Russ Newman, Ph.D., J.D.
Executive Director for Professional Practice
American Psychological Association

August 5, 2000,
Grand Hyatt Hotel, Washington, D.C.,
Independence Ballroom A

Vigilance and strategic action are necessary to prevent scenarios like these, while we simultaneously work to make optimum use of the Internet for positive healthcare purposes.

But the development of the Internet and its potential for benefit, as well as its potential for harm, goes far beyond healthcare. At the public unveiling of the proposed merger of AOL and Time Warner, AOL Chief Executive Steve Case described what he believes to be the start of the "Internet Century", foretelling a role for the Internet in our lives that we have only just begun to appreciate. [SLIDE 9] You may be interested to know that at last count, 706 new households join the Internet every hour and by 2003 it is predicted that almost 60 million of the total 106.8 million U.S. households will be online. (Jupiter Communications, June 1999)

[SLIDE 10] Some technology optimists argue that continued Internet development will result in computers being able to relieve people of every time-consuming, "left brain", mundane task. This, they say, will free us to concentrate our time and energy on creative endeavors, enjoyable activities and those things that generally improve our quality of life. (Dent, 1998)

The Internet's promise of limitless access to knowledge and the potential for widespread, instantaneous communication is, to say the least, quite alluring. While such positive outcomes may be possible, we must not overlook some equally possible adverse effects from an Internet culture.

[SLIDE 11] One already insidious result of the Internet evolution has been an accumulating information overload. To manage this overwhelming amount of information, both Internet companies and users are finding ways to screen, and limit online material. "Filtering", "narrowing", "personalizing" and "customizing" are becoming popular techniques to control an otherwise overwhelming flood of information. While these strategies may effectively narrow the information bombarding us, they may, unfortunately, lead to an unwanted narrow mindedness as well. In this vein, Andrew Shapiro, in his 1999 book, The Control Revolution, laments the possible impact on free speech where a dissenter's voice can be excluded completely and effortlessly with a mere click of the mouse to engage a filtering program.

An unintended consequence of controlling information overload may be that we are exposed to only those ideas of our choosing, and we may ultimately communicate with only those like-minded individuals whose ideas coincide with our own, while we ignore any divergent thought. Imagine for a moment an Internet culture where we spend the majority of our time online and telecommuting. As a result, we may even limit the serendipitous discovery of new ideas such as when we travel by metro or train or plane to work each day. Taken to its logical extreme, we may succeed at managing information overload at the expense of losing diversity in our culture.

A February Time article pointed out that "every minute you spend online -- playing chess, talking politics, or just shopping -- is a minute you're not spending off-line. And it is off-line, in the real world, where we find a precious social resource -- people we have little in common with. The supermarket checkout lady, the librarian, the shoppers at the mall -- are all handy reminders of the larger community we're part of -- multicultural, socioeconomically diverse yet bound by a common nature." (Wright, 2000)

Beyond its influence on information exchange, the Internet has an obvious impact on how we communicate with one another. Without question, the Internet is creating communication links never before thought possible as individuals and groups communicate easily, instantaneously, and inexpensively across great distances and despite geographic or political boundaries. Yet, a growing body of literature is demonstrating how electronic communication may be effective for some things but not for others.

[SLIDE 12] Electronic communication is particularly effective at monitoring the status of an issue, sending alerts, broadcasting information and invoking action – something our federal advocacy grassroots network members know quite well. But according to research, electronic communication is not as effective as face to face communication when it comes to defining and discussing solutions to problems.

[SLIDE 13] Negotiation and consensus building are found to be easier, quicker and more effective with face to face communication. The Winter issue of the Harvard Business Review reports a study comparing e-mail, telephone and face-to-face negotiations. When people met face-to-face, the most frequent outcome was a mutually beneficial agreement. When people talked over the phone, the most frequent outcome was an agreement, but one in which one party took a greater share of the profits. With e-mail, the most common outcome was impasse – more than 50% of the e-mail negotiations ended in an impasse while only 9% ended that way in face to face negotiations.

Others have found that the anonymity and distance that electronic communication provide can actually lead to open displays of anger and escalating conflict, rather than leading to conflict resolution. It is also suggested that when information is shared electronically, it is much more likely to be exaggerated or altered in some way. People may actually lie more readily when they are interacting through e-mail. On a related note, Janlori Goldman, one of the country's leading experts on Internet privacy (or more accurately the absence of Internet privacy) posits that as people discover how little privacy they actually have on-line, the tendency to lie and obfuscate increases as a protective measure. (Goldman, 2000)

To the extent that Internet influences how we communicate with each other, it is no great leap to assume significant impact on how we relate to one another. No one should underestimate the potential of the Internet to enable us to connect with large numbers of people across otherwise impermeable boundaries. According to Amitai Etzoni, one of the country's foremost “communitarians”, e-communities offer an unparalleled breadth of connectedness. Etzoni argues that acceptable levels of trust and intimacy can occur on the Net if the number of participants is kept relatively small, if admission is controlled to foster affinity, and if people drop their Internet masks.

How difficult it will be to assure these conditions for optimal e-community development is, not clear. But even if the conditions can be maintained, we must also wonder about how these e-communities, "global communities," and new cyber relationships will affect our local communities and our in-person relationships.

[SLIDE 14] Some research has already found loneliness, depression and disconnection resulting from Internet use. A survey of over 4,000 people conducted earlier this year by the Stanford Institute for the Qualitative Study of Society found evidence of increasing social isolation resulting from Internet use. (Streitfeld, 2000)

A previous smaller study in 1998 at Carnegie Mellon University examined the effects of the Internet on 169 people in 75 households during their first one or two years online. The authors concluded that greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participants' communication with family members, declines in the size of their social circle, and increases in depression and loneliness. (Kraut, et al., 1998)

[SLIDE 15] A recent survey by the PEW Foundation, however, found opposite results. The study of over 3,500 adults found that 72% of Internet users visited a relative or a friend a day earlier, compared with 61% for nonusers. Internet users were also more likely to have phoned friends and relatives. Fifty five percent of Internet users said e-mail has improved communication with family, and 66% believe contact with friends has increased because of e-mail. But the study did note that much of the e-mail exchanges were superficial and in the form of jokes, news tidbits or family announcements. The study found most e-mail users still reluctant to use the Internet for advice or to discuss upsetting or worrisome topics.

From a slightly different perspective, the protective anonymity of the Internet enables relationships online to develop quickly and intensely. Research, which is just now beginning to study the phenomenon of virtual intimacy, prompts a concern that "pseudo-intimacy" may be displacing traditional notions of intimacy. [SLIDE 16] For example, David Greenfield, psychologist and author of "Virtual Addiction" (1999) reports that clients whose lives are disrupted by addictive behavior online may come to treatment initially complaining of strained marital and family relationships. Further investigation reveals that the source of the strain is a partner or spouse whose inordinate time online or whose involvement in a "cyber-relationship" is preempting satisfying relationships at home. Also, according to recent research, the numbers of Internet sex addicts, people developing gambling additions on line and those with an unhealthy dependence on the Internet itself are increasing dramatically.

Just as the anonymity of the Internet may cause open communication to develop rapidly, online relationships can be ended swiftly and completely. Current technology even makes possible the programming of online filters to actively prevent ever receiving communication from a person with whom someone has ended a relationship. While such filtering may be useful for blocking unwanted advertising and solicitation, or even desirable for use with, say, an ex-spouse, it raises questions as to the long-term impact on forming stable, accountable relationships. There may be an, as of yet, unidentified price to pay for technological advances in a culture where relationships can be pursued or discharged with the click of a mouse.

Given the Internet's influence on information exchange, communication and relationships, its no surprise that the Internet is also beginning to reshape the political process. As with each of the other areas, here too, there is both opportunity and threat. On a very basic level, the Directorate has already made use of this technology to facilitate our grassroots advocacy for patient protections and legal accountability. During the House consideration, for example, we sent 19,000 e-mails on each of three separate occasions to targeted psychologists asking them to call their representatives and urge them to vote for accountability. But this is just the beginning of possible uses.

According to figures compiled by the Associated Press, the Internet played a significant role in fundraising for the presidential candidates from both parties during the primaries. [SLIDE 17] While George W. Bush had picked up only $340,000 from online contributions by the New Hampshire primary, Senator John McCain raised $2.5 million online, Vice President Gore $1.1 million and Bill Bradley $1.6 million. One commentator called McCain's Internet fundraising "nothing short of astounding.” (White, Feb. 5, 2000)

While the amount of money raised online is important, the turnaround time may be the most significant advantage. Online contributions made by credit card can be used almost immediately while the traditional form of contribution -- the check -- can take more than a week to become available to spend.

But the real potential for the Internet is as a vehicle for citizens to organize and express their views. One survey of a million Internet users polled about e-advocacy, to which 150,000 responded, found that 58% preferred to contact their Member of Congress via e-mail, while only 25% said they preferred to write a letter. A more recent poll for the political and government services portal “E The People” found that one in eight American households have sent e-mail to government officials while 24% of households have visited a government website and 12% have visited a candidate site. Numerous political web portals such as Politics Online, whose creator we'll hear from in a few minutes, USAdemocracy.com, Grassroots.com, SpeakOut.com, Voter.com and OneDemocracy.com are providing interested citizens with up to the minute information about candidates or political issues, and thereby, changing the way people learn about and get involved with politics.

[SLIDE 18] Without question, the Internet is making communication for political purposes more possible than ever before. In doing so, it is also giving everyday citizens more influence over the political process and, may actually be changing the character of politics. According to Shapiro,

"The crux of direct electronic democracy is that individuals can exercise a whole new kind of civic power. It is more than just the ability to cast a vote online or to express our views more easily to elected representatives and career public servants. Rather, it is the opportunity to take more control of the decisions that have been made for us by these public officials. Traditionally, we have relied on them to act as our agents, using their training, experience, time, and judgement to determine social needs and allocate resources. What choice did we have? There was no way for us to know instantaneously what was going on in the realm of politics, let alone to assert our preferences directly. Decisions were therefore made for us by others." (p. 153)

With this new electronically driven civic power, the ultimate political question can be asked: Are elected officials necessary as representatives of the people to government if every individual can express governmental preferences directly? This question of direct democracy versus representative government is not a new one. In fact, the founding fathers of this country struggled with the very same question. But that is a topic for another day.

The important point is that with the Internet, it is theoretically possible for each citizen to personally participate in the political process. Not only can individuals make their voices directly and immediately heard by their Members of Congress, Internet technology will enable you to know just as quickly, whether your Member voted as you "instructed", thus, increasing the chance that politicians who do not follow the will of the people will be voted out of office at the next opportunity. [SLIDE 19] This could lead to what Shapiro calls "push button politics" -- a kind of quasi-direct democracy where citizens manipulate their representatives like puppets with many of the same dangers as direct democracy itself.

Although the Internet might help to cure the civic malaise referred to in Robert Putnam's 1995 article, "Bowling Alone" -- Shapiro argues the downside as well:

"Push-button politics could be particularly hazardous when combined with excessive personalization of experience and disintermediation of the news industry; that is, the removal of a reporting intermediary by the availability of information online. We have already seen how the (Internet) might unexpectedly cause individuals to be guided by narrow self-interest and be misled by unreliable information. It would be particularly problematic if we were to try to steer politics from such a warped perspective" (p. 157).

The last significant area of Internet influence I will mention today is perhaps the most pervasive. [SLIDE 20] As a result of new technologies which make it possible for anyone to connect with anyone and some to connect with everyone, the network – an organizational form linking heretofore separate people, groups or organizations -- is establishing itself as the preeminent organizational form for the 21st century. More to the point, the network organizational form appears to be competing with, if not replacing, the more traditional organizational forms.

[SLIDE 21] Today, both governmental and traditional corporate organizations exemplify the hierarchical organizational form, with their hierarchical levels of authority, stovepipe structures and bureaucratic lines of reporting. While these hierarchical organizations provide much structure, order and predictability, they are also rigid, individually constraining and do not do well at processing complex information and exchanges. Economic transactions are a good example of the type of transaction for which hierarchical organizations are ill suited. [SLIDE 22] In fact, it is this difficulty processing economic transactions that led to the emergence of “the market” as yet another organizational form operating alongside hierarchical organizations.

Unlike hierarchical organizations, the market's essential principle is open competition among private interests that are supposed to behave freely and fairly. Its strength is that it enables diverse actors to process diverse exchange and other complex transactions. It creates an environment where people are free to act in terms of personal interests, profit motives and individual rights. But it has limitations as well. A market form of organization is believed to perpetuate exploitation in the service of self-interest and to contribute to maintaining social inequities by facilitating the existence of “haves” and “have-nots”, and by creating winners and losers.

Partly in response to the limitations of both hierarchical and market forms of organization, and partly fueled by the information age and an information technology revolution, networks as an organizational form and an organizing principle are on the rise. Although networks have been around for a while, they were previously viewed as inferior. (Ronfeldt, 1996b) Compared to hierarchies, networks were historically thought to be inefficient, require much communication, need high levels of mutual trust and reciprocity, and make for slow, complicated decision-making processes as all members of a network tried to have their say.

The information technology revolution, however, has changed all that by increasing the efficiency of communication and, in turn, the efficiency of the network form of organization. Faxes, e-mails, listserves, the Internet and other forms of telecommunications have enabled the strengths of individual networks and organizational networks to be maximized while minimizing the deficiencies. The result is an organizational form thought to be much better suited to the changing complexities of contemporary society and defined by its ideal of cooperation and motivated by group empowerment in the pursuit of knowledge. This is in marked contrast to the authoritarian principles of hierarchical institutions and the opportunism of markets. Many of the new dotcom companies are built on network organizational structures.

[SLIDE 23] As a practical matter, it is unlikely that networks will actually replace the more traditional organizational forms. Rather, in the coming decades each of the organizational forms – hierarchical, market and network – will exist simultaneously. Ultimately, with the aid of technology, they are likely to be integrated so as to create a hybrid organizational form that has the strengths and efficiencies of all three, with hopefully none of their weaknesses.

So, too, might we expect an integration of the developing Internet culture with the more traditional culture that preceded it. However, this was not always the expectation. As recently as this past Spring, the rampaging Internet economy seemed to portray a future where dotcoms would replace the traditional companies on which this country's economy had been founded. The most pressing question on Wall Street, and perhaps on Main Streets around the country as well, was whether to divest from the Old Economy and invest in the New Economy as the NASDAQ soared and the Dow Jones plummeted. The acquisition of Time-Warner by upstart America Online was another indication that “old” was being pushed aside by “new”, as was also suggested by the beginning exodus of this country's best and brightest out of the traditional companies into the Internet industry.

But in just a few short months the picture has changed considerably. Reports of the demise of the Old Economy now appear greatly exaggerated. In fact, it has been the New Economy which has turned decidedly downward. The tech heavy NASDAQ stock market has lost almost 20% of its value. Initially touted e-commerce trailblazers have collapsed. The Washington Post has even started to run a regular column called “Dot Bombs” which is morbidly monitoring weekly dotcom failures.

[SLIDE 24] Health dotcoms have faired no better. Recent reports indicate that no one has yet succeeded in creating a profitable e-health company. Six companies managed to lose almost $1.68 billion last year on revenues of only $593 million. DrKoop.com, Mother Nature, Neoforma and PlanetRx all reported 1999 losses that were at least eight times their revenues. And that trend continued into the first quarter of this year as 13 e-health companies have already reported cumulative losses over $675 million.

Of course none of this signals the end of the Internet. Rather, an increase in dotcom failures is a product of an industry consolidation, happening like everything else in the industry, at “Internet speed” and faster then has happened in other industries. If all of this signals anything, it is that the New Economy is finally being held to Old Economy rules. Said differently, the New Economy and the old converge and begin to influence each other. Experts predict that the economy of 2005 will be a network of established businesses whose influence is global and comprised of old world names, such as Proctor and Gamble, General Electric, and Coca Cola, who have made themselves stronger and more efficient by having integrated Internet technology into their customary business practice. Similarly, the original “pure play” dotcoms which survive will be those that have successfully partnered with traditional “bricks and mortar” companies.

[SLIDE 25] Just as the “old” and the “new” economies are beginning to converge, so to will a developing Internet culture converge with our established traditional culture. New ways of sending and receiving information must be integrated with traditional ways. New ways of communicating must be integrated with old ways. New ways of problem solving must be blended with existing strategies. Hierarchically organized structures must be merged with networks. New ways of relating and new notions of community must be combined with the old. Perhaps the merger of AOL and Time Warner will give us an indication of what it is really like to integrate hierarchical organizational structures headed by graying Baby Boomers invested in safety and stability with network organizational forms populated by Generation X-ers invested in risk taking and who appear not to be afraid to fail.

[SLIDE 26] The developing Internet culture is filled with paradoxes:

• limitless knowledge and information alongside narrow-minded self-interest and reduced diversity;

• the possibility of a global community at the expense of local community;

• and the potential to communicate with anyone, anywhere, anytime coexisting with the risk of diminishing truly intimate human relationships.

The Internet culture also poses paradoxical opportunities and threats for our profession. Technologically advanced ways of providing psychological information and services offer the prospect of making psychology available to more people than we ever dreamed possible. Yet, if the technologies, and CONCERN for profits, begin to drive the delivery of healthcare services rather than technologies being used to facilitate the appropriate delivery of services, significant damage may be done. It is up to us to determine when and how the Internet will appropriately facilitate and enhance what we do.

[SLIDE 27] Other opportunities exist for us beyond the delivery of health information and services via the Internet. For example, as psychologists, we are uniquely trained in understanding, working with, and helping relationships flourish. To the extent, then, that the Internet may adversely affect the nature of relationships, as psychologists we are well positioned to help preserve genuine, intimate relationships in a developing Internet culture. We have an opportunity to be a pre-eminent profession within the Internet culture.

But even beyond this, psychology should be positioned to help facilitate the many changes necessary to integrate our existing culture with the developing Internet culture. The two will need to be blended and knitted together – a process that may not go so smoothly if left to its own devices. If we as psychologists are not central to this necessary integration of people, behavior, and culture, we will have missed an opportunity I assure you we will come to regret.

But make no mistake about it, there is no one way for us to bring our skills and expertise as psychologists to bear on this cultural convergence process gaining momentum. We will be limited only by our creativity, our flexibility and our integrity. More than ever before, this will be a time of transition, a time of exploration, and a time of experiment, where psychology must take a leadership role. In the coming months the Practice Directorate will be exploring how to fit all the pieces together in new and different ways and identifying new ways to use the Internet to enhance our profession and the work we do. I urge you to join with us in that process of exploration as we work together to imagine and create new roles for psychology in the converging Internet culture.