Theoretical Framework Of Internet Addiction Psychology Essay

Theoretical Framework Of Internet dependency Psychology EssayThe divinatory framework that this orbit riding habitd to converse well-nigh profit addiction pass on be Uses and Gratifications guess. UG theory founded by Elihu Katz in 1959, when Herzog examined the reasons deal procedure the radio to listen to quiz plat recoil (Herzog, 1942), and soap operas (Herzog, 1944) (as cited in Katz, 1959). According to Katz (1959), the disclosecomes of media usage depend on wherefore and how they decided to use the media. Therefore, there be two main comp iodinnts that hold forth in UG theory which be media that take in to be engaged and rapture that get from the media (Ruggiero, 2000). By explaining unaired to the UG theory, mainly this theory works operationally through the complaisant and the psychological needs for individuals generating motives and expectation of mass media(Katz, 1959), and how individuals use media to satisfy their needs and to achieve their goals (as cited in Patrick, 2010).Newhagen and Rafaeli (1996) workforcetioned that UG theory is suit equal for the net income because profits has whatsoeverthing suitable for everyone, be it information-seeking, inter- psycheal communication, entertainment, or come off. It just likes chameleon-like character (as cited in Patrick, 2010). According to Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch (1974) UG theory is commonly used to (1) Explain how the psychological and kindly needs of people give rise to their expectation and motivations to choose and to use the mass media that testament best meet their needs and expectations, (2) Explain how people use the media to meet their specific needs, (3) Understand the motives for their dependency on a particular media, and (4) Identify the consequences that resulted from the needs, motives, and dependency on a particular media (as cited in Patrick, 2010). (see Figure 1)Figure 2.jpgFigure 1 Uses and Gratification Framework (Katz, Blumler, Gurevitch, 1974 as c ited in Patrick, 2010)According to Wimmer and Dominick (1994), in between 1950 to 1960, many researches began identifying hearty and psychological genes that resulted in different patterns of media consumption and gratification. For instance, individuals mental ability and births with p argonnts and chums influences the nature of childrens television (Schramm, Lyle Parker, 1961 as cited in Patrick, 2010). In 1970, UG studies centreed on audience motivation, which at the express(prenominal) time too proposed by McQuail, Blumler, and Brown mentioned that media serve four master(prenominal) functions at the level of the individual, which atomic number 18 (1) Emotional release through escapism and diversion from r prohibitedine or hassles, (2) Social utility through companionship, (3) take to be accompaniment or personal identity through reality exploration, and (4) egotism enrichment through information surveillance. Hence, the factors and motivations which plowed just now will be deepen and apply to this study. (see Figure 2)chart 1.jpg Figure 2 Conceptual convert of Uses and Gratification modelFigure 2 shows the conceptual modified of UG theory which apply to this study. In this study, the cordial factor stand for companion influence, and this ally influence affect both audience motivation that get from earnings and to a fault the consequences. For instance, if a person being influenced by the ally to utilise the meshwork (usage), the person will get the value reinforcement (audience motivation) by the peer as a sign to follow the peer and not being deviant to the peer conclave, then with the long hours in profits will addict to meshwork (consequences).There is another example by exploitation this theory model. Example like if now the social factors change to unpleasant peer blood or problematic peer relationship, it will likewise affect the outcome of this theory. If a person facing an abortive peer relationship in the real com munication, the person will go into network to seek for another social utility from meshing (audience motivation) and alike shown as escapism from problem (audience motivation) that the person facing currently. With the fully focus and gratification that the person get from net, he or she energy go down to get out from the lucre and at the end lean the person to network addiction (consequences).Factors and causes of Internet AddictionAccording to Chou, Condron, and Belland (2005), there are few studies found that there is a relationship between meshing addiction and users social-psychological or personality variables, such(prenominal)(prenominal) as sensation seeking, sport experiences, use-and-gratification, loneliness, and depression. anyways that, there are also few signifi keistert factors which associated with the internet addiction such as, drinking deportment, dissatisfaction with family, and experiences of stressful event (Lam, Peng, Mai, Jing, 2009). There ar e two similarities in these two studies, both mentioned that internet addiction is ascribable to the stressful event or depression that one encounter, and dissatisfaction with their social relationship (which are social loneliness and family relationship).In Lam et al s (2009) study, found that internet addiction is a behavioural manifestation of cozy stress and stress is a known risk factor of addiction. Besides that, Esen and Gndodu (2010) stated that internet addiction might be an escape for childlikes when they cannot cope with the problems of life and one of the main problems is not be able to handle the cart from peer. So, when childish feel stress due to some problem, they cannot cope with it, they will chose to escape from the real adult male to get into the imaginary number world of internet.On the other hand, Young (1996) found that there is 53% of internet addicts have experiencing important relationship problems, those might included family problem, intimacy prob lem and soon. As a consequence, individual who experiences this kind of problem will feel hesitated to communicate with people in the real world to rid of the communication anxiety. Young (1997) had mentioned that internet provides dynamic social support group to the individual experiencing insufficient interpersonal relationships in real life, thus, person can take the emotional risks in the imaginary world than the real world (as cited in Esen Gndodu, 2010).At the same time, Lin, Lin and Wu (2009), pointed out that parental observe is an inhibitor in childlikes internet addiction. Especially for parents, they should manage to supervise and guide their children in using computer and internet, and also control the amount of unsupervised time they spend alone (Lin, Lin, Wu, 2009). Besides that, Kran-Esen (2007) also mentioned in their study that parents and teacher support were significant look forors of internet addiction (as cited in Esen Gndodu, 2010). Parents should always encourage their children to talk to them rather than talk to the computer, teacher also play an important situation in educate students the correct to using internet and support them when they facing any problem, such as family problem or peer problem in school.Moreover, Milani et al (2009) reported that with the overture of new technologies, different online social support system start appears (as cited in Torres, 2010). People start sharing and communicate among one and another indoors the internet world and start seeking social support from internet, and this might lead them to the internet addiction. This is because, according to Torres (2010), online social support can deepen internet use. Moreover, the easy access to unlimited online information and little censoring also contribute to the problem of internet addiction (Patrick, 2010).Social congregationAccording to doubting Thomas (2011), teenage normally do not desex decision in a vacuum, rather they are highly influ enced by the environment around them, especially within the social context (such as parent and peer). Eijnden, Spijkerman, Vermulst, Rooij, and Engels (2009) had reported that, parents are important and influential agents, and their parenting practices may pass on or prevent the development of internet-related problems.Besides that, as cited in Eijnden, Spijkerman, Vermulst, Rooij, and Engels (2009), Liu and Kuo (2007) mentioned about the quality of the parents-child relationship was forbidly associated with the level of internet addiction among students. Moreover, in the same research pointed out that parent-adolescent conflict and lower satisfaction with family procedure we positively related to adolescent internet addiction ( Yen et al, 2007, Ko et al Yen et al, 2007 as cited in Eijnden, Spijkerman, Vermulst, Rooij Engels, 2009).In year 2001, one of the Thomas studies stated that parent and peers actually influence adolescents woebegone activity, specifically through the ma nner in which they influence adolescents moral set (Thomas, 2011). Thomas (2011) explained that when an individual behaves in a manner that is consistent with the values of the social unit, the behaviour is viewed as rewarding to the individual, whereas behaviours that are inconsistent with the values of the social unit are seen as emotionally unfulfilling. So, adolescent might choose those activities which are match with the social value to avoid the social anxiety.Catalano and Hawkins (1996) said individuals who are bonded to social unit which uphold antisocial values and beliefs are most seeming to engage in antisocial or delinquent behaviours (as cited in Thomas, 2011). Hence, when individuals are strongly bond with their social unit, they will be influenced by the social value and follow the norm although the behaviour possibly not the healthy activity or activity that might lead nix consequences (Thomas, 2011).Peer InfluenceParents and peer influence playing role in diffe rent areas in the lives of youth (Bowerman Kinch, 1959 J.W. Young Ferguson, 1979), and peer are much influential in decisions on social issues such as choice of friends and group membership (J.W. Young Ferguous, 1979) (as cited in Patrick, 2010). According to Aseltine (1995), the peer group has traditionally been the center of attention in the sociological books on adolescent deviance, there is research clearly documented the link between peer influence and substance use, as well as delinquent behaviour and antisocial values (Thomas, 2011).A study through with(p) by Walker and Bean (2009) to examine adolescents perceptions of negative and positive peer influence by using a sample of African American, European American, and Hispanic adolescents. In their study, they supported that association with deviant peers is often fictitious to influence adolescents to engage in antisocial behaviour (negative influence), and the findings suggest that negative peer influence has stronger impact on adolescent behaviours than does positive peer influence. Besides, Brown and Klute (2006) mentioned that positive peer influence serve as a deterrent to negative behaviour and encouragement for positive behaviour (getting along with family and perform well in academic) (as cited in Walker Bean, 2009).Peer and barbarian BehaviourThere is study make by Agrawal, Lynskey, Bucholz, Madden and heathland (2007) indicated that having peer with favourable military postures towards cannabis use is an important correlate of get-go in cannabis use. Besides, a research by Trucco, Colder and Wieczorek (2011) concluded that reinforcement and modelling of alcohol use appear to be important mechanisms by which delinquent peers influence the initiation of drinking among adolescents.In Thomas studies (2011) indicated that adolescent choose to engage in delinquent activity in malevolency of having a supporting and loving family, because the peer rewards were more salient. In such case, the pressure to get a higher reward from peer lead adolescent to engage in different behaviour, although the behaviour might be delinquent but, as long as is in favour of the values of the peer unit (Thomas, 2011).Besides family support, adolescent seek support from their friends in order to satisfy unmet needs in the family environment (Nickerson Nagle, 2005) and friendship are an extension of family relationships (Bowlby,1969 Wilkinson, 2004) (as cited in Patrick, 2010). Peer group provide appropriate socials roles, norms, values, and attitude for group member, such social role determine what pattern of behaviour is expected and in this case, influence the behaviour of the adolescent (Lombardi, 1963).Dodge, Dishion, and Lansford (2006) stated that adolescent who are at risk for delinquency are susceptible to negative influences from deviant peers, and higher levels of deviant peer association were found to predict later increases in pro-delinquency beliefs which highlights the i nfluence peers can have on adolescent beliefs about delinquency (Pardini, Loeber, and Stouthamer-Lober, 2005) (as cited in Thomas, 2011). Besides that, many research studies about juvenile delinquency stress the importance of peer groups in the form of bad neighbourhood, companions, and gangs (Lombardi, 1963).Peer and Internet AddictionBased on Harman, Hansen, Cochran, and Lindsey (2005), an internet addiction adolescent interact less with peers and have incompetent relationship quality. Normally, adolescent who are addicted to internet are having a unforesightful peer relationship according to Sanders, Field, Diego, and Kaplan (2000) and Wang, Lee, and Chang (2003), they also experience the difficulty in making friends based on Mesch (2001), isolated socially (Nalwa Anand, 2003) and had lower social skills and deficient relationship explained by Harman, Hansen, Cochran, and Lindsey (2005) (as cited in Esen Gndodu, 2010). Moreover, Patrick (2010) revealed that people, who escape friends, also use the Internet more heavily to compensate socially, meaning that lack of friends may increase the motivation of online social interaction.As cited in Esen Gndodu (2010), Kiran-Esen (2007) found out that peer pressure is a significant soothsayer of internet addiction. Peer pressure is another variable discuss in internet addiction. According to Esen Gndodu (2010), internet addiction and peer pressure are related variables, their result showed that the lower the peer pressure, the addiction of internet also decrease.Gender differences in internet addictionThere are some empirical support about the opinion that males are more subject to internet addiction, example like, according to Morahan-Martin and Schumacker (2000), males were more likely than females to be pathological users (which is 12% vs 3%), whereas females were more likely than males to have no symptoms (28% vs. 26%) or have limited symptoms (69% vs. 61%) of behavioural pathology (as cited in Chou, Condro n, Belland, 2005).In Greece, there is studies found out that people who suffering from internet addiction are mostly young male, and also showing that the rate of exhibiting the disorder among females is increasing (Lam, Peng, Mai, Jing, 2009). In Taiwan also, a study done by Griffiths (1998) showed that only three respondents were female students out of a organic of 54 internet addiction cases gleaned from more than 900 Taiwan college student respondents (as cited in Chou, Condron, Belland, 2005). Zhang, Amos, and McDowell (2008) also mentioned that male have higher level of internet addiction.The notion that males are more subject to internet addiction has empirical support, such as according to Scherer (1997) indicated that dependent internet users included a importantly larger proportion of men to women (71% men and 29% women) than the non-dependent users (50% are men and women). Besides that, Lam, Peng, Mai, and Jing (2009) also reported that males are 50% more likely than f emales to be addicted to the internet. Moreover, according to Chou, Chondron, and Belland (2005), they concluded that men use internet differently from woman, and that men are more likely subject to internet addiction.Women using internet differently than men, according to Jackson, Ervin, Gardner, and Schmitt (2001) , women are using internet more to communicate and maintain relationships online and men are mainly interest in less relational activities (as cited in Torres, 2010). Young (1998) had mentioned that women are normally more drawn to social and interactive aspects of the internet, and men are more likely to access the internet to play interactive video games (as cited in Torres, 2010).Young (1998) found out that women normally seek out close friendship and prefer anonymous communication in which they can entomb their appearance, have a sense of belonging and the ability to share their feelings and emotions in private and convenient ways whereas men tend to seek out domin ant activities or content online (which rely particularly on power, dominance, control, and violence) and also tend to explore sexual fantasies online (as cited in Chou, Condron, Belland, 2005).SummaryThis section discussed the theoretical perspectives and major concept (social factor) that is used throughout this research. The application of Use and Gratifications (UG) hypothesis explained how the social factor (peer influence) affect the adolescent engage in internet use and how to lead to internet addiction. Besides, above canvass also pointed out that many factors which cause one addicted to internet. The most influential factor could be social support group, and among so many social groups, the review discuss about how the peer influence the most in adolescent on risky behaviour. One of the risky behaviour which being discuss above is overly using internet, which will lead to internet addiction. In addition, the gender differences also playing a role in internet addiction.