Finally... it's the Thesis! •Social Isolation and Cell Phone Use by College Students•

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

** P< 0.01

* < 0.05

∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙     

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.

∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙

APPENDIX D

De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale (JGLS)

DeJong Gierveld, J.

Research on Aging, Volume 28 Number 5, September 2006 582-598, © 2006 Sage

Publications

INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate for each of the statements, the extent to which

they apply to your situation, the way you feel now. Please circle the appropriate

answer.

no! / no / more or less / yes /yes! 1. There is always someone I can talk to about my dayto-

day problems

no! / no / more or less / yes /yes! 2. I miss having a really close friend

no! / no / more or less / yes /yes! 3. I experience a general sense of emptiness.

no! / no / more or less / yes /yes! 4. There are plenty of people I can rely on when I have

problems

no! / no / more or less / yes /yes! 5. I miss the pleasure of the company of others

no! / no / more or less / yes /yes! 6. I find my circle of friends and acquaintances too

limited

no! / no / more or less / yes /yes! 7. There are many people I can trust completely

no! / no / more or less / yes /yes! 8. There are enough people I feel close to

no! / no / more or less / yes /yes! 9. I miss having people around

no! / no / more or less / yes /yes! 10. I often feel rejected

no! / no / more or less / yes /yes! 11. I can call on my friends whenever I need them

 •          •          •          •          •          •          •          •          •          •          •          •          •          •          •

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

COMMITTEE CHAIR: Dr. Michael Selby, Professor

Department of Psychology and Child Development

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Dr. Joseph Kelly Moreno, Professor

Department of Psychology and Child Development

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Dr. Jason Williams, Assistant Professor

Department of Psychology and Child Development

∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙          ∙        
 

© 2013

Nichol Elise

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED