psychology comparison
The world, today, is exposed to a plethora of information, substantiated or not. Since newspapers and other secondary source material is responsible for relaying information to much of the population it is important to understand and realize the limitations of the medium. Their need to appeal to the general population and their wide dispersal would make them more likely to incorporate entertainment value versus objectively reported facts. Therefore it is imperative to question and compare them with the primary sources they report on. A fairly recent study was done on the effects of Internet use. The researchers report was published as was a secondary article on the findings. By comparing these two the limitations of the secondary source can be exposed and used as an example for other such circumstances. The secondary-source article comes from the August 30, 1998 edition of the New York Times. Written by Amy Harmon, the report is titled ÒResearchers Find Sad Lonely World in Cyberspace.Ó The article goes on to explain that researchers at Carnegie Mellon University completed a study (later identified as the ÒHomenetÓ study) that examines the social and psychological effects of Internet use in the ho
The scientific journal article on which Harmon based her report was published September 1998 in American Psychologist. The article is titled ÒInternet Paradox: A Social Technology That Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-Being?Ó The article begins with an abstract. They examined how the Internet effects Òsocial involvement and psychological well-being.Ó What the study found is that despite the Internet's focus on communication; Ògreater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participants communication with family members in the household, declines in the size of their social circle, and increases in their depression and loneliness.Ó Overall the American Psychologist article goes into far more detail than the report found in the New York Times. The research article is about eighteen pages in length while the Times article is only about five. Furthermore the information in the researchersÕ report is conveyed in a much more scientific manner. In the analysis of the results, the researchers provide detailed descriptions of the statistics employing charts and graphs to illustrate the data and referring to them throughout the analytical portion of the report. Possibly due to limitations on length, the Times article only briefly describes the statistics. However, Harmon does explain how participantÕs use of the Internet was recorded. She also lists a few of the questions asked to determine psychological health that the participants were given at the beginning and end of the study. She, furthermore, describes the methods used for measuring loneliness and depression actually giving a few of the statistical figures the study produced. The researchers next include a section on the current debate of the Internet. They discuss the uses of the Internet describing social and asocial functions. They then go on to compare it with television and its entertainment value. Issues of time-displacement and physical inactivity related with television watching is also compared with possible effects of the Internet. They do grant that the Internet is inherently more social than television but emphasize that the relationships created on-line are not the same as traditional relationships. They cite other research in this field that has found positive Internet attributes but claim that this research is Òpotentially inaccurateÓ. Despite the lack of details on the data the Times article does reveal that there may be some limitations to the findings. These include whether or not the findings can be applied to the general population and the possibility that unmeasured factors effected the outcome. However, on these issues, Harmon quotes other scientist not associated with the research team who validate the findings. Furthermore she emphasizes the causality much more than the limitations of such a theory. The primary article, too, reports these same limitations. It does, though, once again go into more detail. It explains why the findings canÕt be generalized because of such reasons as the sample not being statistically representative. They go on to state that; Òthe major threat . . . would arise if some unmeasured factor varying over time within individuals were to simultan
Some common words found in the essay are:
York Times, Psychological Well-BeingÓ, Mellon University, Wide Web, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, , Internet Furthermore, Robert Kraut, American Psychology, Pittsburgh Half, times article, social involvement, psychological well-beingÓ, involvement psychological, social involvement psychological, involvement psychological well-beingÓ, york times, psychological well-being, effects internet, internet associated, participants study, times article hand, research article, data times article, local distant social,
Approximate Word count = 2177
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
