Internet use and college adjustment: The moderating role of gender

Computers in Human Behavior

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 591-606

  Lanthier, Richard P ^a   Windham, R Craig ^a  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

College education; Gender; Internet

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; COLLEGE BUILDINGS; EDUCATION; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; ONLINE CONFERENCING; TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS; USER INTERFACES;

ACADEMIC PURPOSES; COLLEGE EDUCATION; GENDER; PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING;

INTERNET;

EID: 3042594736     PISSN: 07475632     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2003.11.003     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Arnett J. Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist. 55:2000;469-480.
2. Baker R.W., Siryk B. Manual for the student adaptation to college questionnaire. 1989;Western Psychological Services, Los Angeles, CA.
3. Berman, A. (2001, November 12). College students hooked on campus broadband. USA Today. Retrieved July 1, 2002. Available: http://www.usatoday. com/life/cyber/bonus/1101/bonus-college.htm.
4. Beyers W., Goossens L. Concurrent and predictive validity of the student adaptation to college questionnaire in a sample of European freshman students. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 62:2002;527-538.
5. Boneva B., Kraut R., Frohlich D. Using e-mail for personal relationships: The difference gender makes. American Behavioral Scientist. 45:2001;530-549.
6. Brooks J., DuBois D. Individual and environmental predictors of adjustment during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development. 36:1995;347-360.
7. Cohen J., Cohen P., West S.G., Aiken L.S. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 3rd ed. 2003;Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
8. College students spend $200 billion per year. (2002, July 29). Retrieved August 5, 2002. Available: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/ allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=480.
9. Cummings J., Butler B., Kraut R. The quality of online social relationships. Communications of the ACM. 45:2002;103-108.
10. De Fruyt F., Mervielde I. Personality and interests as predictors of educational streaming and achievement. European Journal of Psychology. 10:1996;405-425.
11. Egger, O., & Rauterberg, M. (1996). Internet behavior and addiction. ETH Technical Report AP-01-96, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich. Retrieved June 20, 2002. Available: http://www.ipo.tue.nl/homepages/mrauterb/ publications/INTERNET96report.pdf.
12. Erikson E. Identity: Youth and crisis. 1968;Norton, New York.
13. Erikson E. Childhood and society. 2nd ed. 1963;Norton, New York.
14. GVU's 10th WWW user surveys. Retrieved August 2, 2002. Available: http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/user_surveys/survey-1998-10/.
15. Gross E.F., Juvonen J., Gable S.L. Internet use and well being in adolescence. Journal of Social Issues. 58:2002;75-90.
16. Hayes, D. (2001, August 20). Target: Animal house. Broadband Week. Retrieved August, 7. Available: http://www.broadbandweek.com/news/010820/print/ 010820_biz_coll.htm.
17. Horrigan J., Rainie L. The broadband difference: How online Americans' behavior changes with high-speed Internet connections at home. 2002;Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington, DC.
18. Jecusco, C. (2002, January). The college technology review 2001-2002. Retrieved July 25. Available: http://www.schooldata.com/datapoint74.html.
19. Kandell J.J. Internet addiction on campus: The vulnerability of college students. CyberPsychology and Behavior. 1:1998;11-17.
20. Keenan J. Students stuck in cyber web. Insight on the News. 12:1996;38.
21. Kraut R., Lundmark V., Patterson M., Kiesler S., Mukopadhyahy T., Sherlis W. Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well being? American Psychologist. 53:1998;1017-1031.
22. Kraut R., Kiesler S., Boneva B., Cummings J., Helgeson V., Crawford A. Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues. 58:2002;49-74.
23. Kubey R.W., Lavin M.J., Barrows J.R. Internet use and collegiate academic performance decrements: Early findings. Journal of Communication. 51:2001;366-382.
24. McKenna, K. Y. A. (1999). The computers that bind: Relationship formation on the Internet. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University.
25. McKenna K.Y.A., Bargh J.A. Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 4:2000;57-75.
26. Morahan-Martin J. Males, females and the Internet. Gackenbach J. Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal implications. 1998;169-197 Academic Press, San Diego.
27. Morahan-Martin J. Caught in the web: Research and criticism of Internet abuse with application to college students. Wolfe C.R. Learning and teaching on the world wide web. 2001;191-219 Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.
28. Morahan-Martin, J., & Schumacher, P. (1999, August). Loneliness and social uses of the Internet. Paper presented at the 107th Annual Convention of the American Psychology Association.
29. Morahan-Martin J., Schumacher P. Incidence and correlates of pathological Internet use among college students. Computers in Human Behavior. 16:2000;13-29.
30. Odell P., Koregen K., Schumacher P., Delucchi M. Internet use among female and male college students. Cyberpsychology & Behavior. 3:2000;855-862.
31. Ono H., Zavodny M. Gender and the Internet. Social Science Quarterly. 84:2003;111-121.
32. Parks M.R., Floyd K. Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication. 46:1996;80-95.
33. Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2002, September 15). The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today's technology. Retrieved September 17. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/ reports/.
34. Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2001, June 20). Teenage life online: The rise of the instant-message generation and the Internet's impact on friendships and family relationships. Retrieved August 1, 2002. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/.
35. Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2000, May 10). Tracking online life: How women use the Internet to cultivate relationships with family and friends. Retrieved August 2, 2002. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/ reports/.
36. Scherer K. College life on-line: Healthy and unhealthy Internet use. Journal of Colleget Student Development. 38:1997;655-665.
37. Schumacher P., Morahan-Martin J. Gender, Internet, and computer experiences. Computers and Human Behavior. 17:2001;95-110.
38. Sherman R., End C., Kraan E., Cole A., Campbell J., Birchmeier Z., Klausner J. The Internet gender gap among college students: Forgotten but not gone? Cyberpsychology & Behavior. 3:2000;885-894.
39. Turkel S. Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. 1995;Simon and Schuster, New York.
40. UCLA Higher Education Research Institute. (2000). An overview of the 2000 freshman norms. Retrieved August 27, 2002. Available: http://www.gseis.ucla. edu/heri/00_exec_summary.htm.
41. Valde G. Identity closure: A fifth identity status. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 157:1996;245-254.
42. von Eye A., Schuster C. Regression analysis for social sciences. 1998;Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
43. Waterman A. Identity development from adolescence to adulthood: An extension of theory and a review of research. Developmental Psychology. 18:1982;341-358.