Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 659–671
www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh
Loneliness and social uses of the Internet§
Janet Morahan-Martina,1,*, Phyllis Schumacherb,1
a
Department of Psychology, Bryant College, 1150 Douglas Pike, Smithfield, RI 02917 1284, USA
Department of Mathematics, Bryant College, 1150 Douglas Pike, Smithfield, RI 02917 1284, USA
b
Abstract
Loneliness has been associated with increased Internet use. Lonely individuals may be
drawn online because of the increased potential for companionship, the changed social interaction patterns online, and as a way to modulate negative moods associated with loneliness.
Online, social presence and intimacy levels can be controlled; users can remain invisible as
they observe others’ interactions, and can control the amount and timing of their interactions.
Anonymity and lack of face-to-face communication online may decrease self-consciousness
and social anxiety, which could facilitate pro-social behavior and enhance online friendship
formation. Support for this model was found in a survey of 277 undergraduate Internet users
that was used to assess differences between lonely and not-lonely individuals in patterns of
Internet use. Loneliness was assessed on the UCLA Loneliness Scale; students in the highest
20% (Lonely) were compared with all other students (Non-lonely). Lonely individuals used
the Internet and e-mail more and were more likely to use the Internet for emotional support
than others. Social behavior of lonely individuals consistently was enhanced online, and
lonely individuals were more likely to report making online friends and heightened satisfaction with their online friends. The lonely were more likely to use the Internet to modulate
negative moods, and to report that their Internet use was causing disturbances in their daily
functioning.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Internet; Loneliness; CMC; Disturbed use of Internet; Social behaviors
§
Portions of this paper were presented at the 107th Convention of the American Psychological Association, August 1999, Chicago, IL. This study involved a re-analysis of data published earlier by the same
authors: Morahan-Martin, J., and Schumacher, P. (2000). Incidence and Correlates of pathological
internet use among college students. Computers and Human Behavior, 16, 13–29.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-401-232-6268; fax: +1-401-232-6319.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Morahan-Martin).
1
Both authors contributed equally to this manuscript.
0747-5632/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(03)00040-2
660
J. Morahan-Martin, P. Schumacher / Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 659–671
1. Introduction
Although the Internet is widely used to communicate with others (Pew Internet &
American Life, 2002), loneliness has long been associated with excessive use of the
Internet. Many early Internet users were computer hackers, who were characterized
as preferring the machine to people. Often social outcasts, they turned first to the
computer and then to the Internet in lieu of people (Shotten, 1991; Turkle, 1984).
‘‘The Internet gave them a vehicle for both communication and recreation, often
providing a safe and fun social life that was denied in real life’’ (Morahan-Martin,
1999, p. 431). Many turned to the Internet to escape from the pressures and discomfort of their lives. Online, they found a world where they could be accepted and
where their technical skills could be used to gain prestige. As use of the Internet
spread to a broader population, early chroniclers of life online, such as Rheingold
(1993) and Turkle (1995), continued to draw anecdotal links between loneliness and
Internet use and abuse. Quantitative studies that followed confirmed that loneliness
was associated with both increased Internet use (Kraut, Patterson, Landmark,
Kiesler, Mukophadhyay, & Scherlis, 1998; Lavin, Marvin, McLarney, Nola, &
Scott, 1999) and compulsive use of the Internet (Loytskert & Aiello, 1997; MorahanMartin & Schumacher, 2000; Young, 1998). However, the direction of this relationship is uncertain. Two opposing hypotheses have been proposed to explain the
relationship between loneliness and Internet use: excessive Internet use causes loneliness vs. lonely individuals are more likely to use the Internet excessively.
1.1. Internet use causes loneliness
Those who accept the first hypothesis and view the Internet as causing loneliness
argue that time online interrupts real life relationships. Internet use isolates individuals from the real world and deprives them of the sense of belonging and connection with real world contacts. Thus, loneliness can be a byproduct of excessive
Internet use because users are spending time online, often investing in online relationships, which are artificial and weak, at the expense of real life relationships.
Further, online communication fosters technological alienation, creating barriers
between participants, even those who know each other in other contexts. The
implicit assumption of those supporting this hypothesis is that online relationships
are weak and superficial compared with those in real life.
Support for this argument is found in the HomeNet study, which documented
increases in loneliness resulting from Internet use (Kraut et al., 1998). This study
provided free or reduced cost computers, training, and Internet access for two years
to 93 families consisting of 169 individuals. Participants allowed their Internet use to
be monitored and provided self-reports on their psychological and social characteristics before beginning Internet use as well as at 1-year intervals after they began
using the Internet. Participants’ reported loneliness at the beginning of the study did
not predict amount of subsequent Internet use, but greater Internet use was associated with increased levels of loneliness. The authors attribute the increases in
loneliness to decreases in family communication, social activities, happiness, and the
J. Morahan-Martin, P. Schumacher / Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 659–671
661
number of individuals in one’s social network, which also were associated with
increased Internet use. Additional confirmation of the adverse effect of Internet use
on social relationships has been found in other studies as well. A study by Stanford
Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society of a representative sample of 4113
American adults found social isolation increased with Internet use. A quarter of
respondents who use the Internet more than 5 hours a week believe their time online
reduces their time with friends and family either in person or on the phone, and 10%
say they spend less time attending social events outside the home (O’Toole, 2000).
Another, smaller study of adolescents found greater Internet use associated with
weaker relationships with their parents and friends, although directionality could
not be determined (Sanders, Field, Diego, & Kaplan, 2000).
Two limitations should be noted. First, the results of other studies contradict these
findings. Two studies of representative samples of the US population found no
decline among Internet users either in pro-social behavior or in communication with
family, friends or professional colleagues (Robinson, Kestnbaum, Neustadtl, &
Alvarez, 2000; UCLA Center for Communication Policy, 2000), and other research
has found that Internet use improves existing relationships and builds new social
networks (Activmedia, 1998, Katz & Aspden, 1997). Yet, even these studies have
documented a negative social impact of the Internet for a small percentage of
users. Second, it may be inappropriate to causally associate reduced social contact
with loneliness. Research on loneliness has found that loneliness is not related to
the degree of social contact and activity. Typically, loneliness is not defined in
terms of an individual’s social network, but as the subjective experience associated
with a perceived lack of interpersonal intimacy (Chelune, Sultan, & Williams,
1980).
1.2. Lonely drawn to the Internet
The second hypothesis is that lonely individuals are more likely to be drawn to the
Internet and to use the Internet excessively because of the expanded social networks
provided online and the altered patterns of online communication. Lonely individuals may be drawn to some forms of interactive social activities online because of
the possibilities of belonging, companionship, and communities that they provide.
Social interaction is altered online in ways that may be particularly attractive to
those who are lonely. For some lonely individuals, this may lead to increased Internet use, and even to the development of Internet-related problems in their lives
(Morahan-Martin, 1999).
What about Internet use may be appealing to those who are lonely? ‘‘Loneliness
occurs when a person’s network of social relationships is smaller or less satisfying
than the person desired’’ (Peplau, Russell, & Heim, 1979, p. 55). Although being
lonely can be a transient state, considerable research has documented it also is a
stable personality trait, i.e. loneliness is a chronic state (Weeks, Michela, Peplau, &
Bragg, 1980). To some extent, arguments that excessive Internet use causes loneliness are more state dependent in their view of loneliness while arguments that
lonely people are drawn to the Internet are more trait dependent in their view of
662
J. Morahan-Martin, P. Schumacher / Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 659–671
loneliness. Research on chronically lonely people has documented characteristic
behavioral and cognitive factors that may contribute to their loneliness and:
. . .explain why feelings of loneliness tend to be stable over time. Lonely people
fail to develop close friendships because they approach conversations with
negative expectancies and because they lack the necessary social skills. [These,
in turn, cause them to]. . .have difficulty establishing social relations that might
help them develop their social skills and thereby break out of their loneliness
cycle (Burger, 1997, pp. 372–373).
Lonely people are more likely than the non-lonely to be socially inhibited and
anxious, self-conscious (Solano & Koester, 1989), and sensitive to rejection (Russell,
Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980). They have poor social skills (Vitkus & Horowitz, 1987),
have difficulty making friends, initiating social activity, and participating in groups
(Horowitz & de Sales French, 1979), are less likely to be intimate and self-disclose
(Berg & Peplau, 1982; Williams & Solano, 1983), and have low self-esteem (Burger,
1997). Not surprisingly, loneliness is associated with depression (Weeks et al., 1980)
and other pathologies (Booth, 2000).
The Internet provides an ideal social environment for lonely people to interact
with others. Not only does it provide a vastly expanded social network, but also it
provides altered social interaction patterns online that may be particularly attractive
to those who are lonely. Online anonymity, lack of physical presence and lurking
allow users to control social interaction. They can choose not only with whom and
when to communicate, but also have time to compose messages. Internet
communication facilitates disinhibition, self-disclosure, intimacy, and enhanced selfpresentation, as well as provides an arena for the practice and development of social
skills.
Much has been written about the phenomena of online disinhibition, i.e. weakened social restraints online (Joinson, 1998). Online anonymity, lack of face-to-face
and real world contact, and the online culture all promote disinhibition, defined by
Joinson (1998) as ‘‘an apparent reduction in concerns for self-presentation and the
judgement of others’’ (p. 44). Enhanced disinhibition may counter factors associated
with loneliness by reducing social inhibition, anxiety, and self-consciousness, thus
promoting greater levels of self-disclosure and intimacy. Self-presentation online is
altered not only by disinhibition, but also by the reduction online of role constraints,
social expectations, and interpersonal barriers found in face-to-face (ftf) communication. These, combined with reduced social anxiety, can allow lonely individuals to
self-present more idealized versions of self as well as role-play different online personae, with individuals feeling more themselves online than off (McKenna, 1998).
Altered self-presentations online in turn can lead to an altered and enhanced sense
of self in real life. In this way, the Internet can be an ‘‘identity workshop’’ where
lonely individuals work through issues in the safety of the online environment
(Turkle, 1995).
Additionally, some lonely individuals may use the Internet as an escape: to reduce
stress and alleviate negative feelings that are associated with loneliness (Booth,
J. Morahan-Martin, P. Schumacher / Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 659–671
663
2000). The Internet has a downside for the lonely as well. Despite the potential
positive impact of Internet use for those who are lonely, they appear to be more
vulnerable than others to developing problems in their lives from Internet use such
as work, school or social disruption (Loytskert & Aiello, 1997; Morahan-Martin &
Schumacher, 2000; Young, 1998).
This study is a comparison of lonely and non-lonely individuals in their use of the
Internet and how Internet use affects social interaction. It is hypothesized that,
compared with others, lonely people are more likely to spend time online, use e-mail,
and use the Internet for emotional support. Consistent with the model presented
earlier, lonely people are predicted to prefer Internet communication to ftf
communication, enjoy the anonymity of Internet communication, and lurk more
than others do. Increased pro-social behavior and role playing of lonely people is
anticipated, resulting in their making and enjoying online friendships and feeling
more themselves online than off as compared with the non-lonely. Lonely people are
predicted to be more likely than others to use the Internet to modulate negative
moods that are associated with loneliness. Finally, it is anticipated that lonely people
are more likely than others to report disturbances in their everyday functioning
resulting from their use of the Internet.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
A survey that included Internet use and behaviors as well as the UCLA Loneliness
Scale (Russell, 1996) was given to 283 undergraduates in courses requiring Internet
use. Of these, 277 (97.88%) had Internet experience and were included in the study;
150 (54.15%) were male and 127 (45.85%) were female. The sample included 39
(14.1%) freshmen, 52 (18.8%) sophomores, 94 (33.9%) juniors, and 92 (33.2%)
seniors. The average age of the participants was 20.72 years (S.D.=2.35). Participants had used the Internet for an average of 20.08 months (S.D.=13.8) and
reported average weekly use as 3.45 hours (S.D.=4.24).
2.2. Measures
The questionnaire completed by the participants included sections assessing
demographics, Internet experience, reasons for Internet use, Internet behaviors, and
loneliness.
Demographic characteristics. The demographics section of the questionnaire
included questions on participants’ gender, age, and year in college.
Internet experience. Participants were asked if they had used the Internet. Those
who had used the Internet were asked how many months they had used the
Internet as well as how many hours per week they used the Internet and how many
hours per week they spent using the Internet for e-mail.
664
J. Morahan-Martin, P. Schumacher / Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 659–671
Reasons for Internet use. Participants were asked to indicate how often they had
used the Internet for 17 specific reasons: communicating with friends and family,
required course work, recreation or relaxation, work, meeting new people, talking
to others who share common interests, staying abreast of new developments in
areas of interest, sharing ideas or fantasies, wasting time, finding information for
own use, emotional support, gambling, net resources intended for adults only,
games, Virtual Reality, and browsing. Frequency of use for each reason was rated
from 1 to 5 (1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=always).
Scale of Internet Behaviors. Internet behaviors were assessed by 38 Likert-type
questions that explored social aspects of Internet use, feelings of competency
online, and negative impact of Internet use. A four-point scale was used with
1=strongly disagree and 4=strongly agree.
UCLA Loneliness Scale. Loneliness was assessed using the UCLA Loneliness
Scale, version 3 (Russell, 1996). This scale includes 20 Likert-type questions on a
four-point scale, with 1=strongly disagree and 4=strongly agree. The UCLA
Loneliness Scale has a good reported validity and reliability with college students
(Coefficient a=0.92) (Russell, 1996). The total of the responses to the 20 questions
was used to determine loneliness. The mean score was 38.35 (S.D.=8.51). Students
in the top 20% (n=55), scored 47 or higher and were considered lonely (L), were
compared with all other students (n=217), who were considered non-lonely (NL).
The mean score for the lonely was 50.69 (S.D.=3.66). For the non-lonely, the mean
score was 35.22 (S.D.=6.25). There were no gender differences in loneliness.
3. Results
3.1. Internet use and experience and loneliness
No difference was found between the lonely and the non-lonely in how many
months they had been using the Internet (M=20.08, S.D.=13.8, t=0.17, P=0.87).
However, the two groups differed significantly in the average weekly hours online
(t=2.59, P=.012), with lonely users (M=5.39, S.D.=6.57) reporting greater use
than non-lonely users (M=3.00, S.D.=3.30). The lonely also used e-mail significantly more hours per week (M=3.58, S.D.=5.12) than the non-lonely
(M=1.93, S.D.=2.56, t= 2.56, P=0.024).
3.2. Reasons for use and loneliness
A MANOVA of reasons for use by loneliness found significant overall differences
[F (16, 173)=1.66, P=0.025], with significance found for six of the17 given reasons
for use. Lonely users were more likely than the non-lonely users to use the Internet
for the following reasons: to relax [F (1, 188)=11, P=0.001], for work [F
(1,188)=7.27, P=0.008], to meet people [F (1,188)=3.7, P=0.056], for emotional
support [F (1,188)=10.04, P=0.002], talking to others who share same interests [F
(1,188)=6.81, P =0.01], and to waste time [F (1, 188)=10.07, P=0.002].
J. Morahan-Martin, P. Schumacher / Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 659–671
665
3.3. Internet behaviors and loneliness
To explore further differences in specific Internet behaviors between lonely users
and others, a MANOVA was used for the 38 questions assessing Internet-related
behaviors on the Scale of Internet Behaviors. The overall results were significant (F
(38,199)=1.52, P=0.035). Follow-up univariate ANOVAs were significant on 25 of
38 questions. The results are presented in Tables 1–3. As can be seen in Table 1,
lonely users differed from others in social aspects of Internet use, with significance
found in 14 out of 19 questions. Compared with others, lonely users were more
likely to prefer communicating online to face-to-face communication, to find online
anonymity liberating, to like the speed of communicating online, and to have lurked
online. Lonely users were more likely than non-lonely users to agree that when
online: they were more themselves than in real life, they opened up more to people
than in other forms of communication, they were friendlier, they had shared intimate secrets, and they had pretended to be someone else. They also agreed more
than the non-lonely that: their online friends understood them better, most of their
friends they knew from online, going online made it easier to make friends, they had
more fun with the people they met online, and they had a network of friends made
online.
The lonely also are more likely to use the Internet to modulate moods and be
negatively impacted by their Internet use, as demonstrated in Table 2. The lonely
agreed more that they had gone online when they were down or anxious, and when
they were feeling isolated, and that they felt totally absorbed when online. Internet
behavior for the lonely was causing disruptions in their life. Specifically, they agreed
more than the non-lonely that they: felt guilty about time spent online, had been
told they spent too much time online, routinely cut short sleep to be online, had
missed social engagements to be online, had missed work or school to be online, had
been unable to cut back time online, found it hard to stop thinking about going
online, and had tried to hide how much time they had spent online. However, as
seen in Table 3, there were no differences between the lonely and others associated
with competency and convenience of Internet use.
4. Discussion
This study confirmed most hypotheses. Lonely individuals differed markedly from
the non-lonely in how they used the Internet socially. Compared with others, they
used the Internet and e-mail more and were more likely to use the Internet for
emotional support, to meet new people and to interact with others with similar
interests. Social behavior of the lonely consistently was enhanced online in ways
consistent with the disinhibition effect. Lonely individuals were more likely to prefer
online to ftf communication, to enjoy the anonymity of online communication, and
to lurk. Online, they felt more themselves, opened up more, shared intimate secrets,
were friendlier, and role-played more than others. Compared with others, those who
were lonely felt that going online had made it easier for them to make friends, that
666
J. Morahan-Martin, P. Schumacher / Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 659–671
Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and F values of social aspects of Internet use by loneliness
Individual items
Group
Mean
S.D.
F
My online friends understand me better than other people.
L
NL
1.58
1.20
0.07
0.03
25.48**
I am more myself online that in real life.
L
NL
1.71
1.25
0.08
0.04
25.45**
I open up more to people online than in other communication
modes.
L
NL
2.08
1.57
0.11
0.05
18.69**
Most of my friends I know from online.
L
NL
1.58
1.21
0.08
0.04
18.15**
I prefer communicating online to face-to-face communication.
L
NL
1.83
1.40
0.10
0.05
15.93**
I am friendlier online than in real life.
L
NL
1.88
1.44
0.10
0.05
15.39**
The anonymity of being online is liberating.
L
NL
2.25
1.71
0.12
0.06
15.12**
I have shared intimate secrets online.
L
NL
1.73
1.35
0.10
0.05
11.71**
I have lurked online but never entered a conversation online.
L
NL
1.88
1.47
0.11
0.06
10.49**
Going online has made it easier for me to make friends.
L
NL
1.79
1.47
0.09
0.05
9.21**
I have more fun with the people I know online than others.
L
NL
1.50
1.27
0.08
0.04
6.80**
I have a network of friends made online.
L
NL
1.79
1.48
0.11
0.05
6.51**
Sometimes I pretend I am someone I am not while online.
L
NL
1.75
1.46
0.11
0.05
5.93*
I like the speed of communicating online
L
NL
2.85
2.58
0.12
0.06
4.33*
I prefer telephoning to communicating online. (reverse)
L
NL
2.54
2.78
0.13
0.06
3.06
Online communication lets me control when I want to
communicate.
L
NL
2.83
2.61
0.12
0.06
3.05
I have pretended to be somebody of the opposite sex
while online.
L
NL
1.33
1.23
0.08
0.04
1.33
Being online has made it easier to communicate with people I know.
L
NL
2.75
2.56
0.14
0.07
1.50
I feel less connected interpersonally when I communicate online. (reverse)
L
NL
2.40
2.27
0.11
0.06
1.00
Items rated on a scale of 1–4: 1=strongly disagree and 4=strongly agree. L=lonely (n=55); NL=non-lonely
(n=217).
* P <0.05.
** P <0.01.
667
J. Morahan-Martin, P. Schumacher / Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 659–671
Table 2
Means, standard deviations, and F values of negative impact of Internet use by loneliness
Individual items
Group
Mean
S.D.
F
I feel guilty about time spent online instead of at other required
work.
L
NL
1.69
1.31
0.09
0.04
15.12**
I have been told that I spend too much time online.
L
NL
1.81
1.39
0.10
0.05
13.66**
I have routinely cut short on sleep to spend more time online.
L
NL
1.54
1.23
0.08
0.04
11.96**
I have gone online to make myself feel better when down or
anxious.
L
NL
1.73
1.40
0.09
0.05
9.56**
I have used online to talk to others when I was feeling isolated.
L
NL
1.71
1.38
0.10
0.05
9.38**
I have missed social engagements because of online activities.
L
NL
1.42
1.20
0.07
0.03
8.48**
I have missed classes or work because of online activity.
L
NL
1.46
1.22
0.07
0.04
8.40**
I have attempted to spend less time online but have not been
able to.
L
NL
1.58
1.32
0.09
0.04
7.83**
When I am online, I feel totally absorbed.
L
NL
2.29
2.02
0.11
0.06
4.82*
If it has been a long time since I last logged on, I find it hard
to stop thinking about what will be waiting for me when I do.
L
NL
1.77
1.52
0.11
0.05
4.46*
I have tried to hide from others how much time I am actually
online.
L
NL
1.44
1.28
0.07
0.04
3.92*
I have gotten into trouble with my employer or school because
of being online.
L
NL
1.40
1.24
0.08
0.04
3.32
I sometimes go online to escape from pressure.
L
NL
2.02
1.82
0.12
0.06
2.48
I have never gotten into an argument with a significant other
over being online.
L
NL
2.67
2.50
0.18
0.09
0.67
My work and/or school performance has not deteriorated
since I started going online.
L
NL
2.85
2.92
0.17
0.09
0.10
Items rated on a scale of 1-4: 1=strongly disagree and 4=strongly agree. L=lonely (n=55); NL=nonlonely (n=217).
* P <0.05.
** P <0.01.
they had a network of online friends, and even that most of their friends are online
friends. These online friendships were positive; lonely individuals were more likely
than others to report that they have more fun with their online than ftf friends, and
that their online friends understand them better. The lonely also used the Internet to
modulate moods. Compared with others, they were more likely to go online when
668
J. Morahan-Martin, P. Schumacher / Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 659–671
Table 3
Means, standard deviations, and F values of competency and convenience of Internet use by loneliness
Individual items
Group
Mean
S.D.
F
I avoid going online for information because there is
too much to weed through. (reverse)
L
NL
2.99
1.82
0.11
0.06
1.83
I feel competent in my ability to use the online services.
L
NL
3.00
2.84
0.11
0.06
1.53
I am comfortable using online services.
L
NL
3.00
2.96
0.11
0.06
0.11
Going online has made it easier for me to do research.
L
NL
2.83
2.80
0.14
0.07
0.07
Items rated on a scale of 1-4: 1=strongly disagree and 4=strongly agree. L=lonely (n=55); NL=nonlonely (n=217).
feeling isolated, depressed or anxious, to use the Internet to waste time and relax,
and to feel totally absorbed online. Finally, lonely individuals were more likely to
report their Internet use was causing disturbances in their RL functioning, including
interfering with social activities and work, and causing guilt.
Previous research has documented that intimacy and relationship formation can
be heightened online (Parks & Floyd, 1996; Walther, 1996). Disinhibition is considered key. Anonymity as well as loss of ftf contact and social context cues are
generally credited with the loss of inhibition compared to ftf groups (Joinson, 1998;
Reid, 1993). Additionally, absence of status, prestige, class and attractiveness cues
create a safe, low risk social environment. Online, users frequently self-disclose more
than in other contexts (Parks & Floyd, 1996; Reid, 1993). The climate of shared
intimacies online facilitates ‘‘personal relationships (which). . .can often be deep and
highly emotional’’ (Reid, 1993, p. 64). Participants ‘‘come to feel that their very best
and closest friends are members of the electronic group whom they seldom or never
see’’ (Hiltz & Turoff, 1978, p. 101). For lonely people, who are likely to be socially
inhibited and anxious, have problems with self-disclosure and intimacy, and feel
isolated from others, these aspects of Internet communication provide an ideal
social environment. This study confirms that those who are lonely were more likely
than others to find online anonymity liberating. Their behavior was less inhibited,
they were friendlier, more intimate, and online friends were a source of emotional
support and fun.
Self-presentational styles can be altered online. ‘‘Users can be, quite literally,
whoever they wish’’ (Reid, 1993, p. 63). Unhampered by normal constraints, users
can self-present a more idealized self-image than they might otherwise. Additionally,
lurking allows them to choose optimal timing and their target audience to maximize
acceptance. People engage in self- presentation ‘‘as a means of constructing their
public identities. Through self-presentational acts, people may attempt to make their
public selves consistent with their ideal selves’’ (Baumeister & Tice, 1986, p. 37). If
the altered, ideal self is accepted by the target audience, the individual’s sense of self
J. Morahan-Martin, P. Schumacher / Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 659–671
669
can be altered, enhancing self esteem (Leary & Kowalsky, 1990). Disinhibition,
anonymity, and the ability to manage one’s impression without ftf constraints combined with the capacity to select a target audience to present this ideal self may
explain why this and other studies have found that some users feel more themselves
online than off. McKenna (1998) refers to this as the ‘‘real me online’’, and has
documented that this phenomena is associated with loneliness. She argues that those
individuals who locate their real selves as their online persona rather than their real
life selves are more likely to form strong attachments online than others are.
This study and others have documented that loneliness is associated with both
increased use of the Internet and with disturbances in daily functioning (Lavin et al.,
1999; Loytskert & Aiello, 1997; Morahan & Schumacher, 2000; Young, 1998).
Given the heightened attractiveness of Internet communication for the lonely and
perceived benefits of Internet use, it is hardly surprising that lonely individuals might
use the Internet more and that this might interfere with their overall adjustment.
Ironically, although lonely users reported enhanced social behavior online, their use
of the Internet interfered with their non-Internet social activity as well as occupational adjustment, and caused guilt. Lonely users also were more likely to go online
when they were lonely, down or anxious as well as to relax and kill time. Taken
together, this suggests a vicious circle whereby lonely individuals go online to fill
social voids and emptiness in their life, but their online time creates voids their nonInternet social life and creates other real life problems. Thus, neither of the
hypotheses about the direction of relationship between loneliness and Internet use is
sufficient. Instead, the relationship may be bi-directional.
Some have argued that the Internet can provide a safe arena for individuals to
develop and practice social skills, work through psychological issues, and express
unexplored parts of themselves, which can be beneficial if transferred to real life
(Kandell, 1998; Suler, 1996; Turkle, 1995). However, time spent online can interfere
with time for other activities as well as impede the development of real life skills.
Although this study does reinforce the negative impact of time online for those who are
lonely, it may be that the long term impact of Internet use varies, even for the lonely.
Sometimes (Internet). . .experiences can facilitate self-knowledge and personal
growth, and sometimes not. (The Internet). . .can be a place where people blossom or a place where they get stuck, caught in self-contained worlds where
things are simpler than in real life (Turkle, 1995, p. 185).
5. Conclusions
This study has documented differences between lonely and non-lonely in how they
use the Internet. Social behavior of lonely individuals consistently was enhanced
online. They were more likely to make and interact with online friends, and to use
the Internet for emotional support. Lonely people went online when they felt lonely,
depressed or anxious. They also were more likely to develop Internet-related problems in their daily functioning, including interference with real life socializing.
670
J. Morahan-Martin, P. Schumacher / Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 659–671
This study is preliminary and raises many avenues for future research. For example, what is the long-term effect of Internet use for those who are lonely? For both
the lonely and non-lonely, how are relationship formation patterns changed online?
The questions of cause and effect in terms of loneliness and Internet use as well as
whether state vs. trait loneliness would differentially interact with Internet remain
unresolved. Longitudinal research on more diverse populations is suggested.
References
Activmedia. (1998, 4 September). Web improves relationships. Retrieved 30 June 1999, from http://
www.nua.ie/surveys/index/cgi?service=view_survey&survey_number=959&rel.htlm.
Baumeister, R., & Tice, D. M. (1990). Anxiety and social exclusion. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 165–195.
Berg, J., & Peplau, L. (1982). Loneliness: the relationship of self-disclosure and androgyny. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 624–630.
Booth, R. (2000). Loneliness as a component of psychiatric disorders. Medscape Mental Health, 5 (2).
Retrieved 14 November, 2000, from http://www.medscape.com/Medscape/psychiatry/journal/2000/
v05.n02/mh3272.boot/mh3272.boot-01.html.
Burger, J. (1997). Personality (4th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Chelune, G., Sultan, F., & Williams, C. (1980). Loneliness, self-disclosure and interpersonal effectiveness.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27, 462–468.
Hiltz, S., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation: human communication via computer. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Horowitz, L., & de Sales French, R. (1979). Interpersonal problems of people who describe themselves as
lonely. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 762–764.
Joinson, A. (1998). Causes and implications of disinhibited behavior on the Internet. In J. Gackenbach
(Ed.), Psychology and the Internet (pp. 43–60). San Diego: Academic Press.
Kandell, J. (1998). Internet addiction on campus: the vulnerability of college students. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 1, 11–17.
Katz, J., & Aspden, P. (1997). A nation of strangers? Communications of the Association for Computing
Machinery, 40, 81–86.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Landmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet
paradox: a social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well being? American
Psychologist, 53, 1017–1031.
Lavin, M., Marvin, K., McLarney, A., Nola, V., & Scott, L. (1999). Sensation seeking and collegiate
vulnerability to Internet dependence. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2, 425–430.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalsky, R. M. (1990). Impression management: a literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34–47.
Loytskert, J., & Aiello, J. (1997, April). Internet addiction and its personality correlates. Paper presented at
the Eastern Psychological Association.
McKenna, K. (1998). Can you see the real me? Relationship formation on the Internet. Manuscript submitted for publication. Retrieved 30 June 2000, from http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/
facility/3308/.
Morahan-Martin, J. (1999). The relationship between loneliness and Internet use and abuse. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 2, 431–440.
Morahan-Martin, J., & Schumacher, P. (2000). Incidence and correlates of pathological Internet use
among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 2–13.
O’Toole, K. (2000, 16 February). Study offers early look at how Internet is changing daily life. Stanford
News. Retrieved 21 February 2000, from http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/00/000216internet.html.
Parks, M., & Floyd, J. (1996). Making friends in Cyberspace. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(4). Retrieved 30 June 1999, from http://jmc.huji.ac.il/vol1/issue4/parks.html.
J. Morahan-Martin, P. Schumacher / Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 659–671
671
Peplau, L. A., Russell, D., & Heim, M. (1979). The experience of loneliness. In I. Frieze, D. Bar-Tel, &
J. Carroll (Eds.), New approaches to social problems (pp. 53–78). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pew Internet & American Life (2002, 3 March). Getting serious online: as Americans gain experience, they
use the Web more at work, write e-mails with more significant content, perform more online transactions,
and pursue more serious activities. Washington: Pew Internet & American Life. Retrieved 4 March 2002,
from: http://www.pewinternet. org/reports/toc.asp?Report=55.
Reid, E. (1993, February). Electronic chat: social issues on the Internet Relay Chat. Media Information
Australia, 67, 62-70.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading: MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Robinson, J., Kestnbaum, M., Neustadtl, A., & Alvarez, A. (2000). Mass Media and social life among
Internet users. Social Science Computer Review, 18, 490–501.
Russell, D. (1996). The UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20–40.
Russell, D., Peplau, L., & Cutrona, C. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 472–480.
Sanders, C., Field, T., Diego, M., & Kaplan, M. (2000). The relationship of Internet use to depression and
social isolation among adolescents. Adolescence, 35, 237–242.
Shotten, M. (1991). The costs and benefits of computer addiction. Behavior and Information Technology,
10, 219–230.
Solano, C., & Koester, N. (1989). Loneliness and communications problems: subjective anxiety or objective skills? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 126–133.
Suler, J. (1996). Why is this thing eating my life? Computer and cyberspace addiction at the ‘‘Palace.’’
Retrieved 14 September 1999, from http://www.rider.edusuler/psycyber/eatlife.html.
Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.
UCLA Center for Communication Policy (UCLA). (2000). UCLA Internet Report: Surveying the Digital
Future. Los Angeles: UCLA. Retrieved 30 October 2000, from http://www.ccp.ucla.edu/newsite/pages/
internet-report.asp.
Vitkus, J., & Horowitz, L. (1987). Poor social performance of lonely people: lacking a skill or adopting a
role? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1266–1273.
Walther, J. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal
interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.
Weeks, D. G., Michela, J. L., Peplau, L. A., & Bragg, M. E. (1980). Relation between loneliness and
depression: a structural equation analysis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 36, 1213–1220.
Williams, J., & Solano, C. (1983). The social reality of feeling lonely: friendship and reciprocation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 237–242.
Young, K. (1998). Caught in the Net. How to recognize signs of Internet Addiction and a winning strategy
for recovery. NY: Wiley.
Janet Morahan-Martin is a professor of psychology at Bryant College. Her research has focused on the
psychology of Internet use, gender issues related to adaptation to new technology, and the relationships
between computer and Internet attitudes and uses.
Phyllis Schumacher is a professor of mathematics at Bryant College. Her research interests include gender
issues in mathematics and computer use and the role of women in quantitative fields.