Question: What is the best way to protect your child without seeming like you don’t trust them? I have no problem allowing my child to use the internet with my oversight, but if I had a criminal complaint, who do I go to?
Monitoring only goes so far, as far as the adult’s responsibility stretches (Aviles, Anderson, & Davila, 2006). Although, a lot of kids have curiosity and adults slack in responsibly monitoring their children (Aviles et al., 2006). As Parents, people need to stress to their children the difference between trust and keeping them safe. In order to keep children safe, you must monitor (Matawie & White, 2000). I would suggest discrete monitoring. Check visited sites. Buy additional firewalls. When children are young, they should use the internet as a learning tool; not as a communication tool (Matawie et al., 2006). If your child wants a penpal, have them write.
If you have a predator or criminal complaint, report criminal activity to the local police. Many developed cities have detectives now that specialize in internet offensives, the most popular offense is child predators (Matawie et al, 2006).
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Question 3
Question: Can you give me some examples of what cues electronic communication is missing for adolescents? How is what’s missing important for their growth?
The major thing that lacks when children interface with communication over the internet is their absence of responding and identifying to different voice tone (Matawie & White, 2000). Using and implementing tone is an important verbal tool that adolescents develop and is crucial at that point in their life. Sarcasm, although despised by parents is developed in the adolescent stage (Matawie et al., 2000). Above all, one skill I learned from interacting face-to-face with all different kinds of people is “thinking on your feet”. Thinking on your feet comes from engaging all different race, colors, and creeds; and discussing pressing topics.
References:
Matawie, Kenan M., White, Fiona A., “Parental Morality and Family Process as Predicators of Adolescent Morality”. Journal of Child and Family Studies 13.2 (2000) 219-233.
The major thing that lacks when children interface with communication over the internet is their absence of responding and identifying to different voice tone (Matawie & White, 2000). Using and implementing tone is an important verbal tool that adolescents develop and is crucial at that point in their life. Sarcasm, although despised by parents is developed in the adolescent stage (Matawie et al., 2000). Above all, one skill I learned from interacting face-to-face with all different kinds of people is “thinking on your feet”. Thinking on your feet comes from engaging all different race, colors, and creeds; and discussing pressing topics.
References:
Matawie, Kenan M., White, Fiona A., “Parental Morality and Family Process as Predicators of Adolescent Morality”. Journal of Child and Family Studies 13.2 (2000) 219-233.
Question 2
Question: What are the implications in adolescent relationships in cyberspace? What is the affect it is going to have on the human interaction and society of the future generations?
“The obvious reason that adolescent relationships in cyberspace is a risk is one word: uncertainty” says, Matawie & White, 2000. Online controls, at this point in technology life, is unprepared to completely protect the worlds children from pedophiles. Until there are more strict controls uncertainty is our biggest criminal (Matawie, & White, 2000).
New digital media communication will affect future generations and already have in many ways. The most apparent way at this point are the surfacing interpersonal communication problems. Online media communication has hindered interpersonal skills (Greenfield, Subrahmanyam, & Tynes, 2004). The affects have been widespread; the predominant problem is the decreasing skills in spelling ability (Greenfield et al. p661). Additionally, Greenfield et al. (2004) goes on to say “we have also seen lower test scores recently in writing ability” (p657).
References:
Greenfield, Patricia M., Subrahmanyam, Kaveri, Tynes, Brandesha. “Constructing Sexuality and
Identity in an Online teen Chat Room”. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology
25.6 (2004) 651-666.
Matawie, Kenan M., White, Fiona A., “Parental Morality and Family Process as Predicators of Adolescent Morality”. Journal of Child and Family Studies 13.2 (2000) 219-233.
“The obvious reason that adolescent relationships in cyberspace is a risk is one word: uncertainty” says, Matawie & White, 2000. Online controls, at this point in technology life, is unprepared to completely protect the worlds children from pedophiles. Until there are more strict controls uncertainty is our biggest criminal (Matawie, & White, 2000).
New digital media communication will affect future generations and already have in many ways. The most apparent way at this point are the surfacing interpersonal communication problems. Online media communication has hindered interpersonal skills (Greenfield, Subrahmanyam, & Tynes, 2004). The affects have been widespread; the predominant problem is the decreasing skills in spelling ability (Greenfield et al. p661). Additionally, Greenfield et al. (2004) goes on to say “we have also seen lower test scores recently in writing ability” (p657).
References:
Greenfield, Patricia M., Subrahmanyam, Kaveri, Tynes, Brandesha. “Constructing Sexuality and
Identity in an Online teen Chat Room”. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology
25.6 (2004) 651-666.
Matawie, Kenan M., White, Fiona A., “Parental Morality and Family Process as Predicators of Adolescent Morality”. Journal of Child and Family Studies 13.2 (2000) 219-233.
Question 1
Question: What are the statistics of adolescent’s classroom success for children who socialize more on the internet versus children who interact face-to-face? What types of strategies should parents implement to encourage face-to-face socialization? Should schools have to take more initiative and make after school programs?
I have always been a true believer that the old-fashioned way of communicating for children was the most productive thing for their development. At the adolescent age level there is so many more socially developed skills that need to be groomed before it is even appropriate for children to have internet friends.
There was a statistic found in which adolescent students were tested on their classroom success based on their increase of socialization through outdoor activities. 77% of all adolescents that increased their outdoor social activities increased their classroom performance (Aviles, Anderson, & Davila, 2006). Aviles et al. (2006) explained “classroom performance is taking into account grades, participation and interaction with teachers and other children” (p 36). 19% of the tested children didn’t see any change to their increase of social interaction and only a small 4% of the children actually had a negative correlation to the increase of activity (Aviles et al., 2006). Aviles et al. (2006) goes on to explain, “Children who had a declining performance in school did so because of additional activity on their already active lifestyle” (p39).
Parents can do a lot for their child to encourage face-to-face strategies. The first strategy being, limit the amount of television and computer usage in the household. Children should only be allowed to watch an hour of television a day (Greenfield, Subrahmanyam, &Tynes, 2004). Another good idea is signing up your children for sports and activities they are interested in the community leagues. A main avenue in which children obtain new and fruitful friendships is through local sports and hobby leagues (Greenfield et al., 2004). Additionally, if your children have cousins close in age in your family be sure to allow them to interact. There obviously thousands strategies can be done to encourage you children to interact with others in a face-to-face situation. As parents, I highly suggest you take upon yourself to peel the child away from the computer and television.
Local schools should play a role in facilitating safe environments for children to interact in. Although, I must stress city funds and employees only go so far. Citizens of each school need to contribute money and more importantly time to ensure after-school program success. Children who participated in after-school programs reported being more satisfied with their amount of friends then before attending activities (Greenfield et al., 2004).
Children have a lot of social development issues to acquire before it is necessary to allow them to find friends on the internet. Children should learn how to properly engage and maintain friendships in a face-to-face atmosphere before using the internet. Later on in life I think this will help them socially more than you could ever imagine.
References:
Aviles, Ann M., Anderson, Tanya R., & Davila, Erica R. “Child and Adolescent Social-
Emotional Development within the Context of School.” Child and Adolescent Mental
Health 11.1 (2006) 32-39.
Greenfield, Patricia M., Subrahmanyam, Kaveri, Tynes, Brandesha. “Constructing Sexuality and
Identity in an Online teen Chat Room”. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology
25.6 (2004) 651-666.
I have always been a true believer that the old-fashioned way of communicating for children was the most productive thing for their development. At the adolescent age level there is so many more socially developed skills that need to be groomed before it is even appropriate for children to have internet friends.
There was a statistic found in which adolescent students were tested on their classroom success based on their increase of socialization through outdoor activities. 77% of all adolescents that increased their outdoor social activities increased their classroom performance (Aviles, Anderson, & Davila, 2006). Aviles et al. (2006) explained “classroom performance is taking into account grades, participation and interaction with teachers and other children” (p 36). 19% of the tested children didn’t see any change to their increase of social interaction and only a small 4% of the children actually had a negative correlation to the increase of activity (Aviles et al., 2006). Aviles et al. (2006) goes on to explain, “Children who had a declining performance in school did so because of additional activity on their already active lifestyle” (p39).
Parents can do a lot for their child to encourage face-to-face strategies. The first strategy being, limit the amount of television and computer usage in the household. Children should only be allowed to watch an hour of television a day (Greenfield, Subrahmanyam, &Tynes, 2004). Another good idea is signing up your children for sports and activities they are interested in the community leagues. A main avenue in which children obtain new and fruitful friendships is through local sports and hobby leagues (Greenfield et al., 2004). Additionally, if your children have cousins close in age in your family be sure to allow them to interact. There obviously thousands strategies can be done to encourage you children to interact with others in a face-to-face situation. As parents, I highly suggest you take upon yourself to peel the child away from the computer and television.
Local schools should play a role in facilitating safe environments for children to interact in. Although, I must stress city funds and employees only go so far. Citizens of each school need to contribute money and more importantly time to ensure after-school program success. Children who participated in after-school programs reported being more satisfied with their amount of friends then before attending activities (Greenfield et al., 2004).
Children have a lot of social development issues to acquire before it is necessary to allow them to find friends on the internet. Children should learn how to properly engage and maintain friendships in a face-to-face atmosphere before using the internet. Later on in life I think this will help them socially more than you could ever imagine.
References:
Aviles, Ann M., Anderson, Tanya R., & Davila, Erica R. “Child and Adolescent Social-
Emotional Development within the Context of School.” Child and Adolescent Mental
Health 11.1 (2006) 32-39.
Greenfield, Patricia M., Subrahmanyam, Kaveri, Tynes, Brandesha. “Constructing Sexuality and
Identity in an Online teen Chat Room”. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology
25.6 (2004) 651-666.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
How valuable are Adolescent 'Net Realationships
The Quality of Online Adolescent Friendships
Parents, grandparents, brothers, and sisters who feel guilty kicking your adolescent off the computer because there seems to be no real positive to online friendships, you are right. The guilt should be over. Children should be exchanging their time from behind a bright fluorescent computer monitor to underneath the bright warm sun with neighborhood friends. Adolescents claim that they have good friendships with people they talk to on the Internet. Well, they are simply wrong. Empirical evidence now shows that the friendships that youngsters try to formulate are not only dangerous but they don’t have any substance to them and don’t last long.
The biggest threat to any adolescent when trying to form friendships on the Internet, are predatory strangers. Some adolescents have been known to seek out stranger to form friendships; and should be a caution to parents. This fear may be justified: a recent U.S. survey has found that 39% of the adolescents interviewed communicated online with strangers (Peter, Valkenburg & Schouten, 2006). The simple fact is that Mayberry doesn’t exist anymore and our children are constantly at risk from people abusing the Internet. Valkenburg (2006) states young girls are most at risk, “Generally adolescent girls value interpersonal communication more than boys do and spend more time on than boys with online communication. Therefore, girls may also be more likely than boys to talk with strangers on the internet” (p.527). This problem of seeking out stranger is worse the younger out children are. As for age, we expect early adolescents to be more inclined than late adolescents to talk with strangers on the internet. The dramatic developmental transitions that take place in early adolescents, along with an occasional feeling of disorientation, make that period a critical time for experimenting with oneself, for example, by talking with strangers on the internet (Valkenburg et al., 2006). Children simply don’t grasp the pending danger that is in front of them every time they log on to the Internet. Valkenburg and company (2006) write, “Regarding adolescents’ frequency of the Internet communication, previous research has shown that adolescents who use the internet more frequently are more likely to form close online relationships. If you do hear your child speak of an online relationship her or she has built be very suspicious.
Online friendships have been studied and proved that they are far inferior to the ones your child has in the neighborhood or at school. Rubin, Bukowski & Parker (as cited in Mesch & Talmud, 2006) suggested, “Social interaction with peers provides a forum for learning and refining socioemotional skills needed for enduring relationships. Through interactions with peers, adolescents learn how to cooperate, to take different perspectives, and to satisfy growing needs for intimacy” (p.138). In a time of adolescent stage it is good that your child has a strong core of friends because they are the ones that are typically more accepting of what they want to do and intimate. Parents often get caught up in looking only toward the future that they get lost in asking the child what he wants to do in the present time. Mesch and Talmud (2006) agree as the cited, “adolescents friends are intimate and more accepting than parents, who are necessarily more orientated toward the future and more concerned with the potentially negative consequences of their child’s behavior” (p. 138). Online relationships aren’t and never will be as dynamic for children as face-to face relationships. Adolescents aren’t socially advanced to discover deep enough similarities with someone over the Internet. Electronic media has been weak in supporting social ties. “According to the “reduced social cues perspective,” computer-mediated communication (CMC) allows the exchange of fewer cues than face-to-face environments and therefore it is less appropriate for the support of emotional exchanges or the conveyance of complex information and a sense of social presence,” as quoted by Mesch and Talmud (p. 138).
Adolescents don’t have the social capacity to carry on a meaningful, intimate, and rewarding relationship over the Internet and it is dangerous and socially impossible if it is happening. Monitor an adolescent’s conversation in a chat room or another communication forum. It is plain to see that the quality of conversation is not such that occurs in face-to-face banter. Not only is the quality poor the subject often turns to inappropriate subjects. Bower as first witness to an adolescent conversation admits, “As conversation unfolds among adolescents on an internet message board, it rapidly becomes evident that it is not idle electronic chatter” (p. 27). Be cautious of what and where you allow your adolescent go on the Internet. No matter how much they argue they are their friends, how meaningful can those relationships really be?
VISIT THESE LINKS FOR MORE GREAT INFORMATION
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=13&hid=108&sid=745621a6-ad07-45a9-a8ed-7c73ee0dec4d%40sessionmgr108
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=16&hid=108&sid=745621a6-ad07-45a9-a8ed-7c73ee0dec4d%40sessionmgr108
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=19&hid=108&sid=745621a6-ad07-45a9-a8ed-7c73ee0dec4d%40sessionmgr108
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=22&hid=108&sid=745621a6-ad07-45a9-a8ed-7c73ee0dec4d%40sessionmgr108
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=23&hid=108&sid=745621a6-ad07-45a9-a8ed-7c73ee0dec4d%40sessionmgr108
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=24&hid=108&sid=745621a6-ad07-45a9-a8ed-7c73ee0dec4d%40sessionmgr108
References
Chiou, Wen-Bin. “Adolescents’ Sexual Self-Disclosure On The Internet: De individuation And
Impression Management.” Adolescence 41.163 (2006) 547-559. EBSCO. Arizona State
University, Tempe. 5 April 2007 <http://www.asu.edu>.
Bower, Bruce. “Growing up Online.” Science News 169.24 (2006) 27-31. EBSCO. Arizona
State University, Tempe. 5 April 2007 <http://www.asu.edu >.
Mesch, Gustavo, Talmud, Ilan. “The Quality of Online and Offline Relationships: The Role of
Multiplexity and Duration of Social Relationships.” The InformationSociety 22 (2006)
137-148. EBSCO. Arizona State University, Tempe. 5 April 2007 <http://www.asu.edu>.
Peter Jochen, Valkenburg Patti M, Schouten Alexander P. “Characteristics and Motives of
Adolescents Talking with Strangers on the Internet.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 9.5
(2006) 526-530. EBSCO. Arizona State University, Tempe. 5 April 2007
<http://www.asu.edu>.
Peter, Jochen, Valkenburg, Patti M. “Individual Differences in Perceptions of Internet
Communication.” European Journal of Communication 21.213 (2006) 213-226. EBSCO.
Arizona State University, Tempe. 5 April 2007 <http://www.asu.edu>.
Parents, grandparents, brothers, and sisters who feel guilty kicking your adolescent off the computer because there seems to be no real positive to online friendships, you are right. The guilt should be over. Children should be exchanging their time from behind a bright fluorescent computer monitor to underneath the bright warm sun with neighborhood friends. Adolescents claim that they have good friendships with people they talk to on the Internet. Well, they are simply wrong. Empirical evidence now shows that the friendships that youngsters try to formulate are not only dangerous but they don’t have any substance to them and don’t last long.
The biggest threat to any adolescent when trying to form friendships on the Internet, are predatory strangers. Some adolescents have been known to seek out stranger to form friendships; and should be a caution to parents. This fear may be justified: a recent U.S. survey has found that 39% of the adolescents interviewed communicated online with strangers (Peter, Valkenburg & Schouten, 2006). The simple fact is that Mayberry doesn’t exist anymore and our children are constantly at risk from people abusing the Internet. Valkenburg (2006) states young girls are most at risk, “Generally adolescent girls value interpersonal communication more than boys do and spend more time on than boys with online communication. Therefore, girls may also be more likely than boys to talk with strangers on the internet” (p.527). This problem of seeking out stranger is worse the younger out children are. As for age, we expect early adolescents to be more inclined than late adolescents to talk with strangers on the internet. The dramatic developmental transitions that take place in early adolescents, along with an occasional feeling of disorientation, make that period a critical time for experimenting with oneself, for example, by talking with strangers on the internet (Valkenburg et al., 2006). Children simply don’t grasp the pending danger that is in front of them every time they log on to the Internet. Valkenburg and company (2006) write, “Regarding adolescents’ frequency of the Internet communication, previous research has shown that adolescents who use the internet more frequently are more likely to form close online relationships. If you do hear your child speak of an online relationship her or she has built be very suspicious.
Online friendships have been studied and proved that they are far inferior to the ones your child has in the neighborhood or at school. Rubin, Bukowski & Parker (as cited in Mesch & Talmud, 2006) suggested, “Social interaction with peers provides a forum for learning and refining socioemotional skills needed for enduring relationships. Through interactions with peers, adolescents learn how to cooperate, to take different perspectives, and to satisfy growing needs for intimacy” (p.138). In a time of adolescent stage it is good that your child has a strong core of friends because they are the ones that are typically more accepting of what they want to do and intimate. Parents often get caught up in looking only toward the future that they get lost in asking the child what he wants to do in the present time. Mesch and Talmud (2006) agree as the cited, “adolescents friends are intimate and more accepting than parents, who are necessarily more orientated toward the future and more concerned with the potentially negative consequences of their child’s behavior” (p. 138). Online relationships aren’t and never will be as dynamic for children as face-to face relationships. Adolescents aren’t socially advanced to discover deep enough similarities with someone over the Internet. Electronic media has been weak in supporting social ties. “According to the “reduced social cues perspective,” computer-mediated communication (CMC) allows the exchange of fewer cues than face-to-face environments and therefore it is less appropriate for the support of emotional exchanges or the conveyance of complex information and a sense of social presence,” as quoted by Mesch and Talmud (p. 138).
Adolescents don’t have the social capacity to carry on a meaningful, intimate, and rewarding relationship over the Internet and it is dangerous and socially impossible if it is happening. Monitor an adolescent’s conversation in a chat room or another communication forum. It is plain to see that the quality of conversation is not such that occurs in face-to-face banter. Not only is the quality poor the subject often turns to inappropriate subjects. Bower as first witness to an adolescent conversation admits, “As conversation unfolds among adolescents on an internet message board, it rapidly becomes evident that it is not idle electronic chatter” (p. 27). Be cautious of what and where you allow your adolescent go on the Internet. No matter how much they argue they are their friends, how meaningful can those relationships really be?
VISIT THESE LINKS FOR MORE GREAT INFORMATION
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=13&hid=108&sid=745621a6-ad07-45a9-a8ed-7c73ee0dec4d%40sessionmgr108
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=16&hid=108&sid=745621a6-ad07-45a9-a8ed-7c73ee0dec4d%40sessionmgr108
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=19&hid=108&sid=745621a6-ad07-45a9-a8ed-7c73ee0dec4d%40sessionmgr108
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=22&hid=108&sid=745621a6-ad07-45a9-a8ed-7c73ee0dec4d%40sessionmgr108
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=23&hid=108&sid=745621a6-ad07-45a9-a8ed-7c73ee0dec4d%40sessionmgr108
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=24&hid=108&sid=745621a6-ad07-45a9-a8ed-7c73ee0dec4d%40sessionmgr108
References
Chiou, Wen-Bin. “Adolescents’ Sexual Self-Disclosure On The Internet: De individuation And
Impression Management.” Adolescence 41.163 (2006) 547-559. EBSCO. Arizona State
University, Tempe. 5 April 2007 <http://www.asu.edu>.
Bower, Bruce. “Growing up Online.” Science News 169.24 (2006) 27-31. EBSCO. Arizona
State University, Tempe. 5 April 2007 <http://www.asu.edu >.
Mesch, Gustavo, Talmud, Ilan. “The Quality of Online and Offline Relationships: The Role of
Multiplexity and Duration of Social Relationships.” The InformationSociety 22 (2006)
137-148. EBSCO. Arizona State University, Tempe. 5 April 2007 <http://www.asu.edu>.
Peter Jochen, Valkenburg Patti M, Schouten Alexander P. “Characteristics and Motives of
Adolescents Talking with Strangers on the Internet.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 9.5
(2006) 526-530. EBSCO. Arizona State University, Tempe. 5 April 2007
<http://www.asu.edu>.
Peter, Jochen, Valkenburg, Patti M. “Individual Differences in Perceptions of Internet
Communication.” European Journal of Communication 21.213 (2006) 213-226. EBSCO.
Arizona State University, Tempe. 5 April 2007 <http://www.asu.edu>.
Adolescent Communication and the Net
The Internet for Adolescents, Positive or Negative?
A new media age has brought on a new question surrounding our children. Does the Internet and friend networking sites benefit children or do they put them in danger? After pages of research we as a concerned audience can make that decision. Everyday, more adolescents are using the Internet more and more to build social relationships with other people. But at what age is it appropriate to allow children to navigate on the computer communicating with people? Pew Internet & American Life Project (as cited by Bower, 2006) estimates, “Nearly 9 in 10 U.S. youngsters, ages 12 to 17, used the Internet in 2004” (p. 27). To adolescents the Internet provides an enchanting place to meet and communicate with people. Bower (2006) goes on to site that, “six reports in the May Developmental Psychology, indicate that the Internet holds a special appeal for young people; that’s because the Internet provides an unprecedented number and variety of meeting places, from message boards to instant messaging to so-called social networking sites such as Myspace” (p.27). The Internet simply can’t be denied as a revolutionary new way to communicate with people whether they are across the street or across the world. Although with all variables considered can the internet be a valuable communication tool?
The Internet poses an inherent danger for adolescents because of the spatial distance there is when communicating to another person. The specific features of the Internet-that is, its anonymity, reduced visual and auditory cues, the insignificance of physical distance and time, and the greater control over one’s self-presentation-facilitate online contact with stranger (Peters, Schouten & Valkenburg, 2006). Predatory strangers obviously hold the most danger to our youngsters when they are on the Internet. Peters et al. (2006) additionally note, “Adolescents are the defining users of the Internet. They not only spend more time online than adults, but they integrate Internet-based communication technologies more strongly into their social lives (p.526). The Internet keeps such a social distance from two communicators that it serves as an opportune arena for predators to take advantage of our young innocent. If the world sought for more restriction and member disclosure in places like chat rooms the Internet could been seen as a great place for children.
There can be a positive side to adolescents communicating on the Internet. It is undeniable that the Internet gives youngsters the opportunity to communicate with people they never could have without the Internet. Valkenburg, Peter & Schouten (2006) quote, “The opportunities for adolescents to form and maintain relationships on the Internet have multiplied in the past few years. Social networking sites have rapidly gained prominence as venues to relationship formation” (p.584). Children have the opportunity to make a lot of friends in different places as well as their hometown. The more friends’ adolescents have the more self-worth and self-esteem they feel. Friend networking sites lend themselves exceptionally well to the investigation of the social consequences of Internet communication. After all, peer acceptance and interpersonal feedback on the self, both important features of friend network sites, are vital predicators of social self-esteem and well-being in adolescents (Valkenburg et al., 2006)
Internet communication as it pertains to adolescents will forever be a disputed issue. Like capital punishment and abortion you could start to see this issue rising surfacing in our lawmakers agenda’s. The main reason why it hasn’t is because the issue is so new. As for every tough issue there are two valid points to each side. What it takes now is strict monitoring and privileges to keep children safe.
References
Bower, Bruce. “Growing up Online.” Science News 169.24 (2006) 27-31. EBSCO. Arizona
State University, Tempe. 5 April 2007 <http://www.asu.edu >.
Peter Jochen, Valkenburg Patti M, Schouten Alexander P. “Characteristics and Motives of
Adolescents Talking with Strangers on the Internet.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 9.5
(2006) 526-530. EBSCO. Arizona State University, Tempe. 5 April 2007
<http://www.asu.edu>.
Valkenburg Patti M, Peter Jochen, Schouten Alexander P. “Friend Networking Sites and Their
Relationship to Adolescents’ Well-Being and Social Self-Esteem.” CyberPsychology &
Behavior 9.5 (2006) 584-590. EBSCO. Arizona State University, Tempe. 5 April 2007
<http://www.asu.edu>.
A new media age has brought on a new question surrounding our children. Does the Internet and friend networking sites benefit children or do they put them in danger? After pages of research we as a concerned audience can make that decision. Everyday, more adolescents are using the Internet more and more to build social relationships with other people. But at what age is it appropriate to allow children to navigate on the computer communicating with people? Pew Internet & American Life Project (as cited by Bower, 2006) estimates, “Nearly 9 in 10 U.S. youngsters, ages 12 to 17, used the Internet in 2004” (p. 27). To adolescents the Internet provides an enchanting place to meet and communicate with people. Bower (2006) goes on to site that, “six reports in the May Developmental Psychology, indicate that the Internet holds a special appeal for young people; that’s because the Internet provides an unprecedented number and variety of meeting places, from message boards to instant messaging to so-called social networking sites such as Myspace” (p.27). The Internet simply can’t be denied as a revolutionary new way to communicate with people whether they are across the street or across the world. Although with all variables considered can the internet be a valuable communication tool?
The Internet poses an inherent danger for adolescents because of the spatial distance there is when communicating to another person. The specific features of the Internet-that is, its anonymity, reduced visual and auditory cues, the insignificance of physical distance and time, and the greater control over one’s self-presentation-facilitate online contact with stranger (Peters, Schouten & Valkenburg, 2006). Predatory strangers obviously hold the most danger to our youngsters when they are on the Internet. Peters et al. (2006) additionally note, “Adolescents are the defining users of the Internet. They not only spend more time online than adults, but they integrate Internet-based communication technologies more strongly into their social lives (p.526). The Internet keeps such a social distance from two communicators that it serves as an opportune arena for predators to take advantage of our young innocent. If the world sought for more restriction and member disclosure in places like chat rooms the Internet could been seen as a great place for children.
There can be a positive side to adolescents communicating on the Internet. It is undeniable that the Internet gives youngsters the opportunity to communicate with people they never could have without the Internet. Valkenburg, Peter & Schouten (2006) quote, “The opportunities for adolescents to form and maintain relationships on the Internet have multiplied in the past few years. Social networking sites have rapidly gained prominence as venues to relationship formation” (p.584). Children have the opportunity to make a lot of friends in different places as well as their hometown. The more friends’ adolescents have the more self-worth and self-esteem they feel. Friend networking sites lend themselves exceptionally well to the investigation of the social consequences of Internet communication. After all, peer acceptance and interpersonal feedback on the self, both important features of friend network sites, are vital predicators of social self-esteem and well-being in adolescents (Valkenburg et al., 2006)
Internet communication as it pertains to adolescents will forever be a disputed issue. Like capital punishment and abortion you could start to see this issue rising surfacing in our lawmakers agenda’s. The main reason why it hasn’t is because the issue is so new. As for every tough issue there are two valid points to each side. What it takes now is strict monitoring and privileges to keep children safe.
References
Bower, Bruce. “Growing up Online.” Science News 169.24 (2006) 27-31. EBSCO. Arizona
State University, Tempe. 5 April 2007 <http://www.asu.edu >.
Peter Jochen, Valkenburg Patti M, Schouten Alexander P. “Characteristics and Motives of
Adolescents Talking with Strangers on the Internet.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 9.5
(2006) 526-530. EBSCO. Arizona State University, Tempe. 5 April 2007
<http://www.asu.edu>.
Valkenburg Patti M, Peter Jochen, Schouten Alexander P. “Friend Networking Sites and Their
Relationship to Adolescents’ Well-Being and Social Self-Esteem.” CyberPsychology &
Behavior 9.5 (2006) 584-590. EBSCO. Arizona State University, Tempe. 5 April 2007
<http://www.asu.edu>.
A Simple Introduction
Hi my name is Zack Pebler. This blog is in accordance to a course requirement through Arizona State University. I will explore adolescent identity on the net and talk about all different issues that pertain to the subject. I hope you enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)