Family Relations and the Internet: Exploring a Family Boundaries ...

THE JOURNAL OF FAMILY COMMUNICATION, 6(2), 119–138
Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Family Relations and the Internet:
Exploring a Family Boundaries
Approach
Gustavo S. Mesch
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
The University of Haifa, Israel
The introduction of new technologies such as the Internet into the household can potentially
change the quality of family relationships. We developed and tested a family
boundaries approach, suggesting that frequency and type of Internet use are negatively
related to family time and positively related to family conflicts, yielding a low
overall perception of family cohesion. We also tested a compositional approach that
suggests that the effects on family cohesion are the result of a predisposition in individuals
of low self-esteem to be frequent Internet users. The conceptual model was
tested by structural equation models and cross-sectional data from the Israeli National
Youth Survey (n = 396) of adolescents ages 12 to 18. The results showed support
for the family boundaries perspective. The compositional approach received
partial support, but it did not substantially change the link of Internet use to family
time and family conflicts.
The rise in the use of the Internet in society has stimulated research on how these
new technologies are associated with everyday life. Scholars have studied the relation
of new information and communication technologies with the extent of community
involvement and participation (Hampton &Wellman, 2002; Kavanaugh &
Peterson, 2002; Mesch & Levanon, 2003); interpersonal relations, sociability, and
social capital (Katz & Rice, 2002; Nie, Hillygus, & Erbing, 2002; Robinson,
Kestnbaum, Neustadlt, & Alvarez, 2002); and work (Haythornwaite & Kuzner,
2002; Salaff, 2002). Despite this large body of research on how communities, organizations,
and individuals adapt to new communication and information tech-
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gustavo S. Mesch, Department of
Sociology and Anthropology and Minerva Center of Youth Studies, The University of Haifa, Har
Hacarmel 31905, Israel. E-mail: gustavo@soc.haifa.ac.il

120 MESCH
nologies, the existing research literature on the impact of computer technologies
on the family is very limited (Hughes & Hans, 2001; Lenhart, Madden, & Hitlin,
2005; Livingstone & Bober, 2004; Watt & White, 1999). This lack is surprising as
the introduction of computer technologies into the home is a complex process in
which the consumer plays an active role in taking technologies and in making or
not making them acceptable and familiar (Silverstone & Haddon, 1996). This process
has been described as domestication: a “ process in which new technologies
and services, by definition to a significant degree unfamiliar, and therefore both
exciting but possibly also threatening and perplexing, are brought (or not) under
control by and on behalf of domestic users” (Silverstone & Haddon, 1996, p. 60).
The concept of domestication implies a two-way process, in which the consumer
changes the meaning and influence of technologies and in the process the family
culture and patterns of interaction are affected. Domestication implies that families
with access to information and communication technology differ from those
without them, not only in access to technology but in family dynamics as well.
Researchers are divided on whether families that are connected to the Internet
differ in their communication patterns from families that are not (Katz & Rice,
2002). Connection to the Internet provides access to online information on family-related
issues such as parenting, children’s education, and family health. Participation
in online family discussions facilitates access to social networks that
supply social support, advice, and guidance to families (Hughes & Hans, 2001).
For children, computers are a way of acquiring new skills and improving school
achievements, as children who have a home computer report higher scores in
mathematics and reading tests, even after controlling for family income and cultural
social capital (Atewell, 2001; Atewell & Battle, 1999). In addition, the
Internet provides opportunities for family collaboration and communication as
parents and children can play games together and collaborate on software installation
(Ferrari, Klinzing, Paris, Morris, & Eyman, 1985; Kiessler, Zdaniuk,
Lundmark, & Kraut, 2000; Orleans & Laney, 2000). Computers and the Internet
hold the premise of strengthening the family by moving many family activities
(such as working, learning, and shopping) that have been dispersed by industrial
society back into the home (Tapscott, 1997).
Far less optimistic views have been stated too, and scholars have suggested that
households connected to the Internet experience negative family outcomes.
Internet use exposes children to the activities of commercial firms and can cause
them to disclose household information (Turow, 2001; Turow & Nir, 2000). For
others, Internet use is seen as an activity that reduces the time parents and children
spend together in common activities, consequently facilitating the social isolation
of children from adults (Nie et al., 2002). Children today frequently know more
about computers than their parents do. In families with Internet access, children often
rise in status within the family hierarchy, a situation that can lead to
intergenerational conflicts (Kiessler et al., 2000; Mesch, 2003; Tapscott, 1997).

FAMILY RELATIONS AND THE INTERNET 121
Finally, others have argued for a compositional effect, implying that any effects
of Internet use on family time, conflicts, and cohesiveness are spurious and the result
of personality characteristics, in particular self-esteem, which influence both
the frequency and types of youth Internet use and their relationships with parents
(Hamburger & Ben Artzi, 2000, 2003).
Given the paucity of research on family processes in Internet-connected families,
the goal of this study was to investigate the association of frequency of adolescents’
Internet use on one dimension of family life, namely family cohesion. This
article contributes to the literature in two ways. First, based on a review of the existing
literature, an integrative conceptual framework to study the effects of
Internet use on family relationships was developed. Second, we conducted a preliminary
test of the model and considered the possibility of spurious effects
evinced by the compositional model. Previous studies have not considered the possibility
of spurious effects related to personality characteristics of adolescents,
which may affect their family relationships.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Family cohesion is defined as the “emotional bonding that family members have
toward one another” (Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1983, p. 60). This means a positive
involvement of parents with their children, as reflected in shared activities,
supportive behavior, and affection. The beneficial effects of family cohesion on
children’s behavior and development are strongly attested in social science research
(Coleman, 1988; Lamb et al., 1988). Adolescents who report being close to
their parents show higher achievements in school, fewer episodes of truancy and
school dropout, and fewer cases of seeking medical care for emotional or behavioral
problems (Amato & Rivera, 1999; McNeal, 1999; Otto & Atkinson, 1997).
Past studies have suggested that families that are connected to the Internet differ
in their interactions from families that are not. In the next section we review these
arguments.
THE INTERNET AND FAMILY RELATIONS
Several scholars suggest potential intergenerational conflicts in families that have
adopted the Internet (Kiessler et al., 2000; Lenhart, Raine, & Oliver, 2001; Turow,
2001; Turow & Nir, 2000). One common explanation is the development of expectation
gaps between parents and youth. Studies have shown that most parents seem
to view the Internet as a positive new force in children’s lives, and surveys in different
countries report that families buy computers and connect their children to the
Internet at home mainly for educational purposes (Lenhart et al., 2001; Living-

122 MESCH
stone & Bober, 2004; Turow & Nir, 2000). Many parents believe that the Internet
can help their children to do better at school, do more thorough research for homework,
and help them learn worthwhile things (Livingstone & Bober, 2004;
Romapaey, Van Veerle, Roe, & Struys, 2002).
But not all teens use the Internet in the same way. Although some spend most of
their Internet time searching for information, acquiring skills, and doing research
for homework, others use it mostly for social purposes (e-mail, instant messaging,
and participation in chat rooms) and entertainment purposes (playing games online;
Lenhart & Madden, 2005; Livingstone & Bober, 2004). When youth use the
Internet for social and entertainment purposes, parental expectations presumably
contradict that kind of use, which increases the conflicts between adolescents and
parents. Conversely, using the Internet for learning and educational purposes, a use
that is highly valued by parents and consistent with parental expectations, will presumably
be negatively associated with family conflicts (Mesch, 2003).
A second explanation is time displacement: It has been argued that Internet use
is negatively associated with family time. The main contention is that time spent on
one activity cannot be spent on another (Nie et al., 2002; Nie, Simpser,
Stepanikova, & Zheng, 2004). Internet use is a time-consuming activity, and in
families that are connected to the Internet, high frequency of use might be negatively
associated with family time and positively associated with family conflicts.
In fact, parents and adolescents worry that Internet use might have a negative effect
on family communication and closeness (Jackson et al., 2003; Turow & Nir, 2000).
This concern has received empirical support from a recent study, which, based on
family time diaries, found that Internet use at home was negatively related to time
spent with family. Furthermore, the reduction in family time was higher for the average
Internet user than for the average TV watcher (Nie et al., 2004).
As well as the amount, the quality of family time also appears associated with
Internet use. Recent studies that investigated the effect of frequency of daily
Internet use by adolescents on the quality of their relationships with parents and
friends found that low Internet use was associated with better relationships with
parents and friends than was high Internet use (Mesch, 2001; Sanders, Field,
Diego, & Kaplan, 2000). Furthermore, adolescents report that Internet use does
not help them to improve their relationships with their parents and that the Internet
consumes time they would spend with their families (Lenhart, Rainie, & Lewis,
2001).
Other studies present different evidence on the effects of the Internet on family
time and suggest that rather than isolating children from their parents the Internet
has become a shared household activity (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2003). In one
study, nearly half the parents reported spending at least some time each week using
the Internet with other household members, and only a quarter of the adults reported
that they never spent time with other household members on the Internet.
When asked if they felt ignored because a household member spent too much time

FAMILY RELATIONS AND THE INTERNET 123
on the Internet, more than three fourths of respondents said they did not. Furthermore,
when comparing responses of Internet users and Internet nonusers, no significant
differences were found between these two groups in the extent of agreement
that members of the family listened to each other, were too busy to talk to
each other, and shared ideas with each other (Cole et al., 2000). In sum, empirical
evidence on the association between Internet use and family time is mixed. In addition,
to the best of our knowledge no study has investigated how Internet use and its
association with family time are related, if at all, to family cohesion.
THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL
The argument of this article is that underlying the positions outlined in the literature
review is a theoretical assumption that the family is a relatively closed social
system and the Internet is a technology that has “opened a hole in the fence of the
family” (Daly, 1996, p. 82). This conceptualization of the family emphasizes the
importance of family boundaries as reflected in the need for privacy and family
time as a functional requirement for the effective operation of the family system
(Berardo, 1998). Family life has a “backstage” and a “front stage.” The backstage
is usually the home, where family members experience intimacy and can express
their real feelings. Family members protect the backstage from outsiders’ scrutiny
and criticism (Berardo, 1998). The front stage is the public sphere in which the behavior
of family members is characterized by conformity to the role expectations
and norms that society imposes on its members. It is on the front stage that others
are allowed to influence and guide family behavior. Through time sharing, family
boundaries are protected, and this private time “allows a family sufficient autonomy
from extrafamilial scrutiny to foster feelings of cohesiveness, thereby enhancing
solidarity and impelling them to act as a unified group resisting outside interference
in their affairs” (Berardo, 1998, p. 10). Thus, the boundaries between
the family and the external world are important and necessary, and the nuclear family
provides clear-cut, often rigid, boundary between public and private life and between
children and adults (Elkind, 1994). Strong family relationships evolve
through an awareness of a boundary between family members and the rest of the
world. In their lives together, parents and children negotiate ideas about how and
why they are similar to and different from each other and from other families and
people (Berardo, 1998).
With this perspective in mind, the Internet represents a challenge to family
boundaries. Family time can be seen as a central dimension of family boundary
construction and preservation. If we think of families as social systems having a
collective identity, that identity is the result of shared recollections of togetherness
that are created as family members spend time together in shared meals, games,
and chatting (Daly, 1996). In Western societies, many families struggle with the

124 MESCH
concept of family time. In the dual-career family, in which the boundaries of work
and home are blurred, family time is sometimes the sharing of space and time that
arises from the intersection of busy lives (Daly, 1996).
Although the ideal of private family time continues to be salient as a cultural
ideal, a variety of forces make the realization of this goal difficult. One of these
forces is technology, which plays a major role in reshaping the meanings of family
time. Devices such as personal computers have made the boundary between work
time and family time more permeable than ever (Salaff, 2002). At the same time,
technology and the availability of technology within the home also appear to play a
role in keeping the family closer to home. Electronic mail, phone, and computer
networks create an opportunity for family members to do their paid work at home.
With the proliferation of technology at home, it seems that families are at the crossroads
of two different tracks: One provides them with many opportunities for
shared activity within the home, and the other easily distracts them into the solitary
world of technology, which demands their individual attention (Daly, 1996).
Studies have shown that time that a family spends together in activities such as
recreation are positively related to family cohesion (Orthner & Mancini, 1991).
Shared activities are described as forces contributing to clarifying and strengthening
family boundaries because they create opportunities for interaction, communication,
and memories that contribute to the perception of the identity and uniqueness
of one’s family (Hofferth & Sandberg, 2001; Zabrieskie & McCormick,
2001).
Family time is negatively associated with family conflicts. Cross-sectional and
longitudinal studies showed that low levels of family time were associated with
higher levels of conflict (Dubas & Gerris, 2002; Fallon & Bowles, 1997). Apparently
families that share time in common activities enjoy a higher quality of communication,
which facilitates discussion of disagreements before they become
open conflicts.
Before presenting the conceptual model, it is important to acknowledge that the
psychological literature on pervasive Internet use has raised a “compositional argument.”
Recent studies on pervasive Internet use suggest that frequent Internet
users who go online mainly for social purposes differ from other users in a number
of personality characteristics, and these might be important variables that predispose
certain individuals to high Internet use (Kraut et al., 2002; Swickert, Hittner,
Harris, & Herring, 2002).
Personality characteristics, in particular self-esteem, have been found to explain
different uses of the Internet (Hamburger & Ben Artzi, 2000, 2003). Low
self-esteem has been linked to addictive behavior, as individuals with low self-esteem
tend to focus on negative self-evaluations (Barrera, Chassin, & Rogosch,
1993). Self-esteem is thought to be established in childhood as a result of lack of
parental and peer support, which creates feelings of inadequacy and worthlessness
(Kernis, Brown, & Brody, 2000). Addiction is then used to withdraw or escape

FAMILY RELATIONS AND THE INTERNET 125
FIGURE 1 A conceptual model based on the family boundaries approach.
from these negative evaluations and the stress involved in interpersonal relationships
(McMurran, 1994). A study conducted using this approach reports that poor
self-esteem accounted for 15.8% of the variance in the number of hours spent on
the Internet, and individuals with low self-esteem spent more time on it
(Amstrong, Phillips, & Saling, 2000). Thus, in this study the self-selection model
was tested to rule out spurious effects.
A summary of the empirical model tested in this article is presented in Figure 1.
Based on the family boundaries approach, we argue that family time is a major
component contributing to family cohesion. It facilitates the development of a collective
identity and shared experiences, which are needed in families connected to
the Internet that encounter a separation between the public and the private realm.
Frequency of Internet use and Internet social use are likely to be negatively associated
with the time that parents and children spend together. The implication of this
argument is the expectation of an indirect effect of frequency of Internet use on
family cohesion. Frequency of adolescents’ Internet use and Internet social use are
expected to be positively related to conflicts in the family: the greater the quarrels
and tensions between parents and children, the lower the family cohesion. Frequency
of Internet use is expected to decrease the time that parents and adolescents
spend together and to reduce family cohesion.
METHOD
Procedure
The theoretical model was evaluated using data from the 2001 Israeli National
Youth Survey. The survey was conducted by the Minerva Center for Youth Studies

126 MESCH
at the University of Haifa. It covered a representative sample of 1,000 households
in Israel. The sampling procedure began with a random sample of 60 localities in
Israel with populations of 2,000 or more. Then, according to the size of the adolescent
population in each location, neighborhoods were selected randomly. The
number of neighborhoods in each area was determined by the size of the juvenile
population (13–18 years old) in the locality. At least one neighborhood was randomly
selected in locations with a low rate of adolescents and more than one in the
larger urban areas. In each neighborhood 15 households were randomly selected.
The selected neighborhoods represent all geographic areas of Israel and also different
sizes of populations, from big cities to small towns and villages.
Data collection started in February 2001, and all interviews were completed by
April 2001. Trained university students who contacted each randomly selected
household conducted the survey. If there was no youngster between the ages 13 of
18 in the household, the interviewer was instructed to select another household in
the same building. Face-to-face interviews were conducted, in which a structured
questionnaire was used. The respondents were guaranteed total anonymity, and the
interview lasted about 40 min. Overall, 1,000 adolescents were contacted. Of
these, 73 refused to participate, representing a refusal rate of 7.3%.
In this study, 396 adolescents reported being connected to the Internet in their
homes, representing 42% of the sample. This is close to the percentage in the entire
Israeli population: According to the Israeli General Social Survey, 44.3%of families
with adolescent children reported having an Internet connection from home in
2001, the year this survey was conducted (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2003). Because
the interest of this research is the effect of frequency and types of Internet
use on family cohesion, the data analysis in this study covers the subsample of
Internet users only (n = 396).
A comparison of the two groups showed similarities and differences. Internet
users were of higher socioeconomic standing as measured by parental education.
The average father’s education of Internet users was 13.4 years (SD = 3.42) but
only 11.75 (SD = 3.4) for non-Internet users. The average mother’s education was
13.38 years (SD = 3.12) for Internet users and 11.71 (SD = 2.78) for non-Internet
users. A t test for differences in the mean showed that differences were significant
at p < .01.
The average age of adolescents who were Internet users was 15.5 years (SD =
1.66) and of non-Internet users 15.68 years (SD = 1.66). Whereas 43.3%of the
Internet users were boys, only 38.6% were girls. Age and gender differences between
Internet users and nonusers were not statistically different. As to the main
variables of the study, a significant difference was found on time spent with parents.
Internet users reported spending on average less time with their parents (M =
6.10, SD = 2.65) than non-Internet users (M = 7.34, SD = 2.96, p < .01). No statistically
significant differences were found in family conflicts and family cohesion
between Internet users and nonusers.

Measures
FAMILY RELATIONS AND THE INTERNET 127
Family cohesion. This concept was measured using items that reflect its
definition as an emotional bonding that family members have for each other
(Olson et al., 1983). Items were similar to those used in recent studies (Mitchell,
Finkelhor, & Wolak, 2003). Respondents were asked to indicate their degree of
agreement with the following statements: “My parents are attentive to my problems,”
“My parents and I get along together,” and “My parents and I are emotionally
close.” Adolescents responded using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to4(strongly agree). The items were subjected to factor analysis
(varimax rotation), resulting in one dimension with factor loadings between .78
and .80. Items were standardized and a summed score was calculated. Cronbach’s
alpha was acceptable (.796).
Family conflicts. This concept was measured by three survey items that assessed
the extent to which conflictual interactions characterized adolescent–parental
relationships (adapted from Dubas & Gerris [2002] and Moos & Moos [1976]).
Adolescents were asked how often during the past year “your parents have cursed
you,” “your parents have insulted you,” and “your parents have pushed or shoved
you.” Adolescents responded using a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (never)to4(very
frequently). The items were subjected to a factor analysis (varimax rotation), resulting
in one dimension with factor loadings between .8 and .9. Items were standardized
and a summed score was calculated. Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable
(.77).
Family time. This concept refers to the average time that the adolescent spent
with family members. In keeping with previous studies, it was measured by an
item indicating activity on weekdays and activity on weekends (Dubas & Gerris,
2002). Family time tends to differ between weekends and weekdays, as parents
who work on weekdays may spend less time with their children and try to catch up
with them during weekends by spending time with them in social and leisure activities
(Milkie, Mattingly, Nomaguchi, Bianchi, & Robinson, 2004; Yeung,
Sandberg, Davis-Kean, & Hofferth, 2001). Thus, the concept was measured by two
items: “On an average weekday, about how many hours do you spend talking,
playing or doing things with your parents?” Answers to this item were rated from 0
(XXXX)to7(XXXX). The second item asked “On an average weekend, about how
much time do you spend talking, playing, or doing things together with your parents?”
Answers were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (almost none) to4
(quite a lot). Items were standardized and combined into a single scale.
Internet use. Because the literature review suggests that different uses may
be related to different outcomes, three measures were used for this construct. Daily

128 MESCH
Internet use was measured by an item that asked adolescents who had Internet access
how many hours they spent connected to the Internet on an average day. Responses
were rated on a continuous scale from zero to 7 hr a day.
In addition, two latent variables were created to tap Internet use for social purposes
and Internet use that was not social in nature. The need for this distinction
has been noted in the literature, as different uses can lead to different outcomes
(LaRosa, Eastin, & Gregg, 2001). Internet social use was measured by three items
that asked the adolescent, “How often do you play online games with friends?”
“How often do you chat with friends online?” and “How often do you participate in
discussion groups?” Answers to the items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from
0(never)to5(very often). Three items measured Internet nonsocial use: “How often
do you download software to your computer?” “How often do you surf the net
for information?” and “How often do you use the Internet to listen to music or
watch a movie?” Responses were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 (never)to5
(very often). Both constructs resulted from a factor analysis (varimax rotation) in
which all the items were introduced and loaded on two different factors.
Control variables. Number of siblings was measured by an open-ended
question that asked the respondent the number of his or her brothers and sisters.
This was measured as a continuous variable. Age was measured as a continuous
variable in years. Finally, gender was scored as 0 for girls and 1 for boys.
Self-esteem. Self-esteem was a composite variable created by means of a
number of items from a reduced Rosenberg’s (1965) self-esteem questionnaire.
Adolescents were asked to indicate the extent of agreement with the following
items: “Overall I am happy with myself,” “I feel that I have a number of good characteristics,”
“I perform very well in most of the tasks that I am interested in,” “I feel
that I am a valuable person,” and “I have a positive attitude of myself.” Answers
were given on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all)to4(very much). The items
were subjected to factor analysis resulting in one dimension with factor loadings
between .70 and .78. Items were standardized and a summed score was calculated.
Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable (.79).
RESULTS
Correlations Among Study Constructs
We examined the correlations between the central constructs of the study. Table 1
presents the correlations for the sample of adolescents who are Internet users; they
are seen to be small to moderate. As expected, family conflicts were negatively related
to family cohesion, whereas time that adolescents and parents spend together

129
Family
Cohesion
Family
Conflicts
TABLE 1
Correlation Matrix for Latent Variables
Family
Time Self-Esteem Social Use
Nonsocial
Use
Frequency of
Internet Use
Family Cohesion 1.0
Family Conflicts –.308** 1.0
Family Time .328** –.108* 1.0
Self Esteem .268** –.220** .137 1.0
Social Use –.034 .090** –.016** –.097 1.0
Non Social Use .003 .032 –.002 –.149** .385 1.0
Frequency of Use –.091 –.025 –.135* .003 .292** .319** 1.0
M .036 .053 .233 .111 .967 .682 3.70
SD .953 1.076 .915 1.041 .888 .444 2.81
N 399 397 394 394 396 390 396
*p < .05. **p < .01.

130 MESCH
was positively related to family cohesion and negatively related to family conflicts.
A negative correlation was found between self-esteem and nonsocial use of the
Internet. This negative correlation required further elaboration as it is likely that
the expected association between frequency of Internet use and family conflicts,
time, and cohesion was in part due to adolescent’s self-esteem. This possibility
was explored and is reported in further analysis later.
For the main analysis, structural equation modeling using the AMOS software
was used (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). Structural equation modeling offers the researcher
several advantages. First, it allows incorporation of factor analysis and
path analysis in single-model estimation. Second, it provides increased measurement
reliability. When using several indicators to measure a factor, the model
partials out the measurement errors and provides a more reliable measurement of
that factor. Thus, the measurement model of the endogenous variables was tested;
loadings of the indicators on each of the latent variables (the measurement models)
are provided in Figure 2.
All the indicators load reasonable well on the latent variables. All of the coefficients
in the model were statistically significant at p < .01. Fit indexes revealed that
the model fit the data reasonably well: Normed Fit Index (NFI) = .99, Relative Fit
Index (RFI) = .98, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .99, root mean squared error of
approximation (RMSEA) = .05.
An additional benefit of using AMOS software is the estimation of missing data
by means of the full information maximum likelihood algorithm. This has proved
FIGURE 2 The measurement model for endogenous variables.

FAMILY RELATIONS AND THE INTERNET 131
less biased than the traditional approaches to missing data, such as listwise or
pairwise deletion (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). 1
Structural Equation Models
To test the hypothesis of the study, structural equation models were used. The results
are presented in Table 2.
The first column presents the results for a model derived from the social boundaries
hypothesis. In this model, frequency and types of Internet use are expected to
be indirectly related to family cohesiveness through their effect on family time and
family conflicts. The results provided empirical support for this hypothesis. Frequency
of daily Internet use was negatively related to family time. The more time
the adolescent spent on Internet activities, the less the time parents and children
spent together. Frequency of daily use of the Internet did not have a statistically
significant effect on family cohesiveness. In addition, one of the measures of adolescents’
Internet use, use for social purposes, proved positively related to the extent
of intergenerational conflicts in the family. Adolescents who used the Internet
for social purposes were more likely to report conflicts with their parents. However,
frequency and types of Internet use were not directly related to the perceptions
of family cohesiveness. From the results it appears that Internet use affects
family cohesion indirectly through its negative effect on family time and its positive
effect on family conflicts. As expected, family time was positively related and
family conflicts were negatively related to family cohesiveness. An examination of
fit indexes (NFI = .981, RFI = .973, CFI = .990, and RMSEA = .05) indicates that
the model fit the data reasonably well.
Further Analysis
At this point the “compositional argument” was tested. Recent studies on pervasive
Internet use suggest that frequent Internet users go online mainly for social
purposes, and they differ from other users in a number of personality characteristics.
According to this argument there is a self-selection process, and all the effects
of frequency and type of Internet use are the result of not controlling for personality
characteristics, in particular self-esteem. The implication is that self-esteem
1 The evaluation of model fit in structural equation modeling has been debated extensively. Currently
several evaluation criteria are offered in the methodological literature, and none of them should
be considered exclusive or conclusive (Bollen & Long, 1993; Browne & Cudeck, 1993). An insignificant
chi-square measure indicates an exact fit of the model to the data but is highly sensitive to sample
size. The NFI, RFI, and CFI are considered good when they exceed 0.9 and very good when they exceed
0.95. RMSEA equal to or below 0.1 indicates an acceptable model, whereas equal to or below 0.05 indicates
an excellent fit.

132
TABLE 2
Results of the Structural Equation Models
Dependent Variable Independent Variable Estimate (SE) Standardized Estimate Estimate (SE) Standardized Estimate
Family Time Daily Internet Use –.003 (.018) –.156* –.037 (.018) –.148*
Social Use –.077 (.180) –.066 –.071 (.179) –.060
Nonsocial Use .141 (.216) .106 .101 (.214) .076
Age –.129 (.044) –.177** –.128 (.044) –.176**
Number of Siblings .110 (.038) .177** .108 (.038) .172**
Self-Esteem .436 (.199) .147*
R 2 .085 .102
Family Conflicts Daily Internet Use –.004 (.008) –.035 –.007 (.008) –.052
Social Use .242 (.093) .394** .239 (.092) .382**
Nonsocial Use –.163 (.110) –.235 –.127 (.108) –.180
Family Time .233 (.198) .446 .245 (.198) .461
Number of Siblings .050 (.017) .153** .053 (.017) .161**
Self-Esteem –.427 (.098) –.271**
R 2 .087 .167
Family Cohesivenees Daily Internet Use .001 (.009) .016 .001 (.009) .007
Social Use .171 (.141) .396 .167 (.131) .387
Nonsocial Use –.119 (.133) –.244 –.111 (.118) –.229
Family Time .303 (.126) .824** .294 (.124) .804**
Family Conflicts –.765 (.433) –.789* –.732 (.394) –.930*
Self-Esteem .055 (.220) .050
R 2 .526 .480
χ 2 942.710 556.679
NFI .981 .974
CFI .990 .985
RMSEA .053 .050
Note. NFI = Normed Fit Index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean squared error of approximation.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

FAMILY RELATIONS AND THE INTERNET 133
FIGURE 3 Model predicting the effect of Internet use on family cohesiveness.
might be a suppressor of frequency and type of Internet use, family time, family
conflicts, and family cohesion. We explored this argument and the results are
shown in Table 2. The model also fit the data reasonable well (NFI = .974, RFI =
.963, CFI = .985, and RMSEA = .05). The results show that self-esteem is an important
variable to consider when investigating the effect of new information technologies
on family relations. Self-esteem was negatively related to the time that
adolescents and parents spent together, positively related to the extent of conflicts
that parents and adolescents experience, and negatively related to family cohesiveness.
However, the introduction of self-esteem in the model did not reduce the effect
of frequency and type of Internet use to zero. The indirect effects of Internet
frequency and type of use on family cohesiveness through family time and family
conflict persisted even when self-esteem was introduced. Following the empirical
results, it seems appropriate to reject the self-selection hypothesis and to accept the
family boundaries model.
The results for the full model are presented in Figure 3.
DISCUSSION
In recent years, with the increased use of the Internet, an interest in its social impact
on everyday life has developed (Haythornwaite & Wellman, 2002). However,
research on the association of Internet use and family processes is slight. This
study can be seen as an attempt to start filling this gap in the literature. The goal of
this study was to investigate the effect of frequency and type of Internet use by adolescents
on family cohesion.

134 MESCH
An interesting contribution of this study concerns the effects of different
types of Internet use. Adolescents’ use of the Internet for social purposes,
namely playing online games, communication with friends, and participation in
discussion groups, was found to be positively associated with family conflicts.
On the other hand, Internet use for learning or school-related purposes such as
downloading software or searching for information was not associated with family
conflicts, family time, and family cohesion. The use for learning purposes
was found in previous studies to be motivation for parents to decide to connect
their households to the Internet (Turow & Nir, 2000). Consistent with the family
boundaries perspective, social use is the kind that most exposes family information
to others who are not members of the family unit. This flow of information
weakens family boundaries and apparently is conceived by parents as a threat.
At the same time, an alternative explanation that cannot be ruled out is that
Internet use for social purposes may expose the adolescent to dangerous individuals
and dangerous situations, including sexual harassment and victimization
(Livingstone & Bober, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2003). The potential risk may contribute
to family conflicts as parents attempt to protect their children through
rules that regulate type of use (Mesch, in press). Our understanding of family
processes would benefit from future studies that explore the nature and sources
of the conflicts in greater detail.
The main finding of this study is the existence of different pathways that link
the extent of Internet use and family cohesion. We identified two of them, namely
family time and family conflicts. In both cases the overall effects relying in these
two latent variables seem to suggest that frequency of adolescent’s Internet use is
associated with decline in family cohesion even when personality characteristics
are controlled for. However, we cannot dismiss the possibility that Internet use can
have positive effects on family cohesion too. For example, the Internet may well be
used in other family contexts to strengthen the boundaries of the family and to create
memories that help develop a collective identity. Data limitations do not allow
exploration of Internet effects on family cohesion where parents and children play
games together and work together on family projects such as searching for vacation
resorts or for relatives all over the world. Our understanding would benefit
from studies that develop and explore more pathways that link the use of information
and communication technologies with family cohesion.
In this study we developed and expanded a family boundaries approach as a
framework for the study of the association of Internet use and family processes.
The framework resulted from the dearth of studies found in a review of literature
on the process of family adjustment to new information and communication technologies.
The family boundaries approach developed in this study focuses mainly
on families with adolescent children, a specific family developmental time in
which the Internet facilitates flow of information and contents into and outside the
household and limits the extent of family time. The expansion and usefulness of

FAMILY RELATIONS AND THE INTERNET 135
the framework as an explanatory framework for other stages in the family life cycle
requires further theoretical development and empirical testing. Regarding this intellectual
effort, it seems appropriate to argue that activities that may be negatively
associated with family cohesion at one stage in the family life cycle may become
positively associated with it at another stage (Watt & White, 1999). For example,
in empty-nest families, the use of information and communication technologies
such as the Internet can be associated with high family cohesion as the Internet facilitates
the conservation of family boundaries through providing a tool for communication
between parents and grown children who reside far from their parents
(Hughes & Hans, 2001). In this case, rather than serving to blur family boundaries,
the Internet contributes to their preservation, facilitating the sharing of information
between parents and children through messages and exchange of photographs and
information.
Study Limitations
Although providing important findings on the link between Internet use and family
cohesiveness, this study has a number of limitations. The data on family time, conflicts,
and cohesiveness were obtained from the information provided by adolescents
and in that sense represent their subjective perception. Although this perception
is important, expanding the conceptual model requires more detailed family
information, and gathering parental information on their perceived quality of family
life will increase the robustness of the findings.
Another limitation of the study is that it is based on cross-sectional data and
the direction of the associations is not clear. For example, use of the Internet for
social purposes was found to be positively associated with family conflicts. But
the nature of the data did not permit any conclusion as to whether adolescents in
conflict with their parents used the Internet as a social support system or
whether adolescents heavily involved in using the Internet for communication
came into conflict with their parents, who expected them to use the device for
school purposes.
Despite these limitations, the study enhances our knowledge of the effects of
Internet use on family quality, an area that suffers from paucity of research. At the
conceptual level, a family boundaries model was suggested, delineating the central
variables that require study and attention, namely family time, conflicts, and cohesiveness.
As to Internet use, it was argued, and empirically shown, that it needs to
be studied not as a single dimension of frequency of use: Different types of use affect
different components of the family boundaries model. Finally, when the model
was empirically tested, the data proved to fit the model reasonably well. Spurious
effects expected from the compositional model were minor and did not change the
significance and importance of the other effects.

136 MESCH
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was conducted with partial support from the Israel Foundation Trustees
(Grant 23/2000) and the Minerva Center for Youth Studies.
REFERENCES
Amato, P. R., & and Rivera, F. (1999). Paternal involvement and children’s behavior. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 61, 375–384.
Armstrong, L., Phillips, J. G., & Saling, L. L. (2000). Potential determinants of heavier Internet usage.
International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 53, 537–550.
Atewell, P. (2001). The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74, 252–259.
Atewell, P., & Battle, J. (1999). Home computers and school performance. The Information Society, 15,
1–10.
Barrera, M., Chassin, L., & Rogosch, F. (1993). Effects of social support and conflict on adolescent
children of alcoholic and nonalcoholic fathers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,
60212.
Berardo, F. (1998). Family privacy: Issues and concepts. Journal of Family Issues, 118, 4–19.
Cole, J. I., Suman, M., Schram, P., Van Bel, D., Lun, B., Maguirre, P., Hanson, K., Singh, R., & Aquino,
J. S. (2000). Surveying the digital future. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for Communication Policy. Retrieved
XXXX, XX, XXXX, from the World Wide Web: www.ccp.ucla.edu.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital and the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology.
94, 95–120.
Central Bureau of Statistics. (2003). The 2002 Social Survey [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Author.
Daly, K. J. (1996). Families and time: Keeping pace in a hurried culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dubas, J. S., & Gerris, J. R. M. (2002). Longitudinal changes in the time parents spend with their adolescent
children as a function of child age, pubertal status and gender. Journal of Family Psychology,
16, 415–427.
Ferrari, M., Klinzing, D. G., Paris, C. L., Morris, S. K., & Eyman, A. P. (1985). Home computers: Implications
for children and families. Marriage and Family Review, 8, 41–57.
Hamburger, Y.A., & Ben Artzi, E. (2000). The relationship between extraversion and neuroticism and
the different uses of the Internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 441–449.
Hamburger, Y. A., & Ben Artzi, E. (2003). Loneliness and Internet use. Computers in Human Behavior,
19, 71–80.
Hampton, K. N., & Wellman, B. (2002). The not so global village of Netville. In B. Wellman & C.
Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 345–372). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Haythornthwaite, C., & Kazmer, M. M. (2002. Bringing the Internet home: Adult distance learners and
their Internet, home and work worlds. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in
everyday life (pp. 461–463). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Hofferth, S. L., & Sandberg, J. (2001). How American children spend their time. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 63, 295–308.
Hughes, R., & Hans, J. (2001). Computers, the Internet and families. Journal of Family Issues, 22,
776–790.
Jackson, L. A., Von Eye, A., Barbatsis, G., Biocca, F., Zhao, Y., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (2003). Internet attitudes
and Internet use: Some surprising findings from the HomeNetTOO project. International Journal
of Human–Computer Studies, 59, 355–382.
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2003). Growing up wired: Survey of youth and the Internet in the Silicon
Valley. Washington, DC: Author.

FAMILY RELATIONS AND THE INTERNET 137
Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kavanaugh, A., & Patterson, S. J. (2002). The impact of community computer networks on social capital
and community involvement in Blacksburg. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The
Internet in everyday life (pp. 325–345). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Kernis, M. H., Brown, A. C., & Brody, G. H. (2000). Fragile self-esteem in children and its associations
with perceived patterns of parent–child communication. Journal of Personality, 68, 225.
Kiesler, S., Zdaniuk, B., Lundmark, V., & Kraut, R. (2000). Troubles with the Internet: The dynamics of
help at home. Human–Computer Interaction, 15, 322–351.
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (in press). Internet paradox
revisited. Journal of Social Issues.
Lamb, M. E., Hwang, P., Brogerg, A., Brookstein, E., Hult, G., & Frodi, M. (1988). The determinations
of parental involvement in a representative sample of Swedish families. International Journal of Behavior
and Development, 2, 443–449.
LaRose, R., Eastin, M. S., & Gregg, J. (2001). Reformulating the Internet paradox: Social cognitive explanations
of Internet use and depression. Retrieved XXXXX XX, XXXX, from the World Wide
Web: http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n1/paradox.html.
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology. Washington, DC: Pew and American
Life Project.
Lenhart, A., Raine, L., & Oliver, L. (2001). Teenage life online: The rise of the instant-message generation
and the Internet’s impact on friendships and family relationships. Retrieved XXXX XX,
XXXX, from the World Wide Web: (Available from Pew and American Life Project, 1100 Connecticut
Av., NW suite 710, Washington, DC 20036)
Livingstone, S., & Bober, M. (2004). UK children go online. London: London School of Economics.
McNeal, R. Jr. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness on science
achievement, truancy and dropping out. Social Forces, 78, 117–144.
Mitchell, K., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2003). The exposure of youth to unwanted sexual material on
the Internet: A national survey of risk, impact, and prevention, Youth & Society, 34, 330–358.
Mesch, G. S. (2001). Social relationships and Internet use among adolescents in Israel. Social Science
Quarterly, 82, 329–340.
Mesch, G. S. (2003). The Internet and intergenerational relationships. Social Science Quarterly, 84,
1038–1050.
Mesch, G. S. (in press). Family characteristics and intergenerational conflicts over the Internet. Information,
Communication and Society.
Mesch, G. S., & Levanon, Y. (2003). Community networking and locally based social ties in two suburban
localities. City and Community, 2, 335–351.
Milkie, M. A., Mattingly, M. J., Nomaguchi, K. M., Bianchi, S., & Robinson, J. P. (2004). The time
squeeze: Parental statuses and feelings about time with children. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
66, 739–761.
Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1976). A typology of family social environment. Family Process, 15,
357–371.
Nie, N. H., Simpser, A., Stepanikova, I., & Zheng, L. (2004). Ten years after the birth of the Internet,
how do Americans use the Internet in their daily lives? Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for the Quantitative
Study of Society.
Nie, N. H., Hillygus, D. S., & Erbing, L. (2002). Internet use, interpersonal relationships, and sociability:
A time diary study. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life
(pp. 215–244). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Olson, D. H., Russel, C. S., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1983). Cicumplex model of marital and family systems.
Family Processes, 22, 69–83.
Orthner, D. K., & Mancini, J. A. (1991). Benefits of leisure experiences for family bonding. In B. L.
Driver et al. (Eds.), Benefits of leisure (pp. xx–xx). State College, PA: Vantage.

138 MESCH
Otto, L. B., & Atkinson, M. P. (1997). Parental involvement and adolescent development. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 12, 68–89.
Robinson, J. P., Kastenbaum, M., Neustadtl, A., & Alvarez, A. (2002). The Internet and other uses of
time. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 244–263). Oxford,
England: Blackwell.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Salaff, J. W. (2002). Where home is the office: The new form of flexible work. In B. Wellman & C.
Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 464–495). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Sanders, C. E., Field, T., Diego, M., & Kaplan, M. (2000). The relationship of Internet use to depression
and social isolation among adolescents. Adolescence, 35, 237–242.
Silverstone, R., & Haddon, L. (1996). Design and the domestication of information and communication
technologies: Technical change and everyday life. In R. Silverstone & R. Mansell (Eds.), Communication
by design: The politics of information and communication technologies (xx–xx). Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Swickert, R., Hittner, J. B., Harris, J. L., & Herring, J. A. (2002). Relationships among Internet use, personality
and social support. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 437–451.
Tapscott, D. (1997). Growing up digital: The rise of the Net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Turow, J. (2001). Family boundaries, commercialism, and the Internet: A framework for research. Applied
Developmental Psychology. 22, 73–86.
Turow, J., & Nir, L. (2000). The Internet and the family 2000: The view from the parents, the view from
the kids. Philadelphia, PA: Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved
XXXX XX, XXXX, from the World Wide Web: http://www.appcpenn.org/Internet/.
Van Rompaey, V., Roe, K., & Struys, K. (2002). Children’s influence on Internet access at home. Information
Communication and Society, 5, 189–206.
Watt, D., & White, J. M. (1994). Computers and family life: A family developmental perspective. Journal
of Comparative Family Studies, XX, xx–xx.
Yeung, W. J., Sandberg, J. F., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Hofferth, S. L. (2001). Children’s time with fathers
in intact families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 136–154.
Zabrieskie, R. B., & McCormick, B. P. (2001). The influences of family leisure patterns on perceptions
of family functioning. Family Relations, 50, 281–289.