CMCの社会的ネットワークを介した社会的スキルと孤独感との関連性

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "CMCの社会的ネットワークを介した社会的スキルと孤独感との関連性"

せせらはらしない
1 years ago
Views:

1 1 / 29 CMC [ ] CMC 1)2) (The effect of social skills on loneliness through mediation of CMC social networks) [ ] (Tasuku IGARASHI) [ ] (Graduate School of Education and Human Development, Nagoya University) [ ] (Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, , Japan) 1) )

2 2 / 29 CMC Levin & Stokes(1986) (1) Face-to-Face; FTF (2) Computer-Mediated Communication; CMC FTF CMC CMC Abstract The use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) technology has increased in society, and CMC is useful for making interpersonal relationships. This study investigated the effect of social skills on loneliness, based on the social network mediation model and the cognitive bias model (Levin & Stokes, 1986). The social network mediation model suggests that social skills affect loneliness through mediation by social network variables of face-to-face (FTF) communication and CMC. The cognitive bias model states that social skills directly affect loneliness through cognitive processes. Two-hundred eleven college students (study 1) and 164 participants recruited through the Internet (study 2) completed self-report measures of loneliness and social skills, and instruments assessing their social networks on FTF and CMC. The results were as follows: (a) the effect of social skills on loneliness was mediated by the social network variables of FTF; (b) CMC variables were affected by social skills, but had only weak effects on loneliness; (c) social skills directly affected loneliness. The lack of nonverbal cues in CMC was discussed as a possible explanation for the weak effects of social network variables of CMC on loneliness. Key words: CMC, social skills, loneliness, social networks

3 3 / 29 CMC ,708 3,723, 2001 Computer-Mediated Communication; CMC, 1993 CMC CMC e.g.,, 1998;, 1999 CMC CMC Peplau & Perlman, 1979 e.g., Hojat, 1982; Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980; Vaux, 1988a Rook(1988) CMC White & McConnell, 1999 CMC

4 4 / 29 CMC Levin & Stokes(1986) (1) social network mediation model (2) cognitive bias model Stokes(1985) Levin & Stokes(1986) e.g., Jones, Hobbs, & Hockenbury, 1982; Solano & Koester, 1989, 1993 Leary, 1983 Face-to-Face; FTF, 1993 FTF Argyle, 1972; Argyle, Salter, Nicholson, Williams, & Burgess, 1970;, 1993 FTF e.g.,, 1993 FTF e.g., Cutrona, 1982; Jones, Carpenter, & Quintana, 1985; Vaux, 1988b; Williams & Solano, 1983 FTF

5 5 / 29 CMC FTF FTF CMC e.g., McCormick & McCormick, 1992; Parks & Floyd, 1996 CMC FTF, 1993 FTF CMC CMC CMC, 1993 CMC FTF FTF CMC CMC FTF CMC FTF CMC Schmitz & Fulk(1991) CMC Walther(1992) CMC uncertainty CMC McCormick & McCormick, 1992 CMC

6 6 / 29 CMC FTF CMC CMC FTF CMC Leary, 1982; Lewinsohn, 1974; van der Molen, 1990 Watson & Clark, 1984 FTF CMC Figure 1 FTF CMC Figure1 FTF CMC FTF FTF CMC FTF CMC

7 7 / 29 CMC CMC (1)FTF CMC CMC (2)CMC CMC CMC, 1993 CMC CMC ; 19.5 (1) (2) 1983 UCLA (3) 1988 KiSS (4) (a)ftf 3)

8 8 / 29 CMC (b)cmc CMC (a) CMC CMC FTF (b)cmc (a)ftf ; 72, 138, 211 Web t GP α=.92 α=.88 Table 1 Table1 FTF CMC t

9 9 / 29 CMC FTF CMC Table 1 FTF CMC R 2 FTF CMC Hotelling t FTF CMC t(208)=2.27, p.05 FTF CMC FTF CMC log 10 (1 + ) Table 2 Table2 FTF CMC FTF CMC CMC Figure 2 Figure2

10 10 / 29 CMC FTF CMC FTF FTF FTF FTF FTF CMC FTF CMC FTF CMC FTF CMC FTF FTF CMC CMC FTF FTF CMC CMC FTF CMC CMC CMC

11 11 / 29 CMC CMC CMC FTF CMC FTF CMC CMC CMC FTF CMC CMC

12 12 / 29 CMC 2000 (Yahoo! 4) ) Web Web 5) Web 6) Web (1) (2) (3) (a)ftf (b)cmc CMC CMC CMC FTF (c)cmc (b) Buchanan, 2000

13 13 / 29 CMC Web (3.7 ) (3.0 ) 61 (37.2 ) 14 (8.5 ) 35 (21.3 ) 23 (14.0 ) (3.7 ) (2.4 ) (4.3 ) (1.8 ) Web t GP α=.93 Table 3 Table M=36.45, SD=9.63, n=123 t(285)=5.46, p.01; t(373)=4.88, p M=56.40, SD=9.64, n=83 t(245)=0.09, n.s.; t(373)=0.99, n.s. FTF CMC t FTF CMC

14 14 / 29 CMC CMC Table 3 R 2 Hotelling t Ryan FTF CMC CMC Table 4 FTF Table4 CMC CMC Figure 3 Figure3 FTF CMC FTF CMC FTF

15 15 / 29 CMC CMC FTF CMC CMC CMC FTF CMC CMC FTF FTF CMC FTF CMC 1999 WWW World Wide Web CMC WWW Rook & Peplau 1982 CMC FTF FTF CMC Kraut, Patterson, Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukophadhyay, & Scherlis(1998)

16 16 / 29 CMC Kraut FTF CMC CMC physical proximity FTF strong ties CMC FTF FTF CMC Levinger & Snoek 1972 CMC CMC CMC

17 17 / 29 CMC FTF CMC CMC CMC FTF CMC CMC social skills training FTF CMC Young(1998) Kraut et al.(1998) CMC CMC CMC FTF e.g., Parks & Floyd, 1996 FTF

18 18 / 29 CMC FTF CMC FTF CMC FTF Altman & Taylor, 1973 PHS ,364, 2001

19 19 / 29 CMC

20 20 / 29 CMC

21 21 / 29 CMC

22 22 / 29 CMC 3) (a) CMC (b) CMC FTF CMC (a) FTF 4) 5) 6)

23 23 / 29 CMC Figure 1

24 24 / 29 CMC Figure 2

25 25 / 29 CMC Figure 3

26 26 / 29 CMC Table 1 Mean S D FTF ** 3 FTF **.53** 4 FTF **.39**.55** 5 CMC **.48**.25**.04 6 CMC **.32**.22**.07.80** 7 CMC *.38**.28**.39**.45**.49** ** -.44** -.40** -.41** -.18* -.21** -.31** **p <.01, *p <.05

27 27 / 29 CMC Table ** -.47** -.46** FTF -.37** -.31** -.28** CMC R 2.39**.40**.41** R 2.38**.39**.40** p <.01, p <.10

28 28 / 29 CMC Table 3 Mean S D FTF ** 3 FTF **.72** 4 FTF **.65**.67** 5 CMC **.51**.36**.33** 6 CMC **.44**.45**.35**.86** 7 CMC **.40**.37**.54**.70**.72** 8 CMC *.22**.22**.02.28**.25**.06 9 CMC **.12.16* *.01.84** 10 CMC **.16* *.16*.08.71**.76** ** -.38** -.30** -.36** -.34** -.31** -.31** ** **p <.01, *p <.05

29 29 / 29 CMC Table ** -.55** -.56** FTF -.23** ** CMC CMC R 2.45**.39**.44** R 2.44**.37**.43** p <.01, p <.10

2 251 Barrera, 1986; Barrera, e.g., Gottlieb, 1985 Wethington & Kessler 1986 r Cohen & Wills,

2 251 Barrera, 1986; Barrera, e.g., Gottlieb, 1985 Wethington & Kessler 1986 r Cohen & Wills, 2014 25 1 1 11 1 3,085 100 1 1988 e.g., 2000 3 e.g., 2005; 1999 100 1960 100 2012 2 6 23 1 98.2 1999 1999 3 65.3 1999 1996 1 21 e.g., 1999 3 1 2 251 Barrera, 1986; 1993 1 2 2001 3 2001 Barrera, 1981 1993