C'est Chic - Critique

Caplan, S. (2005). A Social Skill Account of Problematic Internet Use. Journal of Communication 55, 4, 721-736. Scott Caplan’s study (2005) cogently argues that socially deficient individuals who prefer socializing via Computer Mediated Communication (CMCs) are adversely affecting their real-life (RL) lives. He draws on research done by him and others in the areas of social skill, self-presentation, cognitive behavior theory and problematic internet use to support his own study which measures social skill, preference of online internet use and the negative outcomes resultant of that use (Caplan, 2005, p. 721). Caplan (2005) suggests that socially deficient individuals who are exposed to CMCs soon develop a distinct preference for online social interactions (POSI) over existing face-to-face (FtF) relationships (p. 726). This leads directly to a compulsive use behavior, which deteriorates into problematic internet use (PIU), resulting in deleterious consequences to users in their “real life” (RL) lives (Caplan, 2005, p. 722). Turkle (1996) suggests “We are moving toward a culture of simulation in which people are increasingly comfortable with substituting representations of reality for the real” (p. 300). Prior to my studies in this course I held the belief that computers don’t always make our human lives better. For me, meaningful emotion filled interpersonal relationships, especially those of an intimate nature, can not possibly be realized by sitting in front of a computer screen. Sadly, it is not from a lack of trying. Baym (1998) describes the reality of the pursuit: “Social relationships thrive on-line and have since the beginning of interactive computing” (p.35) Accordingly, I will freely admit that human interaction in CMCs and Multiple User domains MUD’s is real communication, and that users have always gravitated to it, but I still struggle to understand the emotional and social makeup of users who describe their online social encounters as “better than” (i.e. more personally engaging and satisfying) than RL FtF relationships. Additionally, I had doubts about how someone who spends excessive amounts of time engaged in a “virtual place” could continue to function normally in their RL location to the extent necessary to support their “computer” habit. After all, someone has to pay the electric bill. According to Turkle (1996): “As more people spend time in these virtual spaces, some go so far as to challenge the idea of giving any priority to RL at all” (p.292). Bugeja (2007) also supports this finding: “The environment so captivates users that many forget their first live so as to spend time and money in their second ones” (p.3). Locating Caplan’s article which exposes a “Dark Side” to CMCs was, to some degree, a place where, in the context of this class, I could point my finger and say: “See, I told you so”. I found Caplan’s (2005) own discovery that there have been very few studies done by communication researchers on the relationship between online social interaction and PIU just as surprising as he did (p. 722). I would suggest to the class that it raises the question as to whether or not researchers themselves are more predisposed to study the more frequently written upon, and the more easily supported, positive uses of CMCs in social interaction. Bugeja admits “When it comes to technology, we in academe usually only see the positives” (p. 1). Perhaps, the road less traveled of pursuing what appears to be compulsive and/or addictive user behavior is an area for further study that has yet to find favor among the experts. I found Caplan’s article convincing and his research on the subject more than sufficient. He successfully garnered several empirical proofs to support his hypotheses, and did an effective job of layering in the research of others to support his own. I do believe that Caplan could have enhanced his article by drawing on other studies to further illuminate the negative outcomes portion of PIU. Caplan’s (2005) model predicted that POSI leads to PIU which results in negative outcomes, but then he stops short of fully describing what those negative outcomes (NO) were (p. 726). I believe a short description of the No’s would have bolstered his already convincing argument by quantifying just how negative a NO really was. Perhaps the scope of his study didn’t afford him the space to pursue a more in depth study, or maybe this shortcoming was due to the lack of other studies by communication researchers to draw upon to support his model. My original conviction that computers don’t enhance meaningful interpersonal relationships stands. It appears that I now have a little bite to back up my bark.


References

Baym, N. (2006). Interpersonal Life Online. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), The Handbook of New Media, Updated Student Edition, 335-54. London: Sage. Bugeja, M. (2007, September 14). Second thoughts about second life. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1-4. Retrieved September 11, 2007 from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i03/03c00101.htm. Caplan, S. (2005). A Social Skill Account of Problematic Internet Use. Journal of Communication 55, 4, 721-736. Turkle, S (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet, 287-302. New York: Simon & Schuster.