Cinsiyet Perspektifinden Risk Alma Davranışı ve İnternet Bağımlılığı

Amaç: Bu araştırma, cinsiyet değişkeni kapsamında risk alma davranışlarını ve internet kullanımını incelemeyi, internet bağımlılığı ile gündelik hayatın belirli alanlardaki risk alma davranışları arasındaki olası bağlantıları ortaya çıkarmayı amaçlamaktadır. Yöntem: Araştırmaya 260’ı (%48,2) kadın, 279’u (%51,8) erkek 539 kişi katılmıştır. Katılımcılara sosyodemografik form, risk alma davranışlarının incelenebilmesi için Belirli Alanlara Özgü Risk Tutumları Ölçeği (BARTÖ), normal ve riskli internet kullanımı ile internet bağımlılığının değerlendirilebilmesi için İnternet Bağımlılığı Ölçeği (İBÖ) uygulanmıştır. Bulgular: Kadın ve erkeklerin risk alma davranışları alt boyutlarına ait sıra ortalamaları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık saptanmıştır. Erkeklerin gündelik yaşamda etik, şans oyunları ve güvenlik alt boyutunda, kadınların ise sosyal alt boyutta yüksek ortalamaya sahip olduğu, internet bağımlılığı puanlarının ortalamaları arasında ise anlamlı bir farklılığın bulunmadığı görülmüştür. İnternet bağımlılığı ile risk alma davranışı alt boyutlarının tamamı arasında pozitif yönde anlamlı ilişki bulunmuştur. Söz konusu ilişkide cinsiyetin etkisini görebilmek adına cinsiyet gruplarına göre ayrılan veri analiz edilmiş, kadınların ve erkeklerin İBÖ toplam puanları ile BARTÖ alt boyut toplam puanlarının tamamı arasında anlamlı ilişki olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ortalama internet kullanan grubun tüm risk alma davranışı alanlarında, internet bağımlısı ve internet bağımlılığı riski altındaki bireylerden daha düşük ortalamalara sahip olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç: Risk alma davranışının internet bağımlılığı düzeyine göre değişkenlik gösterdiği ve internet bağımlılığı ile risk alma davranışları arasındaki ilişkinin cinsiyet gruplarına göre farklılaştığı ortaya konmuştur.

Risk-Taking Behavior and Internet Addiction from Gender Perspective

Objective: This research aims to examine risk-taking behaviors and internet usage within the context of gender, to reveal possible connections between internet addiction and risk-taking behaviors in certain areas of daily life. Method: 539 participants, 260 (48.2%) female and 279 (51.8%) male, participated in the study. Participants were administered a sociodemographic form, a Domain-Specific Risk Attitude Scale (DOSPERT) to examine risk-taking behaviors and Internet Addiction Scale (IAS) to evaluate level of internet addiction. Results: There was a statistically significant difference between mean rank scores of men's and women's risk-taking behaviors. It was observed that, men had high mean score in ethics in everyday life, gambling and security, and women had high mean score in social sub-dimension. There was no significant difference between the mean scores of IAS. A positive correlation was found between IAS and whole sub-domains of DOSPERT. In order to determine the effect of gender in this correlation, the dataset splitted by gender groups were analyzed and a significant correlation was found between the sum of women’s and men’s IAS and DOSPERT domain scores. Conclusion: The average internet users has lower averages in all areas of risk taking behavior than internet addicts and individuals at risk of internet addiction.

Keywords:

risk taking behavior addiction, health risk behaviors,

PDF

___

1. Furby L, Beyth-Marom R. Risk taking in adolescence: A decision-making perspective. Dev Rev 1992; 12: 1–44.
2. American Psychological Association. APA Dictionary of Psychology (2nd ed.). 2. baskı. VandenBos GR, editör. Washington DC: American Psychological Association; 2015
3. Womack SD, Hook JN, Reyna SH, Ramos M. Sleep loss and risk-taking behavior: a review of the literature. Behav Sleep Med 2013; 11: 343–359.
4. Ben-Zur H, Zeidner M. Threat to life and risk-taking behaviors: A review of empirical findings and explanatory models. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2009; 13: 109-128.
5. Gullone E, Moore S. Adolescent risk-taking and the five-factor model of personality. J Adolesc 2000; 23: 393– 407.
6. Brizer D, Castaneda R. Clinical addiction psychiatry. Clin Addiction Psychiatry. 2010. 1–257 s.
7. Winston AP, Hardwick E, Jaberi N. Neuropsychiatric effects of caffeine. Adv Psychiatr Treat 2005; 11: 432– 439.
8. Leigh BC. Peril, chance, adventure: concepts of risk, alcohol use and risky behavior in young adults. Addiction 1999; 94: 371–383.
9. Buss DM. Evolutionary personality psychology. Annu Rev Psychol 1991; 42: 459–491.
10. Trimpop R. The Psychology of Risk Taking Behavior. Amsterdam: North Holland; 1994. 416 s.
11. Bechara A, Tranel D, Damasio H. Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain 2000; 123: 2189–2202.
12. Singer T, Critchley HD, Preuschoff K. A common role of insula in feelings, empathy and uncertainty. Trends Cogn Sci 2009; 13: 334–340.
13. Kreek MJ, Nielsen DA, Butelman ER, LaForge KS. Genetic influences on impulsivity, risk taking, stress responsivity and vulnerability to drug abuse and addiction. Nat Neurosci 2005; 8: 1450-1457.
14. Eysenck HJ. The Biological Basis of Personality. New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA: Transaction Publishing; 2006.
15. Eysenck HJ. Biological dimensions of personality. Pervin LA, editor. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. New York, NY, US: Transaction Publishing; 1950.
16. Eysenck HJ. Dimensions of Personality. New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA: Transaction Publishing; 1950: 308.
17. Buss A, Plomin R. Temperament: Early Developing Personality Traits. London: Psychology Press; 198: 196.
18. Trimpop R., Kerr J., Kirkcaldy B. Comparing personality constructs of risk-taking behavior. Pers Individ Dif 1998; 26: 237–254.
19. Whiteside SP, Lynam DR. The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Pers Individ Dif 2001; 30: 669–689.
20. Zuckerman M, Kuhlman DM. Personality and risk-taking: Common biosocial factors. J Pers 2000; 68: 999– 1029.
21. Donovan JE. Adolescent alcohol initiation: A review of psychosocial risk factors. J Adolesc Health 2004; 35: 529.e7-529.e18.
22. Hermens DF, Scott EM, White D, et al. Frequent alcohol, nicotine or cannabis use is common in young persons presenting for mental healthcare: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2013; 3: e002229.
23. Charness G, Gneezy U. Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. J Econ Behav Organ 2012; 83: 50–58.
24. Eckel CC, Grossman PJ. Sex differences and statistical stereotyping in attitudes toward financial risk. Evol Hum Behav 2002; 23: 281–295.
25. Cobey KD, Stulp G, Laan F, et al. Sex differences in risk taking behavior among dutch cyclists. Evol Psychol 2013; 11: 350–364.
26. Eker İ, Yılmaz B. Risk alma davranışı: Çocukluk çağı travmaları ve benlik saygısı temelinde bir değerlendirme. Klinik Psikiyatri Dergisi 2016; 19: 27–36.
27. Mohammadpoorasl A, Ghahramanloo AA, Allahverdipour H. Risk-taking behaviors and subgrouping of college students: a latent class analysis. Am J Mens Health 2013; 7: 475–481.
28. Livingstone S, Helsper E. Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the internet: the role of online skills and internet self-efficacy. New Media Soc 2010; 12: 309–329.
29. Dowdell EB, Bradley PK. Risky internet behaviors: A case study of online and offline stalking. J Sch Nurs 2010; 26: 436–442.
30. Ko CH, Hsiao S, Liu GC, et al. The characteristics of decision making, potential to take risks, and personality of college students with Internet addiction. Psychiatry Res 2010; 175: 121–125.
31. Slater MD. Alienation, aggression, and sensation seeking as predictors of adolescent use of violent film, computer, and website content. J Commun 2003; 53: 105–121.
32. Özdemir Y, Kuzucu Y, Ak Ş. Depression, loneliness and internet addiction: How important is low self-control? Comput Human Behav 2014; 34: 284–290.
33. Finn PR. Motivation, working memory, and decision making: a cognitive-motivational theory of personality vulnerability to alcoholism. Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev 2002; 1: 183–205.
34. Kelley AE, Schochet T, Landry CF. Risk taking and novelty seeking in adolescence: Introduction to part I. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2004; 1021: 27–32.
35. Lukasiewicz M, Neveu X, Blecha L, et al. Pathways to substance-related disorder: a structural model approach exploring the influence of temperament, character, and childhood adversity in a national cohort of prisoners. Alcohol Alcohol 2008; 43: 287–295.
36. Lejuez CW, Aklin WM, Bornovalova MA, Moolchan ET. Differences in risk-taking propensity across inner-city adolescent ever- and never-smokers. Nicotine Tob Res 2005; 7: 71–79.
37. Forbush KT, Shaw M, Graeber MA, et al. Neuropsychological characteristics and personality traits in pathological gambling. CNS Spectr 2008; 13: 306–315.
38. Ko CH, Yen JY, Chen CC, et al. Tridimensional personality of adolescents with internet addiction and substance use experience. Can J Psychiatry 2006; 51: 887–894.
39. Bornovalova MA, Daughters SB, Hernandez GD, et al. Differences in impulsivity and risk-taking propensity between primary users of crack cocaine and primary users of heroin in a residential substance-use program. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 2005; 4: 311–318.
40. Guo L, Mei S, Ming Z. Research on sensation seeking, internet addiction disorder and related factors in college students. Educ Sci 2009; 3:13.
41. Lejoyeux M, McLoughlin M, Adès J. Epidemiology of behavioral dependence: Literature review and results of original studies. Eur Psychiatry 2000; 15: 129–134.
42. Lin SSJ, Tsai CC. Sensation seeking and internet dependence of Taiwanese high school adolescents. Comput Human Behav 2002; 18: 411–426.
43. Zuckerman M. Faites vos jeux anouveau: Still another look at sensation seeking and pathological gambling. Pers Individ Dif 2005; 39: 361–365.
44. Öner ET. Belirli Alanlara Özgü Risk Tutumları Ölçeğinin Türk üniversite öğrencilerine uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Yüksek lisans tezi, Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi, 2009.
45. Blais AR, Weber EU. A domain-specific risk-taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgm Decis Mak 2006; 1: 33-47.
46. Balta ÖÇ, Horzum MB. İnternet Bağımlılığı Testi. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama 2008; 7(13): 87-102.
47. Weber EU, Blais AR, Betz NE. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J Behav Decis Mak 2002; 15: 263–290.
48. Kozan K. Davranış bilimleri araştırmalarında sosyal beğenirlik boyutu ve Türkiye için bir Sosyal Beğenirlik Ölçeği. ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi 1983; 10: 447–478.
49. Young KS. Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder. Cyberpsychology Behav 1998; 1: 237– 244.
50. Widyanto L, McMurran M. The psychometric properties of the internet addiction test. Cyberpsychology Behav 2004; 7: 443–450.
51. Byrnes JP, Miller DC, Schafer WD. Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 1999; 125: 367–383.
52. Croson R, Gneezy U. Gender differences in preferences. J Econ Lit 2009; 47: 448–474.
53. Finucane ML, Slovic P, Mertz CK, et al. Gender, race, and perceived risk: The “white male” effect. Health Risk Soc 2000; 2: 159–172.
54. Kelling GW, Zirkes R, Myerowitz D. Risk as value: A switch of set hypothesis. Psychol Rep 1976; 38: 655–658.
55. Fisk SR. Who’s on top? Gender differences in risk-taking produce unequal outcomes for high-ability women and men. Soc Psychol Q 2018; 81: 185–206.
56. Fisk SR. Gender stereotypes, risk-taking, and gendered mobility. Adv Group Process 2016; 33: 179–210.
57. Kumcağız H. Examination of turkish university students’ internet addiction in relation to their parental attachment styles and sociodemographics. SAGE Open 2019; 9: 215824401984594.
58. Aslan E, Yazıcı A. Üniversite öğrencilerinde internet bağımlığı ve ilişkili sosyodemografik faktörler. Klinik Psikiyatri Dergisi 2016; 19: 109–117.
59. Durak Batıgün A, Kılıç N. İnternet bağımlılığı ile kişilik özellikleri, sosyal destek, psikolojik belirtiler ve bazı sosyodemografik değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiler. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi 2011; 26(67): 1–10.
60. Odacı H, Kalkan M. Problematic internet use, loneliness and dating anxiety among young adult university students. Comput Educ 2010; 55: 1091–1097.
61. Charlton JP, Danforth IDW. Distinguishing addiction and high engagement in the context of online game playing. Comput Human Behav 2007; 23: 1531–1548.
62. Potenza MN, Leung H-C, Blumberg HP, et al. An fMRI stroop task study of ventromedial prefrontal cortical function in pathological gamblers. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160: 1990–1994.
63. Seok JW, Lee KH, Sohn S, Sohn JH. Neural substrates of risky decision making in individuals with Internet addiction. Aust New Zeal J Psychiatry 2015; 49 :923–932.
64. Morgenroth T, Fine C, Ryan MK, Genat AE. Sex, drugs, and reckless driving. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 2018; 9: 744–753.
65. Nelson JA. The power of stereotyping and confirmation bias to overwhelm accurate assessment: the case of economics, gender, and risk aversion. J Econ Methodol 2014; 21: 211–231.