—

Walter, T., Hourizi, R., Moncur, W. and Pitsillides, S. (2011). Does the internet change how we die and mourn? An overview. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 64(4): 275-302.

full text (pdf)

Very interesting overview of recent research. Here’s the abstract:

The article outlines the issues that the internet presents to death studies. Part 1 describes a range of online practices that may affect dying, the funeral, grief and memorialisation, inheritance and archaeology; it also summarises the kinds of research that have been done in these fields. Part 2 argues that these new online practices have implications for, and may be illuminated by, key concepts in death studies: the sequestration (or separation from everyday life) of death and dying, disenfranchisement of grief, private grief, social death, illness and grief narratives, continuing bonds with the dead, and the presence of the dead in society. In particular, social network sites can bring dying and grieving out of both the private and public realms and into the everyday life of social networks beyond the immediate family, and provide an audience for once private communications with the dead.

—

Cooper, A., Delmonico, D. L. and Burg, R. (2000). Cybersex Users, Abusers, and Compulsives: New Findings and Implications. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 7(5): 5-29.

This study is more than a decade old. The authors describe cybersex activity as “pornography exchange, real-time discussions, and compact disk (CD-ROM) distribution.” But it serves to explain Cooper et al’s 1998 “Triple-A Engine”, a theory that has been used in research over the last 12 years to describe why the web is such a successful conduit for sexual activity.

In the original paper, the authors are more positive about sex online than much of the subsequent research that tests this theory.

Unfortunately, this article is behind a paywall, but for those without Ivory Tower access, here are a few quotes from my notes:

Anonymity, accessibility,  and affordability (Triple-A Engine) seem to increase the chances that the Internet will become problematic for those who either already have a problem with sexual compulsivity or those who have psychological vulnerabilities rendering them at risk for developing such compulsivity.

As an aside (and as was described in the Hate chapter), predicting “vulnerabilities” is a notoriously difficult task.

Another:

the power of anonymity, accessibility, and affordability (Triple-A Engine) interacts with certain underlying personality factors of at-risk users  and leads to patterns and behaviors that, without intervention, may deve lop into online sexually compulsive behavior. 

once again, “at risk” is the key thing here. not *everyone* who goes online becomes a raging sex fiend.

(Source: tandfonline.com)

—

Manning, J. C. (2006). The Impact of Internet Pornography on Marriage and the Family: A Review of the Research. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 13: 131-165.

This article is behind a paywall, but I have access to the full text as a Visiting Fellow at the LSE. So here are my notes.

to bear in mind: this is an article from 2006. That means this review does not consider the evolving ubiquity of web technology on devices like tablets and smartphones. Extremely unfortunately, there’s a one-year embargo on an article published in the same journal in a special issue on cybersex in April 2012 that updates this research, looking specifically at the impact on adolescents. For an abstract of that article, go here.

* Three points of methodological criticism. This is important when considering the validity of the reported results.

1) The most frequently cited studies about the negative impact of pornography in general (not specifically internet porn) have been criticised: 

(a) for being limited to experimental situations, (b) for lacking real punishment or social controls, (c) for using college students as the normative group, and (d) for the ethical inability to produce real violence (Davies, 1997).

2) Meta-analyses looking at the effects of general porn on, “(a) increased callousness toward women; (b) trivialization of rape as a criminal offense; (c) distorted perceptions about sexuality; (d) increased appetite for more deviant and bizarre types of pornography (escalation and addiction); (e) devaluation of the importance of monogamy; (f)  decreased satisfaction with partner’s sexual performance, affection, and physical appearance; (g) doubts about the value of marriage; (h) decreased desire to have children; and (i) viewing non-monogamous relationships as normal and natural behavior (Drake, 1994)” demonstrate positive correlations (CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION), but these are really very very small effects. Like really small effects, ranging from Pearson’s r’s of between -0.137 (pictorial nudity and aggressive behaviour) and 0.216 (violent sexual behaviour and consumption/aggression).

The strongest correlation you can get is +/- 1.0. The ones reported in this meta-analysis are very small (albeit significant) relationships.

3) The evidence of impact in most of the studies in this review come from clinical settings (a fact that Manning freely admits), but this is a common problem in this kind of research: as she says when making a concession for those couples and clinicians who describe porn as an “enriching aspect of marital intimacy” when “consumed, in a mutual, consensual, and open manner”:

couples who mutually benefit from pornography are unlikely to seek treatment or  encounter caregivers who are aware of related studies.

Thus the frame through which pornography research is often conducted problematises it de facto.

—-

results.

* “While I don’t think you can say the Internet is causing more divorces, it does make it easier to engage in the sorts of behaviors that traditionally lead to divorce” (Dedmon, 2002).

* offline research (supported by a qualitative study from 2002) indicates a decrease in emotional intimacy with with a partner when exposed to porn over time

* “women in relationships (married, engaged, or girlfriends) with men perceived as heavy (offline) pornography consumers, decreased and altered sexual intimacy is a common symptom.”

* online sexual content can be helpful in increasing intimacy when a user looks to it for education, community support and to meet new people, but when it’s an outlet for stress, it can have adverse effects on relationships - Cooper, Galbreath, and Becker (2004)

* why use it? Based on a sample of N=384 primarily heterosexual men, Cooper, Galbreath & Becker (2004 report:

1. 80.5% used online sexual activity (OSA) to distract themselves or take a break.

2. 56.5% used OSA to deal with stress.

3. 43.0% used OSA to engage in sexual activities they would not do in real life.

4. 25.3% used OSA to educate themselves.

5. 16.1% used OSA to meet people with whom to have offline sexual activities.

6. 11.7% used OSA to meet people to date.

7. And 9.1% used OSA to get support with sexual matters.

* on fidelity:

Internet pornography is associated with activities that can undermine marital exclusivity and fidelity. What cannot be determined, however, is what comes first—does Internet pornography influence unfaithful behavior or does unfaithful behavior coincide with preexisting traits that predispose someone to normalize Internet pornography viewing?

emphasis added

Monica Whitty from University of Leicester (the fantastic @cyberspy on twitter) is referenced in this paper (her 2003 paper, Logging onto Love: An examination of men and women’s flirting behaviour both offline and on the Internet); specifically, it’s her work on what’s considered (in)fidelity:

both men and women perceive online sexual activity as an act of betrayal that is as authentic and real as offline acts, and that Internet pornography use correlated significantly with emotional infidelity (N = 1, 117, 468 males and 649 females; r = .41, p < 0.001)

(now *that’s* what I call a Pearson’s r..)

Monica and her colleague Laura-Lee Quigley updated this study with a 2008 paper,  Emotional and Sexual Infidelity Offline and in Cyberspace (abstract only).

* impact on adolescents/kids:

According to figures from Nielsen//NetRatings (2005), in the United States during the month of April 2005, 4,803 children and adolescents  between the ages of 2 and 17 were exposed to or sought out pornography online. This age group also represented 13.97% of all online pornography consumption.

It’s really difficult to draw conclusions about the impact of online pornographic material on adolescents based on the studies Manning reviews because so much of it is so old (between 2000 to 2005), and so much has changed. However, she summarises the research thus:

Research shows that exposure to pornography can make a lasting impression in young people and that this impression is most often described using emotions such as disgust, shock, embarrassment, anger, fear, and sadness.

The consumption of Internet pornography and/or involvement in sexualized chat can harm the social and sexual development of youth and undermine their success in future relationships.

Pornography consumption in youth has been associated with earlier onset of sexual intercourse, as well as increased likelihood of engaging in anal sex and sexual relations with people they are not romantically engaged with.

The emphasis here is on exposure, rather than specific content (as many levy accusations against the web for escalating more extreme activity).

(Source: ingentaconnect.com)

—

Markus, H. & Nurius, P. (1986, Sept). Possible Selves. American Psychologist, 41(9): 954-969.

Abstract only.

I tested this theory of identity development in online environments in my Masters research. Markus and Nurius’ work provided a framework for how we choose which new aspects of our desired or undesired selves we test online - a safe, relatively consequence-free space - and whether they are adopted into the offline self.

It’s a very satisfying and parsimonious theory, and appears to be apt both online and off.

—

Prof Viktor Mayer-Schonberger of the OII, in a review of his book, Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age from The Guardian.

as an aside: this explains why I am “cryptic” on Twitter. i explicitly use the service to externalise things that will trigger - for me and for me alone - a whole memory i can recall later.

More from the review:

The overabundance of cheap storage on hard disks means that it is no longer economical to even decide whether to remember or forget.

“compelling institutional forgetting”

So much of our past is so readily retrievable in the digital age that we can’t help but stumble across things we’d do better to forget.

—

Suler, J. (2004). The Online Disinhibition Effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, Vol 7(3): 321-326.

Just the abstract. AKA GIFT.

—

From DigitalDeath.eu, a site inspired by the 2009 paper, “Digital Death” (full text) by researchers in the Design Department at Goldsmiths (University of London) and the Department of Social & Political Sciences (University of Cyprus):

S. Pitsillides,S. Katsikides, M. Conreen. (2009). Digital Death, “Images of Virtuality: Conceptualizations and Applications in Everyday Life”, An IFIP WG9.5 “Virtuality and Society” International Workshop, April 23-24, Athens, Greece.

Paper abstract:

In this paper we introduce the concept of Digital Death, a topic we believe has not been discussed and researched in the literature previously, and argue that it is worthy of further research. We propose three different dimensions of digital death, analyse each one, and propose a number of representative applications which could be designed from a better understanding of digital death. We develop our theory and evaluate our ideas through background literature survey, discussions and questionnaires.

—

Swinyard, W.R., Rinne, H. & Keng Kau, A. (1990). The morality of software piracy: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(8): 655-664.

[abstract only]

This is, I’m sure, a very interesting article looking at the cross-cultural conceptualisations of ownership. Unfortunately it’s behind a firewall.

Notable: it’s from 1990 - very early!

—

Friedman, O. (2008). First possession: An assumption guiding information about who owns what. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2): 290-295.

[full text pdf]

A nice cross-historical account of psychological ownership relevant to a legal framework.