How should we think of the Internet

How should we think of the Internet from a developmental
perspective? One approach is the effects model popular in TV
research (e.g., Zillmann & Bryant, 2002). That model has led to
central questions such as “What is the effect of TV violence on
aggressive behavior?” This model somewhat fits one of the articles
in the special section, since it in fact demonstrates the effect of
Internet use on the reading achievement of low-income children
(Jackson et al.). However, the effects model is based on viewers
rather than actors. In contrast, the interactivity of the Internet and
the activity of its users render the viewer role less important, thus
reducing the generality of the effects model for Internet research.
Indeed, the effects model fits none of the other five articles in the
special section Thus, it is clear that our theoretical perspectives
must go beyond the effects model that characterizes most of the
research on the role of TV in child and adolescent development.
The Uses and Gratification model from communication studies
moves us theoretically at least one step further in the right theoretical
direction (Borzekowski et al., this issue). In this case the
model asks, “What are the uses to which the Internet is put and
what do children and adolescents get from it?” Indeed, one of our
selection criteria was to include articles that would sample the
most important uses and the variety of gratifications to which
young people put the Internet.
For adolescents, communication is the most important use of the
Internet (e.g., Gross, 2004), and communication is well represented
in this section. Subrahmanyam et al. analyze teen chat,
while Cassell et al. and Whitlock et al. analyze specialized types of
bulletin boards. Moving from use to gratification (a communications
studies term for what psychologists would call motives or
needs), we see that the gratifications from these communication
media range from global leadership experience (Cassell et al.) to
identity and sexuality (Subrahmanyam et al.) to self-injury and
self-concept (Whitlock et al.). Each of these gratifications is especially
prominent in adolescent development, whether it is considered
pathological (e.g., self-injury) or healthy (e.g., identity
construction, sexuality dynamics, or leadership development). Another
potential gratification or need fulfillment that flows from the
Internet is health information and advice, as exemplified in the
article by Borzekowski et al. on the use of the Internet for information
on general health and sexual health by adolescents in
Accra.
However, on a theoretical level, we must expand beyond both
“effects” and “uses and gratifications” to comprehend the developmental
“constructions” by younger users of the Internet. Specifically,
this expansion of developmental constructions must take
place in four new directions.
First, we must see the Internet as a new social environment in
which universal adolescent issues such as identity, sexuality, and a
sense of self-worth are played out in a virtual world in ways that
are both new and old (Subrahmanyam et al.; Whitlock et al.).
However, as a social environment, it is important not to see the
Internet as an external environment that is doing something or
other to the adolescent (the effects model). In the popular communication
functions of the Internet such as e-mail, instant messaging,
blogs, chat, and bulletin boards, adolescents are basically
co-constructing their own environments (notwithstanding the minority
of older-than-adolescents who may participate; see Subrahmanyam
et al. and Whitlock et al.). Hence, cultural theories, such
as those from linguistic anthropology or conversational analysis
that emphasize co-construction become very relevant (Duranti,
1997).
The studies that utilize chat or bulletin boards as their virtual
research site offer a rare glimpse into adolescent peer interaction
and adolescent peer culture in this particular historical period
(Subrahmanyam et al.; Whitlock et al.). Indeed, we can think of the
Internet as providing researchers with a window into the secret
world of adolescent peer culture, even as it offers young people a
new screen for the projection of adolescent developmental issues.
The Internet is also unique as a social environment in that it
offers an expanded and potentially globalized social milieu. Networks
can be small and intimate, as in instant messaging—just a
new way of communicating (perhaps more frequently and faster)
with familiar others (Gross, 2004). They can also be very large—
either national or global. Large national networks are found in the
chat rooms and bulletin boards studied by Subrahmanyam et al.
and Whitlock et al., respectively. A global network for adolescents
has been created by Cassell et al., which then takes the development
of leadership to an international scale, a scale that would
hitherto have been virtually (pun intended!) impossible.
Another important aspect of the Internet as a global communication
tool is its popularity among adolescents in Accra, Ghana, as
a source of health information. Here Third World adolescents,
even (and especially) school dropouts, are using the Internet to
seek information on sexual and other aspects of health information
to which they would probably not have access in their own local
environment.
Second, we must see the Internet as a new cultural tool (Vygotsky,
1935/1978) or, better, as a cultural tool kit. The Internet is
cultural because it is shared, norms are developed, and these
norms (e.g., communication norms, Greenfield & Subrahmanyam,
2003) are transmitted to new generations of users, even as the new
users, greater access, and technological innovation create new
392 GREENFIELD AND YAN
norms. The Internet is a tool kit because it is an infinite series of
applications, each with its own use.
Focusing in this special section on communication technologies,
we see that, like any other technology, each application can be
used for good and for ill. For example, Whitlock and colleagues
document that, on the one hand, self-injury bulletin boards are
used to transmit and encourage means of harming oneself, unquestionably
pathological behaviors; and, on the other, they are used
(albeit in a more minor way) to help self-injurers stop the practice.
We also have the example of Internet health tools—probably an
amalgamation of bulletin boards (Suzuki & Calzo, 2004) and
informational Web sites—that play a unique role in providing
health information in the Third World (Borzekowski et al.).
Just as we cannot ask whether a knife is inherently good or bad,
we cannot ask whether the Internet is good or bad; we can simply
document how it is used. Because tools are culturally constituted
(i.e., they are normative objects), this approach goes beyond the
uses and gratifications framework, with its emphasis on individual
functions and needs.
Third, we must see the Internet as a new object of cognition,
neither a concrete artifact nor a visible social partner, but a gigantic
virtual complex network of networks. As such, its interpretation
becomes a locus for manifesting cognitive development, as Yan
shows. In contrast to the extensive developmental literature that
has documented when, how, and why children come to understand
natural, social, and mental concepts (e.g., Carey, 1985; Gopnik,
Meltzoff, & Kuhl, 1999; Keil, 1989; Wellman & Gelman, 1998),
research into children’s understanding of complex artifacts such as
the Internet is scarce. The Internet is a hybrid of artifactual (e.g.,
computer screens and keyboards), social (e.g., communications
with people), and mental-like systems (e.g., invisible virtuality).
To study their understanding of the Internet challenges the boundaries
between the traditional categories of cognitive development,
social– cognitive development, and social development.
Contrasting with TV as an artifact system with enormous social
complexity and with the personal computer as an artifact system
with enormous technical complexity, the Internet has both enormous
technical and social complexity. As an artifact system with
enormous technical complexity, the Internet is a gigantic but
almost invisible universe that includes thousands of networks,
millions of computers, and billions of users across the world, as
well as multilayer communication protocols, various physical connection
devices, and numerous application programs. As an artifact
system with enormous social complexity, the Internet has not
only had pervasive positive impacts on modern society, but has
also caused various societal concerns about privacy, security,
pornography, Internet crime, virtual community, and intellectual
property rights. This unique combination of technical and social
complexity makes children’s understanding of the Internet both
challenging and important to developmental researchers.
Fourth, we must see the Internet as a source of new methods for
developmental research, as well as a new research environment
that requires the development of new methodologies. As a source
of new methods, applications for public communication, represented
in this special section by chat rooms (Subrahmanyam et al.)
and bulletin boards (Whitlock et al.), provide a locus for observing
peer interaction that is usually hidden from the view of adults in
general and researchers in particular.
These new research sites require the development of new methodology.
To utilize new sites, such as chat rooms and bulletin
boards, with their unique virtual characteristics, we need to develop
new techniques for collecting and analyzing data. On a
concrete level, this involves learning how, technically, to take data
from the Internet. On a more conceptual and abstract level, this
involves methods for analyzing data on the cultural level—for
analyzing a communication environment where multiple interactions
in shifting and overlapping groups render the individual as a
unit of analysis useless for certain pu

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Bagaimana kita harus berpikir dari Internet dari perkembanganperspektif? Satu pendekatan adalah efek model populer di TVPenelitian (misalnya, Zillmann & Bryant, 2002). Model tersebut telah menyebabkanCentral pertanyaan seperti "apa yang ada efek TV kekerasan diperilaku agresif?" Model ini agak cocok salah satu artikeldi bagian khusus, karena itu sebenarnya menunjukkan efek dariMenggunakan internet pada pencapaian membaca berpenghasilan rendah anak(Jackson et al.). Namun, model efek didasarkan pada pemirsadaripada aktor. Sebaliknya, interaktivitas internet danaktivitas pengguna membuat peran penampil kurang penting, sehinggamengurangi keumuman model efek untuk riset Internet.Memang, model efek cocok tak satu pun dari artikel lima lainnya diBagian khusus dengan demikian, itu adalah jelas bahwa perspektif teori kamiharus melampaui model efek yang mencirikan sebagian besarpenelitian peran TV dalam perkembangan anak dan remaja.Penggunaan dan kepuasan model dari ilmu komunikasimenggerakkan kita secara teoritis setidaknya satu langkah lebih jauh di kanan teoritisArah (Borzekowski et al., masalah ini). Dalam hal inimodel bertanya, "apa yang menggunakan yang Internet adalah menempatkan danapa anak-anak dan remaja yang dapatkan dari itu?" Memang, salah satu dari kamikriteria seleksi adalah untuk menyertakan artikel yang akan sampelpenggunaan yang paling penting dan berbagai pemenuhan kepuasan yangyoung people put the Internet.For adolescents, communication is the most important use of theInternet (e.g., Gross, 2004), and communication is well representedin this section. Subrahmanyam et al. analyze teen chat,while Cassell et al. and Whitlock et al. analyze specialized types ofbulletin boards. Moving from use to gratification (a communicationsstudies term for what psychologists would call motives orneeds), we see that the gratifications from these communicationmedia range from global leadership experience (Cassell et al.) toidentity and sexuality (Subrahmanyam et al.) to self-injury andself-concept (Whitlock et al.). Each of these gratifications is especiallyprominent in adolescent development, whether it is consideredpathological (e.g., self-injury) or healthy (e.g., identityconstruction, sexuality dynamics, or leadership development). Anotherpotential gratification or need fulfillment that flows from theInternet is health information and advice, as exemplified in thearticle by Borzekowski et al. on the use of the Internet for informationon general health and sexual health by adolescents inAccra.However, on a theoretical level, we must expand beyond both“effects” and “uses and gratifications” to comprehend the developmental“constructions” by younger users of the Internet. Specifically,this expansion of developmental constructions must takeplace in four new directions.First, we must see the Internet as a new social environment inwhich universal adolescent issues such as identity, sexuality, and asense of self-worth are played out in a virtual world in ways thatare both new and old (Subrahmanyam et al.; Whitlock et al.).However, as a social environment, it is important not to see theInternet as an external environment that is doing something orother to the adolescent (the effects model). In the popular communicationfunctions of the Internet such as e-mail, instant messaging,blogs, chat, and bulletin boards, adolescents are basicallyco-constructing their own environments (notwithstanding the minorityof older-than-adolescents who may participate; see Subrahmanyamet al. and Whitlock et al.). Hence, cultural theories, suchas those from linguistic anthropology or conversational analysisthat emphasize co-construction become very relevant (Duranti,1997).The studies that utilize chat or bulletin boards as their virtualresearch site offer a rare glimpse into adolescent peer interactionand adolescent peer culture in this particular historical period(Subrahmanyam et al.; Whitlock et al.). Indeed, we can think of theInternet as providing researchers with a window into the secretworld of adolescent peer culture, even as it offers young people anew screen for the projection of adolescent developmental issues.The Internet is also unique as a social environment in that itoffers an expanded and potentially globalized social milieu. Networkscan be small and intimate, as in instant messaging—just anew way of communicating (perhaps more frequently and faster)with familiar others (Gross, 2004). They can also be very large—either national or global. Large national networks are found in thechat rooms and bulletin boards studied by Subrahmanyam et al.and Whitlock et al., respectively. A global network for adolescentshas been created by Cassell et al., which then takes the developmentof leadership to an international scale, a scale that wouldhitherto have been virtually (pun intended!) impossible.Another important aspect of the Internet as a global communicationtool is its popularity among adolescents in Accra, Ghana, asa source of health information. Here Third World adolescents,even (and especially) school dropouts, are using the Internet toseek information on sexual and other aspects of health informationto which they would probably not have access in their own localenvironment.Second, we must see the Internet as a new cultural tool (Vygotsky,1935/1978) or, better, as a cultural tool kit. The Internet iscultural because it is shared, norms are developed, and thesenorms (e.g., communication norms, Greenfield & Subrahmanyam,2003) are transmitted to new generations of users, even as the newusers, greater access, and technological innovation create new392 GREENFIELD AND YANnorms. The Internet is a tool kit because it is an infinite series ofapplications, each with its own use.Focusing in this special section on communication technologies,we see that, like any other technology, each application can beused for good and for ill. For example, Whitlock and colleaguesdocument that, on the one hand, self-injury bulletin boards areused to transmit and encourage means of harming oneself, unquestionablypathological behaviors; and, on the other, they are used(albeit in a more minor way) to help self-injurers stop the practice.We also have the example of Internet health tools—probably anamalgamation of bulletin boards (Suzuki & Calzo, 2004) andinformational Web sites—that play a unique role in providinghealth information in the Third World (Borzekowski et al.).Just as we cannot ask whether a knife is inherently good or bad,we cannot ask whether the Internet is good or bad; we can simplydocument how it is used. Because tools are culturally constituted(i.e., they are normative objects), this approach goes beyond theuses and gratifications framework, with its emphasis on individualfunctions and needs.Third, we must see the Internet as a new object of cognition,neither a concrete artifact nor a visible social partner, but a giganticvirtual complex network of networks. As such, its interpretationbecomes a locus for manifesting cognitive development, as Yanshows. In contrast to the extensive developmental literature that
has documented when, how, and why children come to understand
natural, social, and mental concepts (e.g., Carey, 1985; Gopnik,
Meltzoff, & Kuhl, 1999; Keil, 1989; Wellman & Gelman, 1998),
research into children’s understanding of complex artifacts such as
the Internet is scarce. The Internet is a hybrid of artifactual (e.g.,
computer screens and keyboards), social (e.g., communications
with people), and mental-like systems (e.g., invisible virtuality).
To study their understanding of the Internet challenges the boundaries
between the traditional categories of cognitive development,
social– cognitive development, and social development.
Contrasting with TV as an artifact system with enormous social
complexity and with the personal computer as an artifact system
with enormous technical complexity, the Internet has both enormous
technical and social complexity. As an artifact system with
enormous technical complexity, the Internet is a gigantic but
almost invisible universe that includes thousands of networks,
millions of computers, and billions of users across the world, as
well as multilayer communication protocols, various physical connection
devices, and numerous application programs. As an artifact
system with enormous social complexity, the Internet has not
only had pervasive positive impacts on modern society, but has
also caused various societal concerns about privacy, security,
pornography, Internet crime, virtual community, and intellectual
property rights. This unique combination of technical and social
complexity makes children’s understanding of the Internet both
challenging and important to developmental researchers.
Fourth, we must see the Internet as a source of new methods for
developmental research, as well as a new research environment
that requires the development of new methodologies. As a source
of new methods, applications for public communication, represented
in this special section by chat rooms (Subrahmanyam et al.)
and bulletin boards (Whitlock et al.), provide a locus for observing
peer interaction that is usually hidden from the view of adults in
general and researchers in particular.
These new research sites require the development of new methodology.
To utilize new sites, such as chat rooms and bulletin
boards, with their unique virtual characteristics, we need to develop
new techniques for collecting and analyzing data. On a
concrete level, this involves learning how, technically, to take data
from the Internet. On a more conceptual and abstract level, this
involves methods for analyzing data on the cultural level—for
analyzing a communication environment where multiple interactions
in shifting and overlapping groups render the individual as a
unit of analysis useless for certain pu