ICT Controversy: Does Using the Internet Strengthen or Weaken Social Connections? Since the dawning of the Digital Age, the Internet has served as a social device, connecting people around the world more easily than ever before in history. Yet what is the actual social effect of Internet-connectivity? Does using the Internet in fact strengthen or weaken social connections? There are two sides to the answer to this question: on the one hand, it can be argued that the Internet is a powerful social tool that strengthens social connections by breaking down barriers of time and place so that access to information and communication are nearly instantaneous; on the other hand, it can be argued that the Internet reduces actual face-to-face time and real-life social interaction so that every generation of the Digital Age will grow up without ever developing the ability to read and register social cues, understand how to act in person, or how to communicate in a real social environment.

Thus, this topic is controversial because it reveals two contradictory impulses of the Internet -- the impulse to cut oneself off from actual society and immerse oneself in digital technology (and through that technology interact with a virtual society), and the impulse to utilize digital technology to build social connections that can be used to achieve social unity and cohesion in real-life (as in using Internet dating to find a real-life mate/partner/spouse). One common argument is that the negative implications of the Internet can result in anti-social behavior -- which is the exact opposite of what Internet advocates say it should promote. This paper will discuss the controversial aspect of the Internet's effect on social connections, using scholarly journals as sources, such as the peer-reviewed Computers in Human Behavior and the peer-reviewed Journal of Youth and Adolescence as well as others to focus on and analyze arguments made by researchers and academics regarding this topic. My opinion is that the Internet itself is simply a tool: it can be used both to grow social connections and to shrink from them, depending on the disposition and motivation of the user.

The argument that the Internet has a negative effect on and weakens social connections is based on the idea that it deprives the user of face-to-face time and the experience needed to cultivate real-life relationships. The user becomes addicted to and dependent on social media, much like a drug user becomes dependent upon a narcotic, and cannot function or interact in society without the usage of social media (Internet-based tools for socialization). However, there are various approaches to this argument, manifested in the studies of different academics. For instance, the research of Weidman, Fernandez, Levinson, Augustine, Larsen, and Rodebaugh (2012) supports this argument by focusing on the relationship between "social anxiety" and Internet usage: the researchers found that while "social anxiety may be associated with using the Internet as an alternative to face-to-face communication, such a strategy may result in poorer well-being" (p. 191).

The study of Brandtzaeg (2012) finds that social-networking-site (SNS) users "are more likely than nonusers to report loneliness," however, the study reveals that there is "major evidence for the need to distinguish SNS users" (p. 484). This argument suggests that individuals may be driven to use SNS because of loneliness or a lack of any real social life -- but it notes the researcher notes that he is not able to confirm this point because more research needs to be performed with a higher sample size. Essentially, the finding is that there is some correlation between isolation and Internet usage, though the finding is only general in terms and varies specifically from individual to individual.

The other argument related to the weakness of the Internet regarding social connectivity is made by Rosenfeld and Thomas (2012), who argue that the rate of "heterosexual partnership" has remained flat since the dawning of the Internet era, though the rate of "same-sex partnership" has risen (p. 523). The rise in same-sex partnerships may of course be due to any number of external factors, such as more socially accepted views among younger generations. Nonetheless, the finding that the Internet has shown itself as no advantage or strength in terms of facilitating more or greater heterosexual partnership indicates that it is not a strength.

On the other side of the controversy, is the argument that Internet can actually improve real socialization. The study by Amichai-Hamburger and Hayat (2011), using a sample from 13 different countries, examines the effect of the Internet on users' social lives. The finding...

585). The researcher's conclusion is reached through an analysis of different social dimensions and relationships. For example, Amichai-Hamburger and Hayat look at how Internet users interact in family situations, among friends, and with colleagues, and in each social segment in each of the 13 different countries (with over 20,000 participants) the assessment shows that Internet activity actually "increased social interaction" (p. 585).
This argument is also supported by Ellison, Vitak, Gray and Lampe (2014) in their study of Facebook relationships and "social capital" (p. 855). What they find is that in the Digital Age, social capital can be important in facilitating social connections whether virtual or real-life. Social capital is viewed as something like "status" -- so, for example, if an individual has 1,000 followers or friends on Facebook, he/she has more social capital than an individual with only 50 followers. The same individual is more likely to have more social connectivity in real-life settings and not just simply on the Internet -- though this is by no means a rule and is merely a generalization according to Ellison et al. (2014). What their argument asserts is that social connectivity can be strengthened by Internet usage.

Finally, there is the argument of Yang and Brown (2013) that Internet sites like Facebook can "foster or inhibit social adjustment" (p. 403) depending upon various factors in the individual's life. Thus, this argument is essentially the one that I make in my analysis of this controversial topic. Yang and Brown analyze the usage of social media in determining how well individuals use it to develop real-life connections. Their argument, however, is based on the idea that real-life connections are more desirable than virtual ones, which may not be the case in all circumstance or for all users. Thus, this argument can be supported by looking at Internet usage in terms of how well it can be used to effect traditional connections. It does not, however, apply to individuals who assess digitalized connectivity, or virtual connections, as legitimately social and conducive to sociality in and of themselves. Therefore, while the Yang, Brown (2013) argument indicates that there are extenuating circumstances that impact social connectivity beyond the mere usage of the Internet, the study does not explore the topic of sociality as legitimate within a solely virtual context.

In analyzing the different arguments to this controversial topic, it is important to place each one in its proper context before assessing their validity. For example, the argument of Weidman et al. (2012) is that for highly socially-anxious individuals Internet usage can be detrimentally be reinforcing their social-anxiety through avoidance of real-world social contact. The finding appears to be legitimate, but its context is situated within that of individual users how suffer from a social problem; thus, the study only directly impacts research on whether or not the Internet is a useful tool for persons who are socially-handicapped by anxiety. It does not readily apply to individuals who do not suffer from such a malady. However, it does support the argument that advantage of Internet usage (its strength) may depend upon the disposition of the individual user and whether or not her or she is likely to be adversely affected by its usage.

With the argument of Amichai-Hamburger and Hayat (2011), on the other hand, it is important to understand how the researcher defines "social interaction." The context in which Amichai-Hamburger and Hayat discusses sociality is not in a strictly face-to-face setting, but can include telephone (cell phone) communications, emails, Skype, or Internet chat -- all of which are considered social interactions by the researcher. Thus, the depending upon how one defines social interaction in the Digital Age, an entirely different view could be had than one who defined it differently, for example, in more traditional terms.

I view sociality in a combination of both modern (Digital Age) and traditional (face-to-face) terms and believe that healthy sociality consists of both aspects. Even in an era where a lot of communication can and does take place over the Internet for the sake of speed, efficiency and convenience, there are still times when it is necessary to leave the screen and interact with people in a more personal manner, i.e., face-to-face. Even before the Age of the Internet, phone communication was only one aspect of sociality and not the whole of it. So, too, today, one should not limit one's sense of sociality to a specific social…