Elcin YORULMAZ, Orcun YORULMAZ, Umut CİVGİN

What is the role of emotional regulation and psychological rigidity in the relationship between stress and pathological Internet use?

Objective: This study aims to test various models to determine whether emotion regulation difficulties and psychological flexibility play a moderating or mediating role in the relationship between stress and pathological Internet use (PIU).Method: The study involved 400 undergraduate students who completed several self-report instruments related to these concepts. Subsequently, Pearson’s correlation, mediation, and moderated mediation analyses were carried out to test the models.Results: The results supported the mediating role of difficulties in emotion regulation between stress and PIU and the moderating role of psychological flexibility between difficulties in emotion regulation and PIU.Conclusion: Stressful life events may lead to difficulties in emotion regulation, in which case, the less flexible a person is psychologically, the more likely he or she is to engage in PIU. In short, this study highlights the roles of both emotion regulation problems and flexibility in the association of stress with PIU, and its findings may offer new perspectives for the conceptualization of this problematic condition.

PDF

___

1. Turkish Statistical Institute (TUİK). Household Information Technologies Use Survey, 2017, Number: 24862. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/HbPrint.do?id=2486

2. Accessed August 1, 2019.2. Kemp S. Digital in 2018: essential insight into internet, social media, mobile, and ecommerce use around the world. USA: Hootsuite & We are Social, 2018. https://wearesocial.com/blog/2018/01/global-digital-report-2018. Accessed August 20, 2019.

3. Turkish Statistical Institute (TUİK). Household Information Technologies Use Survey, 2015, Number:18660. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=18660. Accessed August 1, 2019.

4. Young KS. Caught in the Net. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998, 205-210.

5. Morahan-Martin J, Schumacher P. Incidence and correlates of pathological Internet use among college students. Comput Human Behav 2000; 16:13-29.

6. Davis RA. A cognitive-behavioral model of pathological Internet use. Comput Human Behav 2001; 17:187-195.

7. Batigun AD, Kilic N. The relationships between Internet addiction, social support, psychological symptoms and some socio-demographical variables. Turkish Journal of Psychology 2011; 26:1-10. (Turkish)

8. 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.

9. Kandell JJ. Internet addiction on campus: the vulnerability of college students. Cyberpsychol Behav 1998; 1:11-17.

10. Lavoie JA, Pychyl TA. Cyberslacking and the procrastination superhighway: a web-based survey of online procrastination, attitudes, and emotion. Soc Sci Comput Rev 2001; 19:431-444.

11. Troy AS, Mauss IB. Resilience in the face of stress: emotion regulation as a protective factor: In Southwick SM, Litz BT, Charney D, Friedman MJ (editors). Resilience and Mental Health: Challenges Across the Lifespan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011, 30-44.

12. Macklem, GL. Practitioner’s Guide to Emotion Regulation in School-Aged Children. New York: Springer, 2008, 94-97.

13. Gross JJ, Thompson RA. Emotion Regulation: Conceptual Foundations: In Gross JJ (editor). Handbook of Emotion Regulation. New York: Guilford Press, 2007, 3-24.

14. Aldao A, Nolen-Hoeksema S, Schweizer S. Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clin Psychol Rev 2010; 30:217-237.

15. Do KY, Lee KS. Relationship between problematic internet use, sleep problems, and oral health in Korean adolescents: a national survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15:1870.

16. Caplan, SE. Theory and measurement of generalized problematic Internet use: a twostep approach. Comput Human Behav 2010; 26:1089-1097.

17. Yu JJ, Kim H, Hay, I. Understanding adolescents’ problematic Internet use from a social/cognitive and addiction research framework. Comput Human Behav 2013; 29:2682-2689.

18. Hayes SC, Luoma JB, Bond FW, Masuda A, Lillis J. Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behav Res Ther 2006; 44:1-25.

19. Woodruff SC, Glass CR, Arnkoff DB, Crowley KJ, Hindman RK, Hirschhorn EW. Comparing self-compassion, mindfulness, and psychological inflexibility as predictors of psychological health. Mindfulness 2014; 5:410-421.

20. Chou WP, Lee KH, Ko CH, Liu TL, Hsiao RC, Lin HF, et al. Relationship between psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance and Internet addiction: Mediating effects of mental health problems. Psychiatry Res 2017; 257:40-44.

21. Desrosiers A, Vine V, Klemanski DH, Nolen-Hoeksema S. Mindfulness and emotion regulation in depression and anxiety: common and distinct mechanisms of action. Depress Anxiety 2013; 30:654-661.

22. Gadzella, BM. Student-Life Stress Inventory: identification of and reactions to stressors. Psychol Rep 1994; 7:395-402.

23. Baloglu M, Bardakci S. The adaption of the Student-life Stress Inventory revised to Turkish language validity and preliminary psychometric properties. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal 2010; 4:57-70. (Turkish)

24. Gratz KL, Roemer L. Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 2004; 26:41-47.

25. Dutcher CD, Vujanovic AA, Paulus DJ, Bartlett BA. Childhood maltreatment severity and alcohol use in adult psychiatric inpatients: the mediating role of emotion regulation difficulties. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2017; 48:42-50.

26. Shadkam S, Molazadeh J, Yavari AH. Study of the mediating role of emotion regulation difficulties in the relationship between exposure to traumatic events and risky sexual behavior among substance abusers. Yafte 2016; 18:78-87. (Farsi)

27. Ruganci RN, Gencoz T. Psychometric properties of a Turkish version of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. J Clin Psychol 2010; 66:442-455.

28. Bond FW, Hayes SC, Baer RA, Carpenter KM, Guenole N, Orcutt HK, et al. Preliminary psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire–II: a revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Behav Ther 2011; 42:676-688.

29. Meunier B, Atmaca S, Ayranci E, Gokdemir BP, Uyar T, Bastug G. Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II). J Evid Based Psychother 2014; 14:179-196.

30. Young KS. Psychology of computer use: XL. Addictive use of the Internet: a case that breaks the stereotype. Psychol Rep 1996; 79:899-902.

31. Ngai SSY. Exploring the validity of the Internet Addiction Test for students in grades 5-9 in Hong Kong. International J Youth Adolesc 2007; 13:221-237.

32. Young KS. Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder. Cyberpsychol Behav 1998; 1:237-244.

33. Bayraktar F, Gun Z. Incidence and correlates of Internet usage among adolescents in North Cyprus. Cyberpsychol Behav 2007; 10:191-197.

34. Kim K, Ryu E, Chon, MY, Yeun EJ, Choi SY, et al. Internet addiction in Korean adolescents and its relation to depression and suicidal ideation: a questionnaire survey. Int J Nurs Stud 2006; 43:185-192.

35. Boysan M, Kuss DJ, Barut Y, Aykose N, Gulec M, Ozdemir O. Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Internet Addiction Test (IAT). Addict Behav 2015; 64:247-252.

36. Hayes AF. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press, 2013, 105-108.

37. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods 2008; 40:879-891.

38. Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Los Angeles CA: SAGE, 1991, 136-138.

39. Shrout PE, Bolger N. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychol Methods 2002; 7:422-445.

40. Barlow DH. Disorders of emotion. Psychol Inq 1991; 2:58-71.

41. Dohrenwend BP. The role of adversity and stress in psychopathology: Some evidence and its implications for theory and research. J Health Soc Behav 2000; 41:1-19.

42. Levin ME, MacLane C, Daflos S, Seeley JR, Hayes SC, Biglan A, et al. Examining psychological inflexibility as a transdiagnostic process across psychological disorders. J Contextual Behav Sci 2014; 3:155-163.

43. Gratz KL, Paulson A, Jakupcak M, Tull MT. Exploring the relationship between childhood maltreatment and intimate partner abuse: gender differences in the mediating role of emotion dysregulation. Violence Vict 2009; 24:68-82.

44. Taube-Schiff M, Van Exan J, Tanaka R, Wnuk S, Hawa R, Sockalingam S. Attachment style and emotional eating in bariatric surgery candidates: the mediating role of difficulties in emotion regulation. Eat Behav 2015; 18:36-40.

45. Kuo JR, Khoury JE, Metcalfe R, Fitzpatrick S, Goodwill A. An examination of the relationship between childhood emotional abuse and borderline personality disorder features: the role of difficulties with emotion regulation. Child Abuse Negl 2015; 39:147-155.

46. Curtiss J, Klemanski DH. Teasing apart low mindfulness: differentiating deficits in mindfulness and in psychological flexibility in predicting symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder and depression. J Affect Disord 2014; 166:41-47.

47. Tucknott M. An Investigation into the Impact of Childhood Abuse and Care-giver Invalidation on Psychological Inflexibility in Clinical and Subclinical Eating Disorders. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Hertfordshire, England, 2014.

48. Crosby JM, Twohig MP. Acceptance and commitment therapy for problematic Internet pornography use: a randomized trial. Behav Ther 2016; 47:355-366.