I spent quite a bit of time yesterday revising my Thesis (remember, there's a capital "T", 'cause it's
that dang important). The point of all this was so that there would be a readable copy available on my blog. So, this post is going to be loooooooong. If you're interested in whether or not you think your electronic device you use for many more purposes than just phone calls and whether that device may be increasing your state and trait of loneliness and shyness (remember, a
state is malleable and a
trait is static), you may be surprised at the results of my study.
I wasn't comfortable with the final presentation to the Thesis Committee members until one of them spoke up and stated, "If you don't refute long-standing beliefs held by those who base their decisions on long-standing research, who will?"
I'm paraphrasing -- the crux of the conversation was that just because a researcher's paper had been cited 256 times in other studies didn't mean that the research was
correct. It meant their research was popular to use in other research studies looking to back up the same concept. What a profound concept. Thank you, Drs. Selby, Moreno, and Williams for backing me up on this concept.
What follows has been edited for content, length and readability. It wasn't considerably long in the first place, and most of you may want to skip Table 3 if you're not familiar with statistics. What many graduate students do while trolling for a decent research article (or, at least, this is what
I did, is to skip directly to the "
Discussion" section (*highlighted below in same color*)
which basically serves to summarize the entire paper. Feel free to do this as well.
AND FOR GOODNESS SAKE, IGNORE THE FORMATTING ERRORS. BLOGGER HAS ISSUES.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
SOCIAL ISOLATION AND CELL PHONE USE BY COLLEGE STUDENTS
A Thesis
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science in Psychology
May, 2013
Nichol Elise
© 2013
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
ABSTRACT
Social Isolation and Cell Phone Use by
College Students
In our technologically ever-advancing world, cell phones can
either help us remain
socially
connected or can contribute to social isolation by substituting for
face-to-face
contact.
This study examines the levels of social isolation in terms of the state of
loneliness
and trait of shyness and their correlations with academic achievement in 206 community
college and university students to examine the connection between social
isolation,
GPA and cell phone use in college students. Two instruments used in the
collection
of data were the Revised Cheek and
Buss Shyness Scale (RCBS) and the
DeJong
Gierveld Loneliness Scale. Correlational
analysis was used to examine the relationships
between variables. Hypothesis 1 proposed a significant negative relationship between
higher levels of cell phone use and academic achievement as measured by self-reported
GPA. This was partially supported by the research findings. Hypothesis 2 proposed
a significant negative relationship between shyness and higher levels of cell phone
use. This was also partially supported by the research findings. Hypothesis 3 proposed
a significant positive relationship between loneliness and higher levels of
cell phone
use. This was not supported by research findings. Implications for further
research include examining non-college populations for greater generalization
of results and examining
additional personality traits.
· Keywords:
Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale, DeJong Gierveld
Loneliness Scale,
social
isolation, shyness, loneliness, GPA, cell phone use, academic achievement
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List Of Tables And Appendices Only
Tables
1.
Frequency Distributions for Demographic Variables
2.
Means and Standard Deviations for Shyness, Loneliness, GPA and Cell
Phone
Use
3.
Correlations Between Predictor and Criterion Variables
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
Appendices
Appendix
A: Informed Consent Form
Appendix
B: Demographic Form
Appendix
C: The Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness
Scale (RCBS)
Appendix
D: DeJong Gierveld Loneliness Scale (JGLS)
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The rapid increase of technological advances has changed the ways
in which
people
interact with their environment. This has been a positive force insofar as it
has
made
it possible to rapidly obtain information, goods and services and communicate
our
thoughts
to people, both professionally and personally. However, technology also
produces
changes that may result in the excessive and sometimes almost exclusive use of
technological
products at the cost of establishing interpersonal relationships.
Previous
research has investigated the relationship between excessive Internet and
video
game use and problems for the user (Block, 2008; King, Delfabbro, &
Griffiths,
2012).
Research generally defines problematic use of the Internet or video games as a
“persistent
and very high level of involvement in internet and game-related activities that
results
in detrimental emotional and social consequences for the user" (King,
Delfabbro,
&
Griffiths, 2012). Block (2008) identified three subtypes of internet addiction:
“excessive
gaming, sexual preoccupations, and email/text messaging.” He noted that
symptoms
of addiction reported in the literature included excessive use, withdrawal,
tolerance,
and negative consequences (e.g., arguments, lying, poor achievement, social
isolation,
and fatigue).
Hertlein and Webster (2008) reported that internet-based
relationships may have a
detrimental
effect upon interpersonal relationships as a whole in that many internet-based
relationships
are sexual and secretive in nature and detract from intimacy between face-to-face
partners. Boies, Cooper and Osborne (2004) found that dependence on online
interaction
resulted in “lower offline functioning” or a lowered level of social
functioning
while
not online. The authors concluded that the use of computer interaction as a
sole
means
of interpersonal satisfaction may result in an inability to establish normal
interpersonal
relationships.
University students have also been found to be at risk for
manifesting technology
related
issues such as “problematic internet use” and an “emotional dependence” on the
cell
phone (Jenaro, Flores, Gomez-Vela, Gonzalez-Gil, & Caballo, 2007). This was
hypothesized
to be the result of university students’ high number of stressors, the
adjustable
nature of their schedules and their connection to technologically advanced (in
speed)
connections to the Internet (Young, 1998).
Problems
Related to Cell Phone Technology
Social Problems
Cell phones play an important role in the lives of Americans. They
provide us with a method to connect to important others in our lives. Cell
phones not only provide a social outlet, but are a means to engage oneself in
interesting activities such as surfing the internet, playing games, conducting
research and taking and sharing photographs. They provide us with more
flexibility compared to home telephones as they allow the user to leave home
and remain connected (Lesitaokana, 2012). Cell phones also enable us to seek
help in case of an emergency and enable parents to keep an “eye” on their
children (Lesitaokana, 2012).
1
On the other hand cell phone use can present a problem for the
user, e.g., texting
while
driving or walking while using cell phones. According to Merriam-Webster, a
text
message
is defined as “a message consisting of words that are typed or entered on a
keypad
and sent electronically to a cell phone.”
Very serious problems have arisen specifically due to the use of
cellular telephones by young people. These include sexting and cyberbullying
(Horrey & Wickens, 2006; Stavrinos, Byington, & Schwebel, 2011).
Sexting is a term that refers to “the delivery of sexually explicit text
messages. Sexting between teens can be harmful in that it exposes a teen in a
very personal way. This has regularly occurred in young persons, resulting in
extreme distress. Because the transmission of sexual images of minors is
defined as child pornography, it is a very serious crime (Ostrager, 2010). If caught
delivering sexually explicit text messages to one another, teens can face
having to register as sex offenders for a period of many years (Ostrager, 2010)
and up to a lifetime in some states. California Penal Code 288.2 prohibits
anyone from sending sexual text messages to a minor, which is punishable by
jail or prison. Conviction for a sex crime could permanently affect the sexting
individual’s personal and professional life (Ostrager, 2010). The proliferation
of sexual images of someone who may have initially been a willing participant
(to friends or accidentally) can cause that person to feel unsafe and exposed.
Cyber-bullying is a technological form of bullying employed by
people (and common in younger students) to wield power over one another (PyŜalski, 2012). The bully
can hide behind the anonymity of the internet while spreading hurtful
information throughout the victim’s community, or can make threats without the
victim being able to respond. Cyber-bullying can instill fear in those who are
its victims and is more of a problem than regular bullying in that it is not
bound by face-to-face interactions; anyone can be a victim of cyber-bullying
nearly anywhere there is cell phone service (PyŜalski, 2012).
Link To Existing Psychological Problems
It has not been clearly established whether some of the social
problems associated
with
internet use are the result of the nature of the technological products, or are
principally
a reflection of psychological problems already present in the user. For
example,
an antisocial or socially insecure individual may find that is a safer and
therefore
more desirable to interact with a computer than directly with people (King,
Delfabbro,
& Griffiths, 2012). There is some support for this in the findings of Cao
and
Su
(2007) that those who tend to score higher on measures of problematic Internet
use,
which
they labeled “addiction” also tend to score higher on measures of neuroticism
and
psychoticism.
Morahan-Martin and Schumacher (as cited in King, Delfabbro, &
Griffiths,
2012) state that “problematic Internet users tend to be technologically
sophisticated
but socially lonely individuals who tend to feel more competent and
disinhibited
when online.” With regard to the relationship between age and gender and
problematic
Internet use, adolescent males have been found to be connected with the
highest
number of problems with video game and internet use (King, Delfabbro, &
Griffiths,
2012). However, females show a higher rate of cell phone addiction (Billieux,
Van
Der Linden, & Rochat, 2008).
A number of studies have examined the relationship between cell
phone use,
personality
traits and psychopathology. Butt and Phillips (2008) administered the NEO
Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI), a measure designed as
an adaptation of the Revised
NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) to
112 participants (Costa & McCrae as cited in
Butt
& Phillips, 2008). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 59 years and most
were
university
graduates. Participants responded to questions regarding their cell phone use
(e.g.,
average amount of time spent each week receiving and calling and creating and
receiving
SMS (text) messages). Results showed that participants labeled as
“disagreeable
extraverts” spent more time on their cell phones. With regard to text
messages:
participants with higher messaging rates (both incoming and outgoing) were
labeled
as “extraverted, neurotic, disagreeable, and unconscientious” (Butt &
Phillips,
2008).
Bianchi and Phillips (2005), found the trait extraversion to be
associated with
problem
use of cell phones. The authors concluded that individuals with high levels of
extraversion
use cell phones as means of seeking out stimulation via changing wallpapers
and
ringtones on the device (Bianchi & Phillips, 2005). This also indicates that
“problem”
cell phone use is not limited issues related to interacting with others.
Siddiqui
(2011)
found that extraversion was also linked to addictive (defined as “heavy usage
regardless
of trends and associated costs’’) use of cell phones. A study by Augner and
Hacker
(2012) found extraversion to be linked to Problem Mobile Phone Use (PU) as
measured
by cell phone dependence, a tendency to favor phone contact over face-to-face
contact.
College age students are among the heaviest users of mobile
phones. Harman &
Sato
(2011) conducted a study to examine the effect of cell phone use on academic
performance.
Participants were 38 male and 80 female university students who were
asked
to respond to a cell phone use survey and provide an estimate of their GPA.
Survey
questions included the number of mobile phone calls and SMS text messages sent
and
received daily, the number of times their cell phone was checked for messages
daily
(assumed,
since all the others were specified as daily) and the average number of people
called
on a daily basis. Results showed a negative correlation between number of SMS
text
messages both sent and received daily and GPA (r = -.21). The authors purport
that
higher
messaging rates and incoming calls may interfere with learning (Harman &
Sato,
2011).
Junco and Cotten (2012) examined the relationship between
multitasking,
studying
and academic performance. Their sample included 1774 university students,
88%
of whom were between the ages of 18 and 22, who were asked to approximate times
they
combined studying and SMS texting instead of doing each activity independent of
one
another. Results showed participants sent an average number of 97 SMS texts per
day
and 51% of these participants reported multitasking texting with schoolwork;
additionally
participants stated they sent an average of 71 texts daily while performing
schoolwork
tasks. Regression analysis showed that texting while studying was
negatively
correlated with college GPA (r = -.088) while using Facebook while studying
revealed
an even higher negative correlation (r = -.113)
Shyness
Wei and Lo (2006) examined the relationship between shyness,
loneliness and
cell
phone use. Together, Loneliness and Shyness were considered by the authors to
be a
measure
of a lack of “Social Connectedness”, a term defined as a lack of
“interpersonal,
community,
and general social ties.” Loneliness was defined as “a self-perceived state
that
a person’s network of relationships is either smaller or less satisfying than
desired”,
and
shyness as “discomfort and inhibition that may occur in the presence of
others.”
Results
found significant negative correlations between shyness and total use of cell
phone
daily (r = -.29), number of social uses (r = -.29), average call time (r =
-.12),
number
of owned mobile phones (r = -.11), and length of time of cell phone ownership
(r
= -.24). Further, loneliness was negatively correlated to “frequency of
social-oriented
use”
(r = -.21), total use daily (r = -.15), and length of cell phone ownership (r =
-.14).
Summary
Previous research has identified both social and psychological
issues associated
with
the use of electronic/digital technology, particularly cell phone use. In
addition,
several
personality traits including neuroticism, disagreeableness, and extraversion have
been
found to be associated with excessive cell phone use. Further, two studies have
found
negative correlations between the amount of cell phone use and academic
performance.
Only one study has examined the relationship between the trait of shyness
and
state of loneliness and cell phone use.
Purpose Of The Study
The
purpose of this study is to further examine the relationship between cellphone
use, academic performance and social connectedness as measured by loneliness
and
shyness.
Hypothesis
1: There will be a significant negative relationship between higher
levels
of cell phone use and academic performance
Hypothesis
2: There will be a significant negative relationship between shyness
and
higher levels of cell phone use
Hypothesis
3: There will be a significant positive relationship between loneliness
and
higher levels of cell phone use
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
CHAPTER 2
Methods and Materials
Method
Participants
All participants were 18+ years of age and all were either
community college or
university
students. All participants were recruited via convenience sampling. They were
taken
from Allan Hancock College in Santa Maria, CA and California Polytechnic State
University,
San Luis Obispo. Participants were made available by three different
instructors
at both institutions. Student participation was voluntary and extra credit was
given
for participation in one of the classes. Participation was obtained with the
community
college’s Applied Social Science Department Program Director’s approval
since
there was no Human Subjects Committee at that college; participation was
obtained
with
Human Subjects Committee approval from the university.
Measures
Revised
Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale (RCBS). The Revised Cheek and Buss
Shyness
Scale (RCBS) is a scale designed to
measure the trait of shyness. There are five
versions
of this scale differentiated by the number of items on the scale (8-20). The
13-
item
Likert scale was selected because it is one of the most commonly used to
measure
shyness
in research (Ryan & Xenos, 2011). The Revised
Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale
(RCBS)
items are arranged on a 5-point, Likert scale ranging from “Very
characteristic”
to
“Very uncharacteristic.” The Revised
Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale (RCBS)
13-item
scale
is considered to be psychometrically sound: it has strong internal consistency
(á = .90) and test-retest
reliability (r = .88, 45-day test-retest). It was also found to have
good
convergent validity (r = .79 ) via the Social
Reticence Scale (SRS–II; Jones &
Briggs
as cited in Hopko, Stowell, Jones, Armento, & Cheek, 2005); good convergent
validity
(r =
.77) via the Social Avoidance
and Distress Scale (SADS; Watson &
Friend
as
cited in Hopko, Stowell, Jones, Armento, & Cheek, 2005); good convergent
validity
(r = .74) the Shyness Questionnaire (SQ;
Bortnik, Henderson, & Zimbardo as cited in
Hopko,
Stowell, Jones, Armento, & Cheek, 2005); and good convergent validity
(r = .68) via responses to
the question “How much of a problem is shyness for you?”
(Hopko
et al, 2005). Discriminant validity of the Cheek
and Buss Shyness Scale original
and
revised versions had not been established at the time of publication of the
article
(Hopko
et al, 2005).
De Jong Gierveld
Loneliness Scale (JGLS). The De Jong Gierveld Loneliness
Scale
(De Jong Gierveld & Van Tilburg, 2006) is
an 11-item scale designed to measure
social
and emotional loneliness. It consists of two subscales: a six-item scale
measuring
emotional
loneliness and a five-item scale measuring social loneliness. Total scores for
the
11-item scale range from 0 (not lonely) to 11 (extremely lonely) (á = .84). Individual
items
are arranged on a Likert-type scale with responses ranging from “no!”, “no,”
“more
or
less,” to”yes,” and “yes!” (De Jong Gierveld & Van Tilburg, 2006).
Among
the findings from a meta-analysis conducted by the authors, the
combination
of 10 studies (n = 7,444) using the De
Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale
revealed
negative correlations between the scale and quantity of social interactions
(r
= -.08) and the quality of the interactions (r = -.35). Internal reliability
coefficients of
each
of the two subscales measuring emotional loneliness (r = .81) and social
loneliness
(r
= .85) have also been reported (De Jong Gierveld & Van Tilburg, 2010).
Procedure
The researcher obtained participants from a community college
located in Santa
Maria,
CA. This college had no Human Subjects Committee. The participants were
recruited
via a professor teaching three separate addiction studies/psychology classes
over
the course of two semesters, Summer and Fall, 2012. Additionally, the
researcher
collected
data at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo from two introductory psychology classes and
two
biopsychology classes held by two instructors; all Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
data
were
collected in Winter 2013. The researcher used a demographic information form
and
two
instruments measuring shyness and loneliness. The researcher streamlined the
process
of data collection by eliminating, via verbal screening, those participants who
declined
to complete the surveys. Thus, all participation was voluntary. Additionally,
duplicate
admissions (possible due to participants being able to take more than one class
at
a time or sequentially) were eliminated via a verbal screening process. The
researcher
reviewed
the informed consent form verbally and gave a copy of the form to each
remaining
participant along with a copy of the survey. The demographic information
form
and instruments were self-administered by the participants and hand collected
by
the
researcher. After the surveys were collected each participant was debriefed due
to
deception
being used by the researcher; specifically, the title of each scale was changed
to
Mood Scale 1 and Mood Scale 2 to avoid biased answers due to the descriptive
titles of
the
original scales (“loneliness” and “shyness” were included in the original
titles of each
scale
respectively). The data was collected and analyzed anonymously. There was no
identifiable
information on the demographic form leading to the identity of any subject.
Data
Analysis
Correlational
analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between
amount
of cell phone use and academic performance, shyness, and loneliness. A similar
correlational
analysis was also conducted for male and female participants.
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
CHAPTER 3
Results
There were 210 subjects total. Forty-seven participants chose not
to disclose their
GPA,
which is roughly 22% of the sample. This portion of the overall sample was
comprised
mostly of 18 to 21-year-olds and those who listed themselves as 33 or over;
both
groups accounted for 72.4% of those who declined to list their GPA. Freshmen
accounted
for 43.2% of the GPA non-disclosing group and sophomores accounted for
22.7%,
the two largest categories within this group.
Sixty percent of subjects were between the ages of 18 and 21, the
largest category.
Of
the subjects reporting gender, 38.5% were male and 61.5% were female. See Table
1
for
further information.
Loneliness, Shyness and Cell Phone Use
The participants’ mean score on the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale was 3.37
when
rounded to the nearest hundredth. The range of scores possible on this
instrument
was
zero to 11; zero indicates complete “social embededness” and absence of
loneliness
and
11 refers to “complete loneliness.”
The participants’ mean score on the Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale was
32.19
when rounded to the nearest hundredth. The maximum value is 65. For college
students,
the Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale lists a mean of 33.3 for men and 32.4
for
women. The mean derived from this study was just slightly below the standard
mean
for
either gender on this measure. Means and standard deviations for the predictor
and
criterion
variables are provided in Table 2.
Table 3 Presents correlations between predictor and criterion
variables. One item
worthy
of note is that the correlation between shyness and loneliness (r = .317, p
< .01)
was
significant and positive. Other significant correlations are demarcated by
asterisks
and
expounded upon as applicable within the scope of each hypothesis. It is
important to
keep
the following in mind for all three hypotheses: Though there were some
significant
correlations
found between predictor and criterion variables, clinical significance was not
found.
Hypothesis 1
It was hypothesized that a significant negative correlation would
be found
between
higher levels of cell phone use and academic performance, as measured by GPA.
Results
showed significant negative correlations between number of calls to family per
day
(r = -.16) and number of calls received from family (r = -.20) and GPA. The
number
of
daily text messages to family (r = -.24) and from family (r = -.24) was found
to be
significantly
and negatively correlated with GPA.
In sum, all results were in the expected direction, but magnitude
of effect was low
or
nonexistent. These correlations were statistically significant but the size of
the
correlation
was low. Results indicated that a maximum of 4.4% of the variance for any
correlation
was accounted for in this way.
Hypothesis 2
It was hypothesized that there would be a significant negative
relationship
between
shyness scores and higher levels of cell phone use. Significant negative
correlations
were found between shyness and number of calls to friends (r = -.18) and
number
of calls received from friends (r = -.18). This explains 3.2% of the variance.
Also, calls received from family (r = -.13) and calls to family (r
= .13) approached
significance.
This accounted for 1.7% of the variance within the scope of studying these
two
variables’ relationship to one another.
In summary, the findings showed some evidence to support this
hypothesis, but
effect
sizes were so small as to be clinically insignificant.
Hypothesis 3
It was hypothesized that there would be a significant positive
relationship
between
loneliness and higher levels of cell phone use. Results showed no significant
relationships
with regard to amount of calls/texts made or received, but there was some
evidence
for a negative relationship between the number of calls received by friends
(r
= -.12) and interestingly a positive relationship between levels of loneliness
and
communication
with family (r = .13) However, both correlational values were not
significant.
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
*note: for those of you who do not want to read the whole paper, this is the section to jump to*
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
CHAPTER 4
Discussion
The present study sought to examine the relationship between
levels of cell phone
use
and loneliness, shyness, and academic performance as measured by GPA. Of the
overall
sample, a portion chose not to disclose their GPA. The majority of this portion
of
the
overall sample was comprised of 18 to 21-year-olds and those who listed
themselves
as
33 or over. Their omission of GPA could be due to factors such as attending as
incoming
freshman at the community college or university, which would mean each of
these
participants didn’t have a GPA for the previous semester or quarter to report;
however,
a small percentage of this portion indicated they were freshmen. It is unclear
from
the results whether GPA was omitted for other reasons such as not wanting to
report
a
low GPA or not knowing what one’s GPA was.
Much of the literature to date supports that higher cell phone use
is negatively
associated
with academic performance and may interfere with learning (Harman & Sato,
2011).
However, Harman and Sato’s study only accounted for a very small percentage of
the
variance when reporting negative correlations between texting behavior and GPA.
Higher
use of cell phones while studying has also been found to be negatively
associated
with
GPA (Junco & Cotten, 2012). But Junco and Cotten’s study was unable to
isolate
texting
and using Facebook as the cause for the negative effect on GPA; simply stated,
the
study accounted for too many other factors that could contribute to a negative
effect
on
GPA.
The present study supports previous research findings: GPA is
negatively
correlated
with higher use of cell phones with regard to communication between students
and
their families. But the significance of this may not be as impactful as
previous studies
have
asserted.
Shyness and total use of cell phones has been found in previous
studies to be
negatively
correlated (Wei & Lo, 2006). However, a small percentage of the variance
was
accounted
for in Wei and Lo’s study and may not be as significant as the authors may
have
purported. The current study supports previous research in that shyness and
calls to
and
from friends are negatively correlated with one another. The current results
indicate
that
a small percentage of variance was accounted for within the scope of the
relationship
between
these two variables and the correlation may be clinically insignificant.
The current study did not support previous findings that
loneliness was negatively
correlated
to higher rates of cell phone use (Wei & Lo, 2006) and instead found both
positive
and negative correlations between texting and calling, friends and family, and
scores
on loneliness.
The current study found that the number of calls and texts to and
from family was
significantly
and negatively associated with academic performance; however,
significance
levels were relatively low. Two things could be surmised from the results:
Texts
and calls between friends included a higher percentage of communication between
students
concerning class assignments and tests which enhanced their performance, or
calls
and texts to and from family were distracting to the students and thus negatively
influenced
their academic performance. Due to clinically insignificant findings, many
other
factors could be involved between the predictor and criterion variables.
With regard to the relationship between shyness and cell phone use
the present
study
showed significant negative relationships between calls to and from friends
daily
and
the trait of shyness; the significance levels were low. However, the
correlations may
indicate
that the students use phone calls to avoid interpersonal interactions in social
situations
or that those with higher shyness scores tend to include friends more often
than
family
within their inner group of trusted others.
No significant association was found between loneliness and levels
of cell phone
use
in college students and no pattern of association was found between calls,
texts, and
levels
of loneliness in the participants. There was a significant and positive
correlation
between
shyness and loneliness which may be indicative of participants with higher
shyness
scores having fewer and less frequent social interactions which contributes to
their
loneliness.
Limitations of the current study include the fact that the
participants self-reported
all
information. This contributed to a fairly significant number of participants
omitting
GPA
on their surveys. Another limitation is that this study was limited to the
college
student
population; it would be interesting to find out whether non-student populations
have
the same results in patterns of cell phone use and associated measurements of
the
trait
of shyness and state of loneliness.
In consideration of the recent criticisms of the DSM-V, it is
important to note that
a
new “internet addiction” diagnosis may be questionable in light of the results
of this
study
and subsequent comparison to results from other studies. Previous research
indicates
that effect sizes may be insignificant and do not strongly support the cell
phone’s
contribution to pathological levels of technology use. Social connectedness via
the
use of cell phones may be technologically advanced, but people may feel more
isolated
as a result of relying on technology at the expense of face-to-face
interactions.
This
does not necessarily equate with pathology.
Directions for Future Research
This study examined the effects of loneliness, shyness, and cell
phone use on
academic
performance within college and university populations. A limitation of this
study
was the fact that GPA was self-reported which could be corrected for in future
studies
by collecting this information from the college or university to avoid
reporting
errors
or omissions. As results indicated small or non-existent relationships among
variables,
an important direction for future research would be to incorporate other or
additional
measures of personality traits to determine if more significant relationships
exist
between other traits or a combination of traits, cell phone use and academic
performance.
This study researched students at only one university as well.
Future research
could
include those outside the college setting or to include students from several
universities
across the United States to obtain a more comprehensive representation of the
college
student population of the United States. Further, participants could be
garnered
from
other countries to examine how cell phone use and shyness and loneliness are
related
in areas outside the U.S. This would heighten the transferability of research
findings
across cultures.
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
REFERENCES
Bianchi,
A., & Phillips, J. G. (2005). Psychological predictors of problem mobile
phone
use.
Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 8(1), 39-51. doi:10.1089/cpb.2005.8.39
Billieux,
J., Van Der Linden, M., & Rochat, L. (2008). The role of impulsivity in
actual
and
problematic use of the mobile phone. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 22(9),
1195-1210.
doi:10.1002/acp.1429
Block,
J. J. (2008). Issues for DSM-V: Internet addiction. The American Journal Of
Psychiatry, 165(3), 306-307. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.07101556
Boies,
S. C., Cooper, A., & Osborne, C. S. (2004). Variations in Internet-related
problems
and psychosocial functioning in online sexual activities: Implications
for
social and sexual development of young adults. Cyberpsychology & Behavior,
7(2), 207-230. doi:10.1089/109493104323024474
Butt,
S., & Phillips, J. G. (2008). Personality and self reported mobile phone
use.
Computers
In Human Behavior, 24(2), 346-360.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.019
Cao,
F. F., & Su, L. L. (2007). Internet addiction among Chinese adolescents:
prevalence
and
psychological features. Child: Care,
Health And Development, 33(3), 275-
281.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00715.x
De
Jong Gierveld, J., & Van Tilburg, T. (2010) The De Jong Gierveld short
scales for
emotional
and social loneliness: Tested on data from 7 countries in the UN
generations
and gender surveys. European Journal of
Ageing, 7(2), 121-130. doi:
10.1007/s10433-010-0144-6
De
Jong Gierveld, J., & Van Tilburg, T. (2006). A 6-Item Scale for Overall,
Emotional,
and
Social Loneliness: Confirmatory Tests on Survey Data. Research On Aging,
28(5), 582-598.
Harman,
B. A., & Sato, T. (2011). Cell phone use and grade point average among
undergraduate
university students. College Student
Journal, 45(3), 544-549.
Hertlein,
K. M., & Webster, M. (2008). Technology, relationships, and problems: A
research
synthesis. Journal Of Marital And Family
Therapy, 34(4), 445-460.
doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2008.00087.x
Hopko,
D. R., Stowell, J., Jones, W. H., Armento, M. A., & Cheek, J. M. (2005).
Psychometric
Properties of the Revised Cheek and
Buss Shyness Scale. Journal Of
Personality
Assessment, 84(2), 185-192.
Horrey,
W. J., & Wickens, C. D. (2006). Examining the impact of cell phone
conversations
on driving using meta-analytic techniques. Human
Factors, 48(1),
196-205.
doi:10.1518/001872006776412135
Jenaro,
C., Flores, N., Gómez-Vela, M., González-Gil, F., & Caballo, C. (2007).
Problematic
internet and cell-phone use: Psychological, behavioral, and health
correlates.
Addiction Research & Theory, 15(3), 309-320.
doi:10.1080/16066350701350247
Junco,
R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking
and
academic
performance. Computers &
Education, 59(2), 505-514.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023
King,
D. L., Delfabbro, P. H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). Clinical interventions
for
technology-based
problems: Excessive internet and video game use. Journal Of
Cognitive
Psychotherapy, 26(1), 43-56.
doi:10.1891/0889-8391.26.1.43
Lesitaokana,
W. (2012). Review of The mobile connection: The cell phone's impact on
society.
Journal Of Sociology, 48(3), 326-328. doi:10.1177/1440783311426758
Ostrager,
B. (2010). SMS. OMG! LOL! TTYL: Translating the law to accommodate
today's
teens and the evolution from texting to sexting. Family Court Review,
48(4), 712-726. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2010.01345.x
PyŜalski, J. (2012). From cyberbullying to electronic aggression:
Typology of the
phenomenon.
Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 17(3-4), 305-317.
doi:10.1080/13632752.2012.704319
Ryan,
T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the
relationship
between
the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage.
Computers
In Human Behavior, 27(5), 1658-1664.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.004
Siddiqui,
K. (2011). Personality influences mobile phone usage. Interdisciplinary Journal
Of
Contemporary Research In Business, 3(3), 554-563.
Stavrinos,
D., Byington, K. W., & Schwebel, D. C. (2011). Distracted walking: Cell
phones
increase injury risk for college pedestrians. Journal
Of Safety Research,
42(2), 101-107. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2011.01.004
Wei,
R., & Lo, V. (2006). Staying connected while on the move: Cell phone use
and
social
connectedness. New Media &
Society, 8(1), 53-72.
doi:10.1177/1461444806059870
Young,
K. S. (1998). Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder.
Cyberpsychology
& Behavior, 1(3), 237-244.
doi:10.1089/cpb.1998.1.237
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
Tables
Table
1: Frequency Distributions for
Demographic Variables
Category
|
|
N
|
%
|
Age
|
18-21
|
125
|
59.5
|
|
21-24
|
35
|
16.7
|
|
25-28
|
11
|
5.2
|
|
33
or over
|
30
|
4.3
|
|
|
|
|
Gender
|
Male
|
80
|
38.1
|
|
Female
|
128
|
61
|
|
Not
Specified
|
2
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
Year
in School
|
Freshman
|
61
|
29
|
|
Sophomore
|
63
|
30
|
|
Junior
|
42
|
20
|
|
Senior
|
29
|
13.8
|
|
Graduate
Student
|
8
|
3.8
|
|
Not
Specified
|
7
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
|
Employment
Status
|
Full-time
|
19
|
9
|
|
Part-time
|
74
|
35.2
|
|
Unemployed
|
13
|
6.2
|
|
Student
|
93
|
44.3
|
|
Homemaker
|
5
|
2.4
|
|
Retired
|
3
|
1.4
|
|
Not
Specified
|
3
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
210
|
100
|
Table
2: Means and Standard Deviations for
Shyness, Loneliness, GPA and Cell Phone Use
|
N
|
MIN
|
MAX
|
MEAN
|
SD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shyness
|
209
|
13
|
55
|
32.19
|
8.72
|
loneliness
|
205
|
0
|
15
|
3.37
|
2.90
|
GPA
|
162
|
1.5
|
4.0
|
3.15
|
0.50
|
Number
phones owned
|
209
|
0
|
5
|
1.06
|
.38
|
Cell
phone: years owned
|
206
|
0
|
25
|
7.48
|
3.53
|
Avg
call length (minutes)
|
207
|
0
|
200
|
10.29
|
17.04
|
Calls
to family per day
|
206
|
0
|
25
|
1.72
|
2.85
|
Calls
from family per day
|
206
|
0
|
25
|
1.68
|
3.22
|
Calls
to friends per day
|
207
|
0
|
15
|
1.59
|
2.17
|
Calls
from friends per day
|
206
|
0
|
20
|
1.72
|
2.60
|
Texts
to family per day
|
206
|
0
|
100
|
6.85
|
11.27
|
Texts
from family per day
|
206
|
0
|
75
|
6.80
|
10.67
|
Texts
to friends per day
|
205
|
0
|
200
|
32.01
|
36.11
|
Texts
from friends per day
|
205
|
0
|
200
|
34.33
|
39.26
|
Table
3: Correlations Between Predictor and
Criterion Variables
|
Shyness
|
Loneliness
|
GPA
|
shyness
|
1
|
.317**
|
0.099
|
loneliness
|
.317**
|
1
|
-0.048
|
GPA
|
0.099
|
-0.048
|
1
|
number
phones owned
|
-0.062
|
-0.082
|
-0.001
|
cell
years owned
|
-0.115
|
-0.058
|
0.043
|
avg
call length in minutes
|
0.085
|
0.057
|
-0.018
|
calls
to family/day
|
-0.131
|
-0.003
|
-.162*
|
calls
received from family/day
|
-0.128
|
-0.055
|
-.198*
|
calls
to friends/day
|
-.180**
|
-0.082
|
-0.073
|
calls
received friends/day
|
-.180**
|
-0.117
|
-0.073
|
texts
to family/day
|
-0.072
|
0.037
|
-.242**
|
texts
received family/day
|
-0.069
|
0.132
|
-.245**
|
texts
to friends/day
|
-0.092
|
0.02
|
-0.058
|
texts
received friends/day
|
-0.075
|
0.059
|
-0.096
|
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
APPENDIX A
Informed Consent
Form
A research project on social isolation is being conducted by
Nichol (Elise), a student
in the Department of Psychology at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis
Obispo. The purpose of the study is to examine the correlation between
student’s cell
phone use and social isolation.
You are being asked to take part in this study by completing the attached/enclosed
questionnaire. You will receive a questionnaire with 24 questions for which you
will circle the number corresponding to your assessment of the question and several
demographic questions which will provide the researcher with information essential
to the analysis of the results of the questionnaire. Your participation will
take approximately 20 minutes or less. Please be aware that you are not
required to participate in this research and you may discontinue your
participation at any time without penalty.
You may also omit any items on the questionnaire you prefer not to
answer.
The possible risk associated with participation in this study
includes emotional and/or psychological distress associated with answering the
type of questions listed on the questionnaire. If you should experience any
emotional and/or psychological distress, please be aware that you may contact
the Cal Poly Health and Counseling Office at (805) 756-6181. You may also go
into their office, located at Building 27 on the Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo
Campus for assistance. At Allan Hancock College, you may go to Student Health
Services located at: Santa Maria campus, Bldg. W-12, or by dialing (805) 922-6966,
extension 3212.
Your responses will be provided anonymously to protect your
privacy. Potential
benefits associated with the study include the modification of existing student assistance
programs, the development of new programs to create environments that would
be helpful in mitigating student isolation and the provision of valuable
research information
to be used in further studies on the factors affecting students’ social
isolation.
If you have questions regarding this study or would like to be
informed of the
results when the study is completed, please feel free to contact Nichol
Caldwell (Elise) and/or Michael Selby at (805) 756-1617. If you have concerns
regarding the manner in which the
study is conducted, you may contact Steve Davis, Chair of the Cal Poly Human Subjects
Committee, at (805) 756-2754, or Susan Opava, Dean of Research and Graduate Programs,
at (805) 756-1508.
If you agree to voluntarily participate in this research project
as described, please indicate your agreement by completing and returning the
attached questionnaire. Please retain this consent cover form for your
reference, and thank you for your participation in this research.
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
APPENDIX B
Demographic Form
Please
Provide the following information (2-page):
Age:
ð under 18
ð 18-21
ð 21-24
ð 25-28
ð 29-32
ð 33 or over
Gender:
ð Male
ð Female
Year
in School:
ð Freshman
ð Sophomore
ð Junior
ð Senior
ð Graduate Student
Current
GPA
______________
Cell
Phone Usage (conversations or texting only)
How
many cell phones do you own? _____
How
long have you been a cell phone owner? ______ years
What
is the average call time for each phone call you make or receive? _____ minutes
How
many phone calls do you make to family per day? _____
How
many phone calls do you receive from family per day? _____
How
many phone calls do you make to friends per day? _____
How
many phone calls do you receive from friends per day? ______
How
many texts do you send to family each day? ______
How
many texts do you receive from family each day? ______
How
many texts do you send to friends each day? ______
How
many texts do you receive from friends each day? ______
Which
do you prefer, to talk on the phone or to text? talk/text (circle one).
Why?
(check one)
ð Convenience
ð Time issue
ð Being able to make emotional connection with the person on the other
end
ð Better able to comprehend what’s being communicated
ð Other ________________________________________________
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
APPENDIX C
The
Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale (RCBS)
Cheek,
J.M. (1983). Unpublished, Wellesley College, Wellesley MA 02181
INSTRUCTIONS:
Please read each item carefully and decide to
what extent it is
characteristic
of your feelings and behavior. Fill in the blank next to each item by
choosing
a number from the scale printed below:
1=
Very uncharacteristic or untrue, strongly disagree
2=
Uncharacteristic
3=
Neutral
4=
Characteristic
5=
Very characteristic or true, strongly agree
_____
1. I feel tense when I’m with people I don’t know well.
_____
2. I am socially somewhat awkward.
_____
3. I do not find it difficult to ask other people for information.
_____
4. I am often uncomfortable at parties and other social functions.
_____
5. When in a group of people, I have trouble thinking of the right things to talk
about.
_____
6. It does not take me long to overcome my shyness in new situations.
_____
7. It is hard for me to act natural when I am meeting new people.
_____
8. I feel nervous when speaking to someone in authority.
_____
9. I have no doubts about my social competence.
_____
10. I have trouble looking someone right in the eye.
_____
11. I feel inhibited in social situations.
_____
12. I do not find it hard to talk to strangers.
_____
13. I am more shy with members of the opposite sex.
