Your initial research idea and your current research idea. If there are changes, tell us how they are different and why. What led you to change your focus?
I am staying with my initial idea. To determine if the commonly assumed negative aspects of internet activity contributing to social isolation might prove to be beneficial from a different perspective.
What do you want to find out in your research area?
I still want to pursue my initial idea of determining if the less personal nature of internet social interactions could prove to be a benefit to those who have difficulty with in personal interactions. Is it possible that through acclimatization with a less threatening venue it might aid in easing the anxiety in personal interactions?
Have you already found research related to your idea? If so, what is that research?
                A study was done by Seabrook, Kern and Rickard specifically regarding social networking and its interaction for people with depression and anxiety. Another study by Prizant-Passal et. al. looks at the results of 22 studies across 26 years and discusses the results of those studies, including noting that there are contradictory findings and that the methodology and measurements varied widely in the tests. This would suggest that perhaps a more focused research project, or a project designed with narrower parameters might yeild more meaningful results.
 
Peruse Forsyth Library Databases and/or our library guide to identify at least three databases you could use to begin your search for related research.
                My review of that resource showed that PsycArticles, Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection, and Social Sciences Full-text databases would be good starting points in my research.
 References
Seabrook EM, Kern ML, Rickard NS. Social networking sites, depression, and anxiety: A systematic review. JMIR Ment Health. 2016;3(4):e50. doi:10.2196/mental.5842
Prizant-Passal, Shiri, Tomer Shechner, and Idan M. Aderka. “Social anxiety and internet use–A meta-analysis: What do we know? What are we missing?.” Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016): 221-229.