Trends, similarities, and differences in the usage of teen and senior public online newsgroups

ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 403-422

  Zaphiris, Panayiotis ^a   Sarwar, Rifaht ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Aging; Human computer interaction; Online communities; Social network analysis

Indexed keywords

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SOCIAL ASPECTS; STATISTICAL METHODS;

AGING; ONLINE COMMUNITIES; SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS;

ONLINE SYSTEMS;

EID: 33845445947     PISSN: 10730516     EISSN: 15577325     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/1183456.1183461     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. BAKARDJIEVA, M. AND SMITH, R. 2001. The internet in everyday life: Computer networking from the standpoint of the domestic user. New Media and Society 3, 67-83.
2. CUMMINGS, J. N., BUTLER, B., AND KRAUT, R. 2002. The quality of online social relationships. Comm. ACM 45, 103-108.
3. CZAJA, S. J., GUERRIER, J. H., NAIR, S. N., AND LAUDAUER, T. K. 1993. Computer communication as an aid to independence to older adults. Behav. Info. Tech. 12, 197-207.
4. EILERS, M. L. 1989. Older adults and computer education: Not to have the world a closed door. Int. J. Tech. Aging 2, 56-76.
5. FALLOWS, D. 2004. The Internet and Daily Life: Many Americans use the internet in every day activities, but traditional offline habits still dominate. Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC.
6. Fox, S. 2004. Older Americans and the Internet. Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC.
7. GARTON, L., HAYTHORNTHWAITE, C., AND WELLMAN, B. 1997. Studying on-line social networks. In Doing Internet Research, S. J. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 75-106.
8. GREENE, S. L., GOMEZ, L. M., AND DEVLIN, S. J. 1986. A cognitive analysis of database query production. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of Human Factors Society, HFES, Santa Moinca, CA, 9-13.
9. HANNEMAN, R. A. 2005. Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside. Retrieved October 17, 2005 from http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/.
10. HILTZ, S. R. 1982. The impact of a computerized conferencing system on productivity of scientific research communities. Behaviour and Information Technology 1, 185-195.
11. HILTZ, S. R. AND TUROFF, M. 1978. The network nation: Human communication via computers. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
12. HORRIGAN, J. B., RAINIE, L., AND Fox, S. 2005. Online communities: Networks that nurture longdistance relationships and local ties. Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC.
13. KNOKE, D. AND KUKLINSKI, J. H. 1982. Network analysis. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills and London.
14. KRAUT, R., PATTERSON, M., LUNDMARK, V., KIESLER, S., MUKHOPADHYAY, T., AND SCHERLIS., W. 1998. Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well being? Amer. Psych. 53, 1017-1031.
15. KREBS, V. 2004. An introduction to social network analysis. Retrieved November 9, 2004 from http://www.orgnet.com/sna.html.
16. LENHART, A., MADDEN, M., AND HITLIN, P. 2005. Teens and technology: youth are leading the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC.
17. LAGHOS, A. AND ZAPHIRIS, P. 2005. Frameworks for analyzing computer-mediated communication in e-Learning. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Las Vegas, NV.
18. OLANIRAN, B. A. 1996. A model of group satisfaction in computer-mediated communication and face-to-face meetings. Behau. Info. Tech. 15, 24-36.
19. MADDEN, M. AND RAINIE, L. 2003. Pew Internet & American Life Project Surveys. Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC.
20. PARKS, M. R. AND ROBERTS, L. D. 1998. Making MOOsic: The development of personal relationships online and comparison to their offline counterparts. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 15, 517-537.
21. PHEECE, J. 1998. Empathic communities: Reaching out across the web. Interactions 5, 42-43.
22. PREECE, J. 2000. Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UK
23. PREECE, J. 2001. Sociability and usability in online communities: Determining and measuring success. Behav. Info. Tech. 20, 347-356.
24. RHEINGOLD, H. 1994. A slice of life in my virtual community. Global networks: Computers and international communication. L. M. Harrison, Ed, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 57-80.
25. RICE, R. E., GRANT, A. E., SCHMITZ, J., AND TOROBIN, J. 1990. Individual and network influences on the adoption and perceived outcomes of electronic messaging. Social Networks 12, 17-55.
26. RICE, R. 1994. Network analysis and computer mediated communication systems. In Advances in social network analysis: Research in the social and behavioral sciences, S. Wasserman and J. Galaskiewicz, Eds, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 167-203.
27. SCOTT, J. 2000. Social Network Analysis, A Handbook. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
28. SPROULL, L. AND KIESLER, S. 1991. Computers, networks and work. Readings in human computer interaction; towards the year 2000. R. M. Baecker, J. Grudin, W. A. S. Buxton and S. Greenberg, Eds, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 755-761.
29. TAHA, L. H. AND CALDWELL, B. S. 1993. Social isolation and integration in electronic environments. Behav. Info. Tech. 12, 276-283.
30. WELLMAN, B. 1997. An electronic group is virtually a social network. Culture of the Internet. S. Kiesler, Eds, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillside, NJ, 179-205.
31. WELLMAN, B. 1999. Living networked in a wired world. IEEE Intell. Syst. 14, 15-20.
32. WELLMAN, B. 2001. Networks as social networks. Comput. Sci. 293, 2031-2034.
33. WELLMAN, B. 2002. Designing the internet for a networked society. Commun. ACM 45, 91-96.
34. ZAPHIRIS, P., ZACHARIA, G., AND RAJASEKARAN, M. 2003. Distributed constructionism through participatory design. In E-education Applications: Human Factors and Innovative Approaches, C. Ghaoui, Ed., Idea Group Publishing, London, UK.