchange,digitaltechnologies
by industry. are
ordinarilypressedintotheserviceofdevelopments towhichmanagers arealready
committed. The area is ripeforbothorganizational case studiesthatfocuson

theInternet's use in particularindustriesand organizational surveysthatpermit
confident generalization.
The Internet is also implicatedin organizational changein thepublicsector,
whereenthusiasts have hailedits potentialforsavingtax dollars,reducingred
tape,and makinggovernment moreresponsive.In an empirically detailedand
theoretically sophisticated study,Fountain(2001a,b)has demonstrated boththe
potentialandimpediments toitsrealization.
Implementing digitaltechnology saves
governments money,buthowmuchdependson network externalities.
It reduces
someaspectsof bureaucratic rigiditybutstrengthens othersbyembedding them
in code. It enhancestheflowof information to citizensand enablesgovernment
workers to cutthrough redtape,butin expandingthelatter'sdiscretion, it risks
imposingnewformsofinequality amongcitizensin theirrelations withthestate
(Fountain2001a,b).
Impacton Culture:Bountiful
Diversity,
Hypersegmentation,orMassification?
Manysociologistsfearedthattheoriginalmass media (general-interest maga-
zines,radio,and television)wouldinexorably "massify"taste,as profit-seeking
firmsproducedonlythosehomogeneousand banal programsor textswiththe
greatestaudienceappeal(Shils 1963). Since 1980,changesin consumer demand
havecombinedwithnewmediatechnologies tosegment markets anddifferentiate
culturalgoods,enablingindividuals andgroupstoindividualize theirmediahabits.
As an"interconnected networkofaudio,video,andelectronic textcommunication
thatwillblurthedistinction betweeninterpersonal andmasscommunications and
betweenpublicandprivatecommunications" (Neuman1991,p. 12),theInternet
seemsdesignedtotakethesetrendstotheirlogicalconclusion.
Not surprisingly,earlyobserversviewedthenew technology as profoundly
liberating,openingup outlets
for thecreative energies people of everytaste
of
and persuasion(Barlow 1996). Because postinginformation on theWeb is so
the
inexpensive, technology's enthusiasts
believed it would virtuallyeliminate
barriersto entryin fieldslikemusicrecording, bookpublishing, and evenfilm-
making.In thisview,theInternet woulddemocratize theflowof information,
supplanting top-downdependenceon traditional newsand mediaorganizations
withbottom-up sharingamongconsumers themselves.
Suchoptimistic scenariosassumethattheInternet's onlyimpactis a directone
on costs(of culturalgoodsto consumers and ofpublication to producers).Buta
second,perhapsmoreimportant, effectof theInternet maybe to inducethere-
structuringof thecultureindustries themselves. Whengoods are distributed on
theInternet, theycan be repackagedin manyways:newspapers, forexample,
can be disassembled, theirpartsdistributed
separately; recordedmusiccan come
withmoretextualdocumentation thanwill fitin a CD jewel box. New distribu-
tionsystemsmayalso alterthesize distribution of firmswithinindustries, the
326 DiMAGGIOET AL
relativepowerofgatekeepers andartists, andthenatureofcompetitive strategies.

The Web's earliestculturalimpacthas been in themusicindustry, whereit has
reinforced existingtrends towarddeconcentration, productdifferentiation,andthe
multiplication ofmarket channels(Dowd 2000,Caves 2000).
Some observers suggestthateconomicimperatives willkeeptheInternet from
realizingits technicalpotentialas a fontof culturalabundance(Neuman1991,
Castells1996). True,barriersto entryare formally lower;butsavagecompeti-
tionforusers'limitedattention mayerectnewbarriers based on investments in
marketing andproduction. Themajormediaproducers aredeveloping theInternet
commercially afterthemodelofearliermedia(albeitwithmoreinteractivity), with
theexpectation thatInternetcontent,broadcastentertainment, andnewswillsoon
enterhomesthrough a singlesystem(Castells1996,butsee Owen 1999).
A third positionholdsthatcorporate powerwilloverwhelm theWeb'sliberating
potential byradicallyaccelerating long-term trendstowardnarrower market seg-
mentation andmorefine-grained productcustomization. In thisview,Web sites'
abilitytouse "cookies"totrackusers'browsing habitsprovidesanunprecedented
opportunity fortargeting appeals.Marketers willdividethepublicintocountless
market segments andbombard themwithmessagesthatreinforce dispositions and
tastestheirpreviousbrowsing-and-buying patternshave revealed,engendering
isolationandmyopia(Turow1997.)
Wehavelittlepurchase onwhichperspective isright
fortworeasons.First,aside
fromindustry reports thatmanyusershaverobustappetites forfreemusicandsex-
ual images,we knowlittleaboutcultural practiceon theWeb.To be sure,theWeb
offersa remarkable smorgasbord of freeculturalproductsand services.But we
knowlittleaboutwhousesthem, duetothelackofscholarly research ontheextent
towhich,andwaysinwhich,Internet userslistentomusic,visitmuseumsites,or
readliterature online.Nordo social scientists knowto whatextentculturecon-
sumersuse theWeb to cultivate existingtastesor,instead,to exploreunfamiliar
genres.
Second,we cannotyettelltowhatextent(andhow)mediafirms willbe ableto
wringprofits fromWeb-basedentertainment. TheywilldeveloptheWebas mass
mediumonlyifconsumerdemandforentertainment sufficesto justifylargein-
vestments (Castells1996:365).Tendenciestowardcultural fragmentation maybe
repelledbyculturalomnivores: well-educated consumers witheclectictastesfor
many(finelydifferentiated) genres(Peterson& Kern 1996). Government will
influence the outcomethrough legislationand courtrulings(e.g., theNapster
injuncion) thatdefineintellectualproperty rights.
TheInternet's culturaleffects
mayvaryamongusergroups.Becausemarketers
aremostinterested inreaching peoplewhoconsumethemost,their"fragmenting"
effortsmayfocuson thewell-to-do;but such users,especiallywhentheyare
highlyschooled,are theones mostlikelyto use sophisticated searchstrategies,
so theironlinebehaviormaybe less easilyaffected. Castells(1996:371)predicts
a Web "populatedby two essentiallydistinctpopulations, the interacting and
thefirst
theinteracted," usingthemedium'sfullcapacity,thelatterlimitedto a
"restricted
number ofprepackaged
choices."
THE EVOLVINGINTERNET
Researchontechnological changeteachesus thattherelationship betweentechnol-
ogyandsocietyis neverunidirectional. Rathertechnologies areoftendevelopedin
responsetotheagendasofpowerful socialactors.Initially,
theyshapethemselves
tothecontours ofcustom;ultimately, theyfollowpathsselectedthrough struggles
amonggroupsseekingto turntechnologies to theirown interests (McGuire&
Granovetter 1998).
We see thismalleability inthehistory ofthetelephone, whichwas createdas a
businesstool(and evena broadcasting device),butwhichbecamean instrument
ofsociableinteraction (Fischer1992).We see itespeciallyinthehistory ofradio,
whichemergedas an interactive mediumtailoredtotheneedsofmilitary commu-
nication,grewintoa point-to-point communications devicelinking amateur enthu-
siasts,developedintoa commercial broadcast system beaminga standardized mass
cultureacrossnationalsocieties,and finally, underthe impactof television's
competition, transformed itselfintoa finelydifferentiated mediumspecializing
in broadcasting musicalgenresto narrowly definedsubcultural marketsegments
(Douglas 1988,Hargittai 2000a,Owen 1999).
Ifanything,theInternet is evenmorepliantbecauseitcombinespoint-to-point
andbroadcastcapability withina singlenetwork (Robinsonet al 2000b,Wellman
2001). It can be a telephone:literally, or through email,chatrooms,and other
formsofreal-time communication betweenindividuals. It can serveas a library:
specializedWebsites"narrowcast" information to usersinterested enoughtouse
searchenginesto findthem.It can act as a soapboxforindividuals expressing
themselves to e-listsand discussionforums.Or it can operateas a conventional
massmedium:Internet ServiceProviders likeAOL and serviceslikeRealMedia
letproviders broadcast information tohugeuserpublicssimultaneously. Precisely
because it can be all of thesethingsat once-because it affords userschoices
amongmultiple modesofappropriation thatcoexistatanygiventime-theInternet
is unprecedentedly malleable.This malleability raisesthestakesforactorswho
wishto shapeitsevolution (Hargittai 2000b).
The findings ofindividual-level researchon Internet use reflectthetechnology
as ithasemerged, notpatterns intrinsictothemediumitself. Economiccompetition
andpublicpolicieswillshapetheextentto whichtheInternet developsas point-
to-point communicator, library,or massmedium;andthis,in turn,will alterthe
incentives andopportunities fordifferent kindsofindividuals to use it.Thus,the
socialimpactoftheInternet dependsontheimpactofsocietyon whattheInternet
becomes.Itfollowsthatsociologists shouldbe studying carefully theorganization
oftheInternet field,as well as themannerin whichdifferent waysoforganizing
328 DiMAGGIO ET AL
content shapepatterns ofuse,becausesuchresearchholdsthekeytoanticipating

andunderstanding theInternet's effects.
Sociologistshavebeenlargelyremissin meetingthischallenge.A usefulex-
ceptionis Aldrich's(1999:312) analysisoftheWebfromthestandpoint ofcom-
munity, in whichhe distinguishes amonggovernance structures (regulatorsand
informal consortia),commercial users,serviceproviders to thoseusers,browser
developers, andother"infrastructural populations"(hardware andsoftware firms,
ISPs, searchengines,and portalsites)thatoccupynichesin theWeb's ecology.
Owen (1999: ch. 11) presents a usefuloverviewoftheInternet industry froman
economicsperspective, witha particularly thoroughtreatment of theunderlying
technology and of thefirms thatmaintain thenetwork and offerconnection ser-
vices.A smallbutinteresting literature explorestheInternet's emergent structure
through analysisofthenetwork createdby thehyperlinks thatWebsitessendto
one another(Zook forthcoming). Earlystudiesusinghugedatasetswereable to
mapsitesontocoherent topicalclusters(Larson1996) andalso reported highlev-
els ofintegration,withmostsitesreachablefrommostothersata pathdistanceof
fourorless (Jackson1997).
The Internet's future, and thusits social impact,will be influenced by the
resolution ofthreecrucialpolicyissues.The first, establishing equalityinInternet
access, is necessaryto ensurethatless well-to-door technically sophisticated
citizensare notexcludedfromthepolitical,economic,and social opportunities
thattheInternet increasingly provides.As ourdiscussionof empiricalworkon
thisissue demonstrates, a sociologicalperspective calls attention to theneedto
go beyondtheconventional focuson access per se to exploreinequalityin the
combination oftechnicaland socialresourcesrequiredforeffective participation
(DiMaggio& Hargittai 2001).
The second,establishing meaningful andenforceable normsofprivacyforIn-
ternetusers,involvesthequestforbalancebetweenthefunctionality thatpeople
andbusinessesseekfromtheInternet andthesacrifice ofaccesstopersonalinfor-
mationthatthetechnology currently requirespeopleto offer inexchange(Lessig
1999). Sociologicalresearchon thebeliefsandpracticesofInternet users,online
vendors,and serviceproviders is necessaryto inform policydeliberations in this
area.
The third,defining rulesgoverning intellectual
property fora worldin which
copyingandtransmitting culturalworksis essentially costless,entailsthesearch
fora balancebetweenincentives necessaryto motivate creativeworkersand the
interestof societyin maximizing access to worksof themind(ComputerSci-
ence and Telecommunications Board2000). Currently thependulumhas swung
farin thedirection of thecompaniesthatcontrolrightsto intellectual property,
withimplications notjust formusic-loving teenagersbut forsocial scientists
eagerto access formerly publicdata bases as well (Lessig 1999). Sociologists
can contributetothisdebatebytesting behavioralassumptions aboutmotivations
ofcreative workers andtherequirements ofmarkets sufficienttosustainproduction
ofintellectualgoods.
Lessig (1999) makesa valuabledistinction amongthreewaysthatstatesand

privateinterestscan regulatecommunications media:law,norms,andcode. The
Internet,he argues,is distinctive
in thatcode-the detailsof theprograms that
facilitate
theexchangeof messagesand information-is a particularly
powerful
sourceof socialcontrol, withdirectregulationrelatively
less effective.
His work
callsattentiontotheimportance ofstudying aspectsofthetechnology thatremain
invisibleto mostobservers (and oftheneedforsociologistsstudying theWebto
acquiresufficienttechnicalexpertiseto addressthesequestions.).
CONCLUSION
Sociologyhas beenslowtotakeadvantageoftheuniqueopportunity to studythe

emergenceof a potentially transformative technology in situ.Too muchof the
basicresearchhas beenundertaken bynonacademicsurveyorganizations, yield-
ing theoreticallyunmotivated description at best,and technically flawedand/or
proprietarily-helddataatworst.(Fortunately, thisis changing withsuchnewdata-
collectioneffortsas the2000 GeneralSocial Survey'stopicalmoduleon Internet
use, and withincreasedaccessibility of data,muchof whichis now available
on thestatistically
interactiveweb sitewww.webuse.umd.edu.) The relativelyfew
sociologistswho studytheInternet have focuseddisproportionately on virtual
communities, a worthy topic,butnottheonlyone.Andin thatarea,as wellas in
research ontheInternet'simpactoninequality, politics,organizations,andculture,
we needto developexplanatory modelsthatdistinguish betweendifferent modes
ofInternet use andthattiebehaviordirectly to socialandinstitutional context.
Researchhas suffered, as well,froma disproportionate emphasison individu-
als, implicitly
treatingthenatureoftheInternet itselfas fixed.Thisis regrettable
becausethisprotean technology's character andeffects willreflecttheoutcomeof
ongoingstruggles amongpowerful economicandpoliticalactors.Yetfewsociol-
ogistshaveexaminedtheInternet's institutionalstructure,industrialorganization,
orpoliticaleconomy. Somesociologists aredoingimportant work;butunlesstheir
numbers grow,a magnificent opportunity to buildandtesttheoriesof social and
technicalchangemaygo unexploited.
If sociologyneedstheInternet as a laboratory, policymakersneed sociology
toilluminate thecollectivechoicesthatwillshapetheInternet's future.As Philip
Agre(1998b:19) haswritten, discussionsoftheInternet areofteninformed lessby
positiveknowledge thanby"thecultural system ofmyths andideasthatoursociety
projectsontothetechnology." Socialscienceremains thebesthopeforsubstituting
knowledge formythandinforming publicdiscourseaboutcurrent conditions and
policyalternatives.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
toPhilAgre,PhilipHoward,andBarryWellmanforwiseandhelp-
Wearegrateful
fulcomments
onearlierdrafts,
andwe takefullresponsibility
forpersistent
defects
330 DiMAGGIOET AL
andlimitations.
Researchsupport
totheauthorsfromtheNationalScienceFoun-
dation(grantsSBR9710662,SES9819907, and IIS0086143), theRussell Sage
Foundation,
theMarkleFoundation, and thePew Charitable
Trustsis gratefully
acknowledged.
VisittheAnnualReviewshomepageat www.AnnualReviews.org
LITERATURE CITED
AbbateJ. 1999. Inventing theInternet.Cam- Beniger JR. 1996. Who shall controlcy-
bridge,MA: MIT Press berspace? In Communicationand Cy-
Agre P. 1998a. The Internetand public dis- berspace:SocialInteraction inan Electronic
course. First Monday3. http://www.first-Environment, ed. L Srate,R Jacobson,SB
mondaydk/issues/issue3-3/agre/index.html. Gibson,pp. 49-58. Cresskill, NJ:Hampton
AgreP. 1998b.Presentation inProceedingofa BennettWL. 1995.News:ThePoliticsofIllu-
Congressional Breakfast Seminaron Infor- sion.New York:Longman.3rded.
mationTechnology and Social Change,pp. BertotJC, McClureCR. 1998. The 1998 Na-
14-19.Washington, DC: Consortium ofSoc. tionalSurveyof U.S. PublicLibraryOutlet
Sci. Assoc. InternetConnectivity: Final Report.Wash-
AhujaMX, CarleyKM. 1998.Networkstruc- ington, DC: Am.LibraryAssoc.Natl.Corn.
turein virtualorganizations. J. Computer- on Libraries& Info.Sci.
MediatedCommun.http://www.ascusc.org/ BimberB. 1998. The Internetand political
jcmc/vol3/issue4/ahuja.html transformation: populism,community and
AldrichH. 1999.Organizations Evolving.Bev- accelerated pluralism.Polity31:133-60
erlyHills,CA: Sage Bimber B. 1999. The Internetand citizen
AlexanderJC,ed. 1988.Durkheimian Sociol- communication withgovernment: Does the
ogy:CulturalStudies.New York:Columbia mediummatter.Polit. Commun.16:409-
Univ.Press 28
Anderson RH, BiksonTK, Law SA, Mitchell BimberB. 2000a.The gendergap on theInter-
BM. 1995. UniversalAccess to E-Mail- net. Soc. Sci. Q. 81:868-76
Feasabilityand SocietalImplications. Santa Bimber B. 2000b. The studyof informa-
Monica,CA: RAND tiontechnology andcivicengagement. Polit.
AttewellP, BattleJ. 1999. Home computers Commun.17: In press
andschoolperformance. Info.Soc. 15:1-10 BimberB. 2001.Information andcivicengage-
BarlowJP.1996. A Declarationof theInde- mentinAmerica:The searchforpoliticalef-
pendenceofCyberspace. http://www.eff.org/ fectsoftheInternet. Polit.Res. Q.
-barlow/Declaration-Final.html Board on Science,Technologyand Economic
BellD. 1973.TheComingofPost-Industrial So- Policy.NationalResearchCouncil.1999.Se-
ciety:A Venturein Social Forecasting. New curingAmerica'sIndustrial Strength.Wash-
York:Basic ington, DC: Natl.Acad. Press
Bell D. 1977 [1980].Teletextandtechnology: BogartL. 1956.TheAgeofTelevision: A Study
new networksof knowledgeand informa- ofViewing Habitsand theImpactofTelevi-
tioninpostindustrial In TheWinding siononAmerican
society. Life.New York:Ungar
Passage: Essaysand SociologicalJourneys, Bolt D, CrawfordR. 2000. Digital Divide:
1960-1980,ed.D Bell,pp.34-65.NewYork: Computers and OurChildren'sFuture.New
Basic York:TV Books
BourdieuP. 1999. On Television.New York: tingEdge: Technology, Information Capi-

New Press talism,and Social Revolution.New York:
BrownJS, DuguidP. 2000. TheSocial Lifeof Verso
Information. Boston:HarvardBus. School Davis R. 1998.TheWebofPolitics: TheInter-
Press net'sImpacton theAmericanPoliticalSys-
Browning G. 1996.ElectronicDemocracy:Us- tem.New York:OxfordUniv.Press
ingtheInternet toInfluence AmericanPoli- Dibbell J. 1999. Let thirdvoice be heard.
tics.WiltonCT: Pemberton IntellectualCapital(August19).http://www.
BrynjolfssonE, MaloneT, GurbaxaniV, Kam- intellectualcapital.com/issues/issue282/item-
bil A. 1994. Does information technology 6125.asp
lead to smallerfirms?Mgmt.Sci. 40:1628- DiMaggioP, Hargittai E. 2001.Fromthe'Dig-
44 ital Divide' to digitalinequality:studying
CalhounC. 1998.Community withoutpropin- Internet use as penetrationincreases.Work.
quityrevisited:communication technology Pap,Ctr.forArtsCult.PolicyStud.,Prince-
and thetransformation of theurbanpublic tonUniv.
sphere.Soc. Inquiry68:373-97 Douglas S. 1987. Inventing AmericanBroad-
CastellsM. 1996.TheRiseoftheNetwork Soci- casting,1899-1922.Baltimore:JohnsHop-
ety.Vol.1 ofTheInformation Age:Economy, kinsUniv.Press
Societyand Culture.Oxford,UK: Black- Dowd T. 2001. Musical diversityand the
well's mainstream recordingmarket,1955-1990.
CastellsM. 2001.Internet Galaxy:Reflections RassegnaItalianadi Sociol.Forthcoming
on theInternet,Businessand Society.New Downs A. 1957. An Economic Theoryof
York:OxfordUniv.Press.Forthcoming Democracy.New York:Harper& Row
Caves R. 2000. CreativeIndustries:Contracts EisensteinEL. 1979.ThePrinting Pressas an
BetweenArt and Commerce.Cambridge: AgentofChange.Cambridge Univ.Press
HarvardUniv.Press ElsterJ. ed. 1998. DeliberativeDemocracy.
ClementePC. 1998.StateoftheNet: TheNew New York:Cambridge Univ.Press
Frontier.New York:McGrawHill EtzioniA, Etzioni0. 1997.Communities: vir-
CoffinT. 1955.Television'simpacton society. tualvs. real.Science277:295
Am.Psychol.10:630-41 FischerC. 1992. AmericaCalling: A Social
Cole J.2000.Surveying theDigitalFuture.Los HistoryoftheTelephoneto 1940. Berkeley:
Angeles: UCLA Ctr.Telecommun.Policy Univ.Calif.Press
(www.ccp.ucla.edu) FountainJE. 2001a. The economicimpactof
CollinsR. 1979. TheCredentialSociety.New theInternet onthegovernment sector.In The
York:Academic EconomicPayoff fromtheInternet Revolu-
CompaineB. 2000. Re-examining thedigital tion,Rep. BrookingsTaskForceon theIn-
divide.Pap. pres.28thAnnualTelecommun. ternet. Washington, DC: BrookingsInst.
PolicyRes. Conf.,Arlington, VA FountainJE.2001b.BuildingtheVirtualState:
CompaineB, Gomery D, eds.2000.WhoOwns Information Technologyand Institutional
theMedia? Competition and Concentration Change.Washington, DC: BrookingsInst.
in theMass Media Industry. Mahwah,NJ: FreedmanJL, Sears D. 1965. Selectiveex-
Erlbaum posure.In AdvancesinExperimental Social
ComputerScience and Telecommunications Psychology, ed. L Berkowitz, 2:58-98. Or-
Board,NationalResearchCouncil.2000.The lando:AcademicPress
Digital Dilemma: IntellectualPropertyin FrenkelSJ, Korczynski M, ShireKA, Tam
theInformation Age.Washington, DC: Natl. M. 1999. On theFrontLine: Organization
Acad. Press ofWorkintheInformation Economy.Ithaca,
Davis J, HirschlT, StackM, eds. 1997. Cut- NY: CornellUniv.Press
332 DiMAGGIOET AL
FreyD. 1986. Recentresearchon selective net.Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Soc.
exposureto information. Adv. Exp. Soc. Press
Psychol.19:41-80 HeldritchCenterforWorkforce Development
Garnham N. 1990. Capitalismand Communi- (RutgersUniv.)and CenterforSurveyRe-
cation:GlobalCultureandtheEconomicsof searchand Analysis(Univ. Conn.). 2000.
Information. Newbury Park,CA: Sage NothingbutNet:AmericanWorkers and the
GibsonRK, HowardPEN, WardS. 2000. So- Information Economy.New Brunswick NJ:
cialcapital,Internet
connectedness andpolit- HeldritchCtr.
icalparticipation:A four-countrystudy. Pap. HillKA, HughesJE.1998.Cyberpolitics: Cit-
pres.2000 Int.Polit.Sci. Assoc.Meet.,Que- izenActivism intheAgeoftheInternet. Lan-
bece,Canada ham,MD: Rowman& Littlefield
GuillenM, Suarez S. 2001. Developingthe Hirsch PM. 1978. Televisionas a national
Internet:entrepreneurship andpublicpolicy medium:Its culturaland politicalrole in
in Ireland,Singapore,Argentina and Spain. Americansociety.In Handbookof Urban
Telecommun. Policy25 Life,ed.DavidStreet, pp.389-427.SanFran-
GoldhaberMH. 1997.The attention economy cisco:Jossey-Bass
andtheNet.FirstMonday Hoffman DL, NovakTP, SchlosserA. 2000.
HabermasJ.1981.TheTheoryofCommunica- The evolutionof the Digital Divide: How
tiveAction,Vol. 1.Reasonand theRational- gapsinInternet accessmayimpactelectronic
izationofSociety.Boston:Beacon commerce. J.Computer-Mediated Commun.
HabermasJ.1989.TheStructural Transforma- 5 March.
tionof thePublic Sphere.CambridgeMA: HowardPEN, RainieL, JonesS. 2001. Days
MIT Press andnights ontheInternet: theimpactofa dif-
HamptonK, WellmanB. 2000. Examining fusingtechnology. SpecialissueofAm.Be-
community inthedigitalneighborhood: early hav.Sci. ed. B Wellman, C Haythornthwaite.
resultsfromCanada'swiredsuburb.In Dig- Forthcoming
ital Cities: Experiences,Technologiesand Intelli-Quest.1999. Intelliqueststudyshows
FuturePerspectives, ed. T Ishida,K Isbister, 83 millionU.S. Internetusersand56 million
pp.475-92.Heidelberg, Germany: Springer- online shoppers.Press release, April 19.
Verlag http://www.intelliquest.com/press/release78.
HargittaiE. 1996.Holes in theNet: TheInter- asp
netand International Stratification.Senior ITU (International Telecommunications Uni-
Honors Thesis. SmithCollege. (http://cs. on) 1997. Challengesto theNetwork:Tele-
smith.edu/-hargitta/Thesis) comsand theInternet. Geneva:ITU Press
HargittaiE. 1999. WeavingtheWestern Web: ITU. 1998.WorldTelecommunication Develop-
Explainingdifference in Internetconnec- mentReport.Geneva:ITU Press
tivityamongOECD countries. Telecommun. ITU. 1999.ChallengestotheNetwork: Internet
Policy23:701-18 forDevelopment 1999. Geneva:ITU Press
HargittaiE. 2000a. Radio's lessonsfortheIn- IntronaL, NissenbaumH. 2000. Shapingthe
ternet.Commun. ACM 43:50-57 Web:Whythepoliticsofsearchenginesmat-
HargittaiE. 2000b. Open portalsor closed ters.Info.Soc. 16
gates? Channelingcontenton the World JacksonM. 1997. Assessingthecommunica-
WideWeb.Poetics.27:233-53 tion structure of the WorldWide Web. J.
Harrison B. 1994.Lean andMean: TheChang- Computer-MediatedCommun. 3. http:
ingLandscapeofCorporate PowerintheAge //www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issuel/jackson.
ofFlexibility.New York:Basic html
HaubenM, HaubenR. 1997.Netizens:On the JohnsonTJ, Kaye BK. 1998. A vehiclefor
Historyand ImpactofUsenetand theInter- engagement or a havenforthedisaffected?
Internetuse, politicalalienationand voter Wide Web: an exploratory analysisof the

In EngagingthePublic: How
participation, intellectualstructureof Cyberspace.Ray R.
Government and theMedia Can Reinvigo- Larson.In ASIS '96 Proceedingsofthe59th
rateAmerican Democracy,ed. TJJohnson, ASIS Annu.Mtg.,ed. S Hardin.Baltimore,
CE Hays,SP Hays.New York:Rowman& MD, Oct 21-24, 1996. Medford,NJ:Info.
Littlefield Today. http://sherlock.berkeley.edu/asis96/
KatzJE,AspdenP. 1997.Motives,hurdlesand asis96.html
dropouts. Commun. ACM 40:97-102 LentzB, Straubhaar J, LaPastinaA, Main S,
KatzJE, Rice R, AspdenP. 2001. The Inter- TaylorJ.2000. Structuring access: therole
net,1995-2000:Access, civic involvement ofpublicaccess centersin the "DigitalDi-
and social interaction.Special issue ofAm. vide."Pap. pres.Annu.Meet.Int.Commun.
Behav. Sci. ed. B Wellman,C Haythorn- Assoc.,Acapulco,June.
Waite. Lessig L. 1999. Code and OtherLaws ofCy-
Kavanaugh AL, Patterson SJ.2001.Theimpact berspace.New York:Basic
of community computer networks on social LinN. 2001.Social Capital:A Theory ofSocial
capitalandcommunity. involvement. Special Structure andAction.NewYork:Cambridge
issueofAm.Behav.Sci., ed. B Wellman,C Univ.Press
Haythornthwaite. Forthcoming MachiupF. 1962. TheProduction and Distri-
Koku E, Nazer N, WellmanB. 2001. Inter- butionof Knowledgein the UnitedStates.
nationalscholarly networks. Am.Behav.Sci. Princeton, NJ:Princeton Univ.Press
Forthcoming. MargolisM, ResnickD. 1999. Tamingthe
KolkoBE, NakamuraL, RodmanGB. 2000. Cyber-Revolution: How Moneyand Politics
Race inCyberspace.New York:Routledge DomsticatetheWeb.ThousandOaks,Calif:
KollockP. 1999.Theproduction oftrust inon- Sage
line markets.Adv.GroupProcesses16:99- McChesneyRW. 1996. The Internet and U.S.
123 communication policy-making in historical
Kornhauser W. 1968.Mass society.In TheEn- andcriticalperspective. J.Commun. 46:98-
cyclopediaof the Social Sciences,ed. D. 124
Sills.New York:FreePress/Macmillan McGuireP, Granovetter M. 1998.Businessand
KrautR, ScherlisW, Mukhopadhyay T, Man- bias inpublicpolicyformation: theNational
ningJ, KieslerS. 1996.The HomeNetfield CivicFederation and thesocial construction
trialof residentialInternet services.Com- ofelectricutility
regulation,1905-1907.Pap.
mun.ACM 39:55-63 pres.meet.Am. Sociol. Assoc., San Fran-
KrautR, Patterson M, Lundmark V, Kiesler cisco
S, Mukophadhyay T, ScherlisW. 1998.In- McLuhanM. 1967.Understanding Media. The
ternetparadox:A socialtechnology thatre- Extensions ofMan.NewYork:McGrawHill
ducessocialinvolvement andpsychological MillerD, SlaterD. 2000.TheInternet: AnEth-
well-being? Am.Psychol.53:1011-31 nographic Approach.New York:Berg
KrautR, KieslerS, BonevaB, Cummings J, MintzJ.2000. McCaincampenjoysa big Net
HelgesonV.2001.Internet paradoxrevisited. advantage.Washington Post.Feb 9
J.Soc. Issues.Forthcoming NagarajanA, BanderJL, WhiteCC. 2000.
KruegerAB. 1993. How computershave Trucking. In U.S.Industryin2000: Studiesin
changedthewage structure: evidencefrom Competitive Performance, ed. Boardon Sci.,
microdata.Q. J.Econ. 108:33-60 Technol.Econ. Policy,Natl.Res. Coun.,pp.
Lake D. 2000. The Web: growingby 2 mil- 123-53.Washington, DC: Natl.Acad. Press
lion pages a day. Indust. StandardFeb NTIA (NationalTelecommunications and In-
28 formationAdministration). 1995. Falling
LarsonR. 1996. Bibliometrics of the World Through theNet:A Survey ofthe'HaveNots'
334 DiMAGGIO ET AL
in Rural and UrbanAmerica.Washington, O'MahonyS, BarleySR. 1999.Do digitaltele-

DC: US Dep. Commerce communications affectworkand organiza-
NTIA. 1998.FallingThroughtheNetII: New tion?The stateofourknowledge. Res. Org.
Data ontheDigitalDivide.Washington, DC: Behav.21:125-61
US Dep. Commerce OECD. 1997. Webcasting and Convergence.
NTIA. 1999.FallingThrough theNetIII: Defin- PolicyImplications.Paris: OECD. (http://
ingtheDigitalDivide.Washington, DC: US www.oecd.org/dsti/sti/it/cm/prod/e-97-221
Dep. Commerce htm)
NTIA. 2000. Fallingthrough theNet: Toward Orlikowski WJ,IaconoCS. 2000. The truth is
DigitalInclusion.Washington, DC: US Dep. notout there:an enactedview of the 'dig-
Commerce ital economy.'In Understanding theDigi-
Negroponte N. 1995.BeingDigital.NewYork: talEconomy:Data, Tools,andResearch,ed.
Knopf E Brynjolfsson,B Kahin,pp. 352-80. Cam-
Netcraft.2000. The NetcraftWebServerSur- bridge,MA: MIT Press
vey. Online documentavailable at http:// Owen BM. 1999. The InternetChallengeto
www.netcraft.com/survey/ (last accessed Television.
Cambridge: HarvardUniv.Press
Aug.25, 2000) PaccagnellaL. 1997.Getting theseatsofyour
NeumanWR. 1991.TheFutureoftheMassAu- pants dirty: strategiesfor ethnographic
dience.New York:Cambridge Univ.Press researchon virtualcommunities.J.Compu-
NeumanWR. 2000.Theimpactofthenewme- ter-Mediated Commun.http://www.ascusc.
dia:fragmentation, andpolitical
stratification org/jcmc/vol3/issuel/paccagnella.html
evolution.In MediatedPolitics:Communi- PaltridgeS, YpsilantiD. 1997. A brightout-
cationin theFutureofDemocracy,ed. WL look forcommunications. OECD Observers
Bennett,RM Entman. NewYork:Cambridge 205:19-22
Univ.Press Peterson RA, KernRM. 1996.Changinghigh-
NeumanWR, McKnightLW, SolomonRJ. browtaste:fromsnobto omnivore. Am.So-
1998.TheGordianKnot:PoliticalGridlock ciol.Rev.61:900-7
on the Information Highway.Cambridge: Pew CenterforthePeopleandthePress.1995.
MIT Press Technologyin the Americanhousehold.
NeumanWR, O'DonnellSR, SchneiderSM. Washington, DC http://www.people-press.
1996.The Web'snextwave:a fieldstudyof org/tech.htm
Internet andusepatterns.
diffusion Ms.,MIT Pew CenterforthePeopleandthePress.1998.
Media Lab. Internetnewstakesoff.http://www. people-
Nie NH, EbringL. 2000.Internet andSociety: press.org/med98rpt.htm.
A PreliminaryReport.Stanford, CA; Inst.for Pew CenterforthePeopleandthePress.1999.
Quant.Stud.Soc. The Internet newsaudiencegoes ordinary.
NorrisP. 2001.DigitalDivide? CivicEngage- January. Washington DC, Pew Res. Ctr.for
ment,Information PovertyandtheInternet in People& Press
Democratic Societies.NewYork:Cambridge Powell WW. 2001. The capitalistfirmin the
Univ.Press 21stcentury: emerging In The 21t
patterns.
NUA. 2000a. How manyonline?NUA Inter- CenturyFirm. ChangingEconomicOrga-
netSurveys.Onlinedocumentavailableat nizationin International
Perspective,ed. P.
http://www.nua.ie/surveys/how-many-online/ DiMaggio. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniv.
world.html Press
NUA. 2000b.February14. Portalsdrawlion's Preece J. 2000. On-line Communities:De-
shareof audiences.NUA InternetSurveys. signingUsabilityand Supporting Sociabil-
= VS&art-id
http:llwww.nua.ie/surveys/?f ity.New York:Wiley
= 905355592&rel = true Prettejohn M. 1996. The firstyear: August
1995-August1996. Netcraft.http://www.SchillerH. 1996.Information Inequality:The

net-craft.com/survey/yearl .html DeepeningSocial Crisis in America.New
PutnamRD. 2000. BowlingAlone. The Col- York:Routledge
lapse and RevivalofAmericanCommunity. SchneiderSM. 1996. Creatinga democratic
New York:Simon& Schuster publicspherethrough politicaldiscussion:a
Rao M, RashidI, Rizvi H, Subba R. 2000. case studyof abortionconversation on the
Onlinecontentin SouthAsia. SouthAsia Internet.
Soc. Sci. Computer Rev.14:373-93
NetworksOrganisation.Online document SchneiderSM. 2000a. Politicalportals and
http://www.sasianet.org/onlinecont.html last democracy: threats andpromises.May.nete-
accessedAugust26 lection.org/commentary/2000015. php3
RheingoldH. 1993. The VirtualCommunity: Schneider SM. 2000b. The dot-notcan-
Homesteadingon the ElectronicFrontier. didates. July.netelection.org/commentary/
Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley 2000023.php3
RobinsonJP,BarthK, KohutA. 1997.Personal SchudsonM. 1998. The Good Citizen:A His-
computers, massmedia,anduseoftime.Soc. toryofAmericanCivicLife.NewYork:Free
Sci. Computer Rev.15:65-82 Press
RobinsonJP, KestnbaumM. 1999. The per- Schumpeter JA. 1947. Capitalism,Socialism
sonalcomputer, andotherusesoffree
culture andDemocracy.New York:Harper& Row
time.Soc. Sci. Computer Rev.Summer: 209- ScottWR, RuefM, MendelP, CaronnaCA.
216 2000. InstitutionalChange and Organiza-
RobinsonJP, GodbeyG. 1999.TimeforLife. tions:Transformation ofa HealthcareField.
StateCollege,PA: PennStateUniv.Press. Chicago:Univ.ChicagoPress.
2nded. ShapiroAL. 1999. The ControlRevolution:
RobinsonJP,Kestnbaum M, Neustadtl A, Al- How theInternetis PuttingIndividualsin
varezA. 2000.IT,theInternet, and timedis- Chargeand ChangingtheWorldWeKnow.
placement.Pap. pres.Annu.Meet.Am.As- New York:Century Found.
soc.Pub.Opin.Res,Portland, OR,May2000 Shils E. 1963. The theoryof mass society.In
RochlinGI. 1997. Trappedin the Net: The Americanas a Mass Society,ed. P Olson,
Unanticipated Consequencesof Computer- pp. 30-50. Glencoe,IL: FreePress
ization.Princeton: Princeton Univ.Press SilverD. 2000. Marginsin the wires:look-
RogersEM. 1995. Diffusionof Innovations, ing for race, genderand sexualityin the
New York:FreePress.4thed. Blacksburg ElectronicVillage.InRace inCy-
RoperStarchWorldwideInc. 1998. America berspace,ed. BE Kolko,L Nakamura,GB
OnlineRoperStarchCyberstudy 1998. New Rodman.New York:Routledge
York Silverstein
C, Henzinger M, MaraisH, Moricz
SandvigC. 2000. The information apologue: M. 1998.Analysisof a very'largeAltaVista
playand Internet access in thechildren'sli- querylog.SRC Tech.Note1998-014.Oct26
brary.Pap.pres.Int.Commun.Assoc.Annu. SmithM, KollockP, eds. 1999. Communities
Meet.,Acapulco,Mexico.June1-5 inCyberspace.London:Routledge
SchementJ. 1996.BeyondUniversalService: SproullLS, KieslerSB. 1991. Connections:
Characteristics ofAmericanswithoutTele- New WaysofWorking in theNetworked Or-
phones,1980-1993.Commun.PolicyWork. ganization.Boston:MIT Press
Pap. No. 1. Washington, DC: BentonFound. StarrP. 1997. Smarttechnology, stuntedpol-
Schement J.1999.Ofgapsbywhichdemocracy icy:developing healthinformation networks.
we measure.Info.Impacts.Dec. HealthAffairs 15:91-105
SchillerHI. 1989.Culture, Inc.. TheCorporate Stoll C. 1995. Silicon Snake Oil: Second
Takeoverof Public Expression.New York: Thoughts on theInformation Highway.New
OxfordUniv.Press York:Doubleday
336 DiMAGGIOET AL
Stromer-GalleyJ.2000.Onlineinteraction and Take One on theJaw.InternetTrendsRe-

whycandidatesavoidit.J. Commun.50. In port 1999 Review. San Francisco:Alexa
press Res.
StroverS. 1999. Rural InternetConnectiv- Waxman J.2000b. Leading thePack. . . Internet
ity.Rural Policy Res. Inst. Rep. P99-13. TrendsReport1999 Review.San Francisco:
http://www.rupri.org/pubs/archive/reports/ AlexaRes.
P99-13/ WeberM. 1968 [1924].Economyand Society,
StroverS, StraubhaarJ.2000. E-Government ed. G Roth,C Wittich. New York:Bedmin-
Servicesand Computer and InternetUse in ster
Texas.A Reportfromthe Telecommunica- WeissR. 1970.Effects ofmassmediaofcom-
tions and InformationPolicy Institute. munication. InHandbookofSocial Psychol-
Austin,TX. http://www.utexas.edu/research/ ogy,ed. G Lindzey,E Aronson,5:77-195.
tipi/reports/dir-final2.htm Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.
TapscottD. 1999.Introduction.CreatingValue WellmanB. 2001. Physicalplace and cyber-
intheNetwork Economy, ed.D. Tapscott,
pp. place: Changingportalsand theriseof net-
vii-xxvi.Boston:HarvardBus. SchoolPress workedindividualism. Int.J.UrbanRegional
TodreasTM. 1999.ValueCreationandBrand- Res. Forthcoming
inginTelevision's
DigitalAge.Westport CT: WellmanB, SalaffJ, DimitrovaD, Garton
Quorum L, GuliaM, Haythornwaite C. 1996.Com-
TurkleS. 1995.Lifeon theScreen:Identity in puternetworks as socialnetworks:collabora-
theAgeoftheInternet. New York:Simon& tivework,telework, andvirtualcommunity.
Schuster Annu.Rev.Sociol.22:213-38
TurowJ. 1997.BreakingUp America:Adver- WellmanB, GuliaM. 1999.Netsurfers don't
tisersand theNew Media World.Chicago: ridealone:virtualcommunity as community.
Univ.ChicagoPress In Networks in theGlobal Village,ed. Barry
US Dep. Education.2000. Internet access in Wellman,pp. 331-67. Boulder,CO: West-
U.S. publicschoolsand classrooms:1994- view
1999.StatsinBrief.Nat.Ctr.Educ.Stat.Feb WilhelmA. 2000. Democracyin theDigital
UslanerE. 2001.TheInternetandsocialcapital. Age.New York:Routledge
Proc.ACM.Forthcoming WilsonEJ. 2000. ClosingtheDigitalDivide:
VanAlstyneM, Brynjolfsson E. 1997.Global An InitialReview.Briefingthe President.
villageor cyberbalkans.http://web.mit.edu/Washington, DC: InternetPolicyInst.May.
marshall/www/papers/CyberBalkans.pdf.http://www.intemet policy. org/briefing/
VandenBesselaarP, BeckersD. 1998.Demo- ErnestWilson0700.html
graphicsand sociographics of the "Digital ZookM. 2001.Old hierarchies ornewnetworks
City."In Community Computing and Sup- of centrality?The global geography of the
port SystemsSocial Interactionin Net- Internetcontent market.Am.Behav.Sci. 44:
workedCommunities, ed. T Ishida. Hei- Forthcoming
delberg:Springer.http://www.swi.psy.uva. ZuboffS. 1988. In theAge of theSmartMa-
nl/usr/beckers/publications/kyoto.htmlchine:TheFutureofWorkand Power.New
Waxman J. 2000a. The Old 80120 Rule York:Basic

Social Implications of The Internet

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Implications of The Internet

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Implications of the Internet

Author(s): Paul DiMaggio, Eszter Hargittai, W. Russell Neuman, John P. Robinson

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INTERNET

Key Words WorldWideWeb,communications,

By "Internet"we referto theelectronicnetworkof networks thatlinkspeople

Access to and use of themediumdiffused widelyand swiftly. The numberof

powerfulcollectiverepresentations (Alexander1988). Marxistsfocus upon

We addresseach of thesefivetopicsin turn,summarizing theresultsof re-

low-incomeelderlyand female-headed householdsbelow the povertylevel

individual-level inequalitytoinstitutionalarrangements, Strover(1999) compared

THE GLOBAL DIGITAL DIVIDE The number ofInternetusersgloballyskyrocketed

developedandless developednationsappearsnottohavelessenedas theInternet

INEQUALITY IN CONTENT PROVIDERS' ACCESS TO ATTENTION Sociologists should

Duringthelate 1990s,entrepreneurs developedcomprehensive and strongly

TIME DISPLACEMENT Muchofthedebateoversocialcapitalis aboutwhetherthe

usersmaysubstitute timeonlineforattention to functionally equivalentsocial

changesto increasesin experienceand competenceand,morespeculatively, to

COMMUNITY Wellman(2001) arguesthattheInternet has contributedto a shift

emailbeingan important avenueofcommunication. Thisstudyalso suggeststhat

interactionsin thecontextof offlineeveryday life(Hampton& Wellman2000).

SOCIALCAPITAL ManyscholarsbelievethattheInternet thecreation

It has also been arguedthattheInternet buildssocial capitalby enhancing

AN INFORMED PUBLIC Empiricalresearch on masspoliticalknowledge inindus-

AN ENGAGED PUBLIC The economicandpsychological dynamicsofWeb-based

POLITICAL POLARIZATION Perhapsthemostcentral questionforsociologicalanal-

Can theWebmakea realdifference? It is clearthattheInternet significantly

THE POLITICS OF THE INTERNET A finalnote:Itmaybe thatthebattleforcontrol

LIMITS ON INTERNET IMPACT Littleresearchbearsdirectly on theseclaims,and

FIRM STRUCTURE EFFECTS Thereis littleevidencethattheInternet is reshaping

INDUSTRY SPECIFIC EFFECTS Studiesof specificindustries indicatethatdigital

committed. The area is ripeforbothorganizational case studiesthatfocuson

relativepowerofgatekeepers andartists, andthenatureofcompetitive strategies.

content shapepatterns ofuse,becausesuchresearchholdsthekeytoanticipating

Lessig (1999) makesa valuabledistinction amongthreewaysthatstatesand

Sociologyhas beenslowtotakeadvantageoftheuniqueopportunity to studythe

BourdieuP. 1999. On Television.New York: tingEdge: Technology, Information Capi-

Internetuse, politicalalienationand voter Wide Web: an exploratory analysisof the

in Rural and UrbanAmerica.Washington, O'MahonyS, BarleySR. 1999.Do digitaltele-

1995-August1996. Netcraft.http://www.SchillerH. 1996.Information Inequality:The

Stromer-GalleyJ.2000.Onlineinteraction and Take One on theJaw.InternetTrendsRe-

You might also like