The Internet Addiction and Aggression Among University Students

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı internet bağımlılığı ve saldırganlık arasındaki ilişkiyi üniversite öğrencilerinde kapsamlı bir şekilde sınamaktır. Yöntem: Çalışma, internet bağımlılığı ve saldırganlık arasında ilişki olabileceği düşüncesinden hareketle ilişkisel desende tasarlanmıştır. Çalışmanın örneklem grubunu, olasılıklı örnekleme yöntemlerinden, basit rastlantısal yöntemle belirlenen farklı fakültelerde öğrenci olan 328 üniversite öğrenci oluşturmuştur. Araştırmacının kendisi çalışma verilerini üniversite öğrencilerinden gönüllülük ilkesine bağlı kalarak, sosyo-demografik form, İnternet Bağımlılığı Ölçeği (İBÖ) ve Saldırganlık Ölçeğini (SÖ) içeren bir anket aracılığıyla toplamıştır. Bulgular: Çalışmada bulgular temel olarak 4 aşamada toplanmıştır: 1. aşamada ortalama değerler belirlendikten sonra İBÖ üzerinden eşik değerlere göre belirti durumu grupları tespit edilmiş, sonrasında İBÖ ve SÖ puanları, cinsiyet, anne baba eğitim durumu, aile ekonomik gelir durumu ve başlıca internet kullanım amacı gibi bazı değişkenlere göre farklılıklar açısından karşılaştırılmıştır. İkinci aşamada, İBÖ ve SÖ toplam puanları arasında ilişki tespit edilmemiştir. Üçüncü aşamada her iki ölçeğin boyutları arasında herhangi bir ilişki belirlenmemiştir. Dördüncü ve son aşamada ise internet bağımlılığı ve saldırganlık arasındaki ilişki nedensel düzeyde yapısal eşitlik modellemesi yöntemi kullanılarak sınanmış ve herhangi bir nedensel düzeyde ilişki tespit edilmemiştir.Sonuç: Çalışmada internet bağımlılığı ve saldırganlık, korelasyon ve yapısal eşitlik modeli analizleriyle sınanmış ve bu iki ana değişken arasında, bazı değişkenlere göre farklılaşma belirlenmesine rağmen, her hangi bir ilişki tespit edilmemiştir

Üniversite öğrencilerinde internet bağımlılığı ve saldırganlık

Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between the internet addiction and aggression among university students comprehensively.Method: A correlational research design was used in the study by assuming that a relationship could exist between the internet addiction and aggression. 328 university students from different faculties constituted sample group which was determined by simple random sampling of probability sampling method. Researcher himself collected the data from university students, based on the principle of voluntariness, by using a questionnaire including socio-demographic form, the Internet Addiction Scale (IAS) and Aggression Scale (AS). Results: Results of the study were obtained in 4 phases. In the 1st phase, after determining mean scores, symptom status groups were identified according to cut-points and lastly, IAS and AS scores variables were investigated with some variables such as gender, mother-father education status, family income level and primary internet usage aim in terms of differences. In the 2nd phase no correlation between the IAS and AS scores was found. In the 3rd phase, no correlation was found between the scales reciprocally. In the 4th and last phase, relationship between the internet addiction and aggression was investigated at the level of causality by using structural equation modeling and no causal relationship was found.Conclusion: In the study relationship between the internet addiction and aggression was investigated through 4 phases by using correlation and structural equation modeling analysis and no relationship was determined between these two variables

PDF

___

1. Uneri OS, Tanidir C. Evaluation of internet addiction in a group of high school students: a cross-sectional study. Düşünen Adam: The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences 2011; 24:265-272.
2. Davis R, Flett G, Besser A. Validation of a new scale for measuring problematic Internet use: implications for pre-employment screening. Cyberpsychol Behav 2002; 5:331–345.
3. Ko CH, Yen JY, Yen CF, Lin HC, Yang MJ. Factors predictive for incidence and remission of internet addiction in young adolescents: a prospective study. Cyberpsychol Behav 2007; 10:545-551.
4. World Internet Usage Statistics News and Population Stats. 2011 Internet usage statistics - the Internet big picture. http://www. internetworldstats.com/stats.htm. Accessed June 15, 2011.
5. Turkish Statistical Institute (TSI). 2012 Survey on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Usage in Households. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/yayinupload/katalog.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2012.
6. Niemz K, Griffiths M, Banyard P. Prevalence of pathological internet use among university students and correlations with self-esteem, the general health questionnaire (GHQ), and disinhibition. Cyberpsychol Behav 2005; 8:562-570.
7. Gwinnell E, Adamec C. The encyclopedia of addictions and addictive behaviors. New York: Facts on File, 2006.
8. Peele S. What Addiction is and is not: the impact of mistaken notions of addiction. Addiction Research 2000; 8:599-607.
9. Young KS, Griffin-Shelly E, Cooper A, O’Mara J, Buchanan J. Online infidelity: A new dimension in couple relationships with implications for evaluation and treatment. Sex Addict Compulsivity 2000; 7:59-74.
10. Young KS. Internet addiction: the emergence of a new clinical disorder. Cyberpsychol Behav 1998; 1:237-244.
11. Young KS. Internet addiction: a new clinical phenomenon and its consequences. Am Behav Sci 2004; 48:402-415.
12. Shaw M, Black WD. Internet addiction: definition, assessment, epidemiology and clinical management. CNS Drugs 2008; 22:353-365.
13. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.Fourth ed. text rev., Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 2000.
14. World Health Organization. The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders. Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1992.
15. Young KS. Caught in the Net: How to Recognize the Signs of Internet Addiction and a Winning Strategy for Recovery. New York-USA: John Wiley&Sons Inc., 1998, 12-35.
16. Young KS. Cognitive behavior therapy with internet addicts: treatment outcomes and implications. Cyberpsychol Behav 2007; 10:671-679.
17. Young KS. CBT-IA: the first treatment model for internet addiction. J Cogn Psychother 2011; 25:304-312.
18. Hage S, Van Meijel B, Fluttert F, Berden GF. Aggressive behaviour in adolescent psychiatric settings: what are risk factors, possible interventions and implications for nursing practice? A literature review. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2009; 16:661–669.
19. Ramírez JM, Andreu JM. Aggression and some related psychological constructs (anger, hostility, and impulsivity): some comments from a research project. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2006; 30:276–291.
20. Baron RA, Richardson DR. Human aggression. New York: Plenum Press, 1994, 1-37.
21. Anderson CA, Huesmann LR. Human Aggression: A SocialCognitive View: In Hogg MA, Cooper J (Editors). The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology. London: Sage Publications, 2003, 296-323.
22. Bushman BJ, Anderson CA. Methodology in the Study of Aggression: Integrating Experimental and Nonexperimental Findings: In Geen R, Donnerstein E (editors). Human Aggression: Theories, Research and Implications for Policy. San Diego CA: Academic Press., 1998, 23-48.
23. Buss AH. The Psychology of Aggression. New York: Wiley, 1961, 1.
24. Geen RG. Human Aggression. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole, 1990, 23-49.
25. Bushman BJ, Anderson CA. Is it time to pull the plug on the hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychol Rev 2001; 108:273–279.
26. Ko CH, Yen JY, Liu SC, Huang CF, Yen CF. The associations between aggressive behaviors and internet addiction and online activities in adolescents. J Adolesc Health 2009; 44:598–605.
27. Ko CH, Yen JY, Chen CS, Yeh YC, Yen CF. Predictive values of psychiatric symptoms for internet addiction in adolescents: a 2-year prospective study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2009; 163:937-943.
28. Yen JY, Ko CH, Yen CF, Chen SH, Chung WL, Chen CC. Psychiatric symptoms in adolescents with internet addiction: comparison with substance use. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2008; 62:9-16.
29. McMillan JH, Schumacher S. Research in Education: EvidenceBased Inquiry. Sixth ed. London: Pearson, 2006, 115-313.
30. Neuman LW. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2011, 75-115.
31. Widyanto L, Griffiths M. Internet addiction: a critical review. Int J Ment Health Addict 2006; 4:31-51.
32. Bayraktar F. The role of Internet usage in the development of adolescents. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Ege University, Izmir, 2001. (Turkish)
33. Cakir-Balta O, Horzum MB. Internet addiction test. Educational Sciences and Practice 2008; 7:87-102.
34. Buss AH, Perry M. The aggression questionnaire. J Pers Soc Psychol 1992; 63:452-459.
35. Sumer N. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model. Accid Anal Prev 2003; 35:949-964.
36. Kline RB. Principle and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Third ed., New York: Guilford, 2011, 3-18.
37. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Second ed., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., 2004, 79-123.
38. Jöreskog K, Sörbom D. LISREL 8.51. Mooresvile: Scientific Software, 2001.
39. Lee S-Y. Structural Equation Modelling: A Bayesian Approach. New York: Wiley, 2007, 1-13.
40. Cokluk O, Sekercioglu G, Buyukozturk, S. Multivariate Statistical Analysis for Social Sciences: SPSS and LISREL Applications. Ankara: PeGem Publication, 2010, 251-407. (Turkish)
41. Bakken IJ, Wenzel HG, Götestam KG, Johansson A, Øren A. Internet addiction among Norwegian adults: a stratified probability sample study. Scand J Rehabil Med 2009; 50:121- 127.
42. Demetrovics Z, Szeredi B, Rózsa S. The three-factor model of internet addiction: the development of the problematic internet use questionnaire. Behav Res Methods 2008; 40:563-574.
43. Hardie E, Tee YM. Excessive internet use: the role of personality, loneliness and social support networks in internet addiction. Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society 2007; 5:34-47.
44. Scherer K. College life online: healthy and unhealthy internet use. J Coll Stud Dev Journal 1997; 38:655–665.
45. Aslanbay M. A compulsive consumption: internet use addiction tendency. The case of Turkish high school students. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Marmara University, Istanbul, 2006. (Turkish)
46. Widyanto L, McMurran M. The psychometric properties of the internet addiction test. Cyberpsychol Behav 2004; 7:443–450.
47. Tsitsika A, Critselis E, Kormas G, Flippopoulou A, Tounissidou D, Freskou A, Spiliopoulou T, Louizou A, Konstantoulaki E, Kafetzis D. Internet use and misuse: a multivariate regression analysis of the predictive factors of internet use among Greek adolescents. Eur J Pediatr 2009; 168:655-665.
48. Henington C, Hughes JN, Cavell TA, Thompson B. The role of relational aggression in identifying aggressive boys and girls. J Sch Psychol 1998; 36,457-477.
49. Fisoun V, Floros G, Geroukalis D, Ioannidi N, Farkonas N, Sergentani E, Angelopoulos N, Siomos K. Internet addiction in the island of Hippocrates: the associations between internet abuse and adolescent off-line behaviours. Child Adolesc Ment Health 2012; 17:37-44.
50. Xiuqin H, Huimin Z, Mengchen L, Jinan W, Ying Z, Ran T. Mental health, personality, and parental rearing styles of adolescents with Internet addiction disorder. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 2010; 13:401–406.
51. Yen JY, Ko CH, Yen CF, Wu HY, Yang MJ. The comorbid psychiatric symptoms of Internet addiction: attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, social phobia, and hostility. J Adolesc Health 2007; 41:93-98.
52. Carli V, Durkee T, Wasserman D, Hadlaczky G, Despalins R, Kramarz E, Wasserman C, Sarchiapone M, Hoven CW, Brunner R, Kaess M. The association between pathological internet use and comorbid psychopathology: a systematic review. Psychopathology 2013: 46:1-13.
53. Okten S. Gender and power: The system of gender in southeastern Anatolia. The Journal of International Social Research 2009; 2:302-312