Running head: EFFECTS OF PROBLEMATIC TECHNOLOGY USE

INTERNET, SOCIAL MEDIA, AND TELEVISION USE:

WHAT EFFECT DOES PROBLEMATIC USE OF TECHNOLOGY

HAVE ON ONE’S PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING, APPRECIATION, AND

LIFE SATISFACTION?

A DISSERTATION PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY

OF

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF APPLIED AND PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

OF

RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY

W
BY
IE
STEPHANIE COOPER

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
EV
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE

OF
PR

DOCTOR OF PSYCHOLOGY

NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY OCTOBER 2016

APPROVED: ___________________________
Nancy S. Fagley, Ph.D.

___________________________
Cary Cherniss, Ph.D.

DEAN: ___________________________
Stanley B. Messer, Ph.D.
 ProQuest Number: 10297476

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

W
IE
EV
ProQuest 10297476

Published by ProQuest LLC ( 2016 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

PR

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
EFFECTS OF PROBLEMATIC TECHNOLOGY USE ii

Abstract
The primary purpose of this study was to explore problematic internet, television, and so-

cial media use and its relation to life satisfaction, appreciation and psychological well being. Da-

ta from 294 undergraduates were analyzed. Measures included the Psychological Wellbeing

Scale (PWB), Satisfaction with Life Scale, Appreciation Scale, Social Connectedness scale,

Online Cognition scale (OCS), UCLA Loneliness scale-short form, Social Media Use Integration

scale (SMUIS), Television Addiction scale (TAS), and demographic questions. Bivariate correla-

tions and hierarchical multiple regression analyses (HMRAs) were computed to assess the rela-

tions between problematic modern technology use, and life satisfaction, psychological wellbeing,

W
and three components of appreciation. Based on the HMRAs, the TV addiction subscales added
IE
significant variance in all six PWB subscales, beyond demographics. This was not the case for

life satisfaction. The two subscales measuring integration of social media use also added signifi-
EV
cant variance in the six PWB domains, as well as in life satisfaction, beyond demographics and

TV addiction. Finally, the Online Cognition Scale’s four subscales added significant variance in

the PWB subscales and life satisfaction, beyond demographics, TV addiction, and the integration
PR

of social media use. With regard to predicting the three appreciation subscales, the HMRAs indi-

cated that only the social media use integration subscales added significant variance in “Have”

Focus scale scores and Interpersonal appreciation scores, beyond demographics and TV addic-

tion (both ps < .001). Based on the HMRAs, the demographic variables and social media use in-

tegration contributed significant variance in the 3 Appreciation subscales. Finally we found that

social connectedness mediated the relationship between social media use (both subscales of the

SMUIS) and life satisfaction. This means that the extent to which one feels socially connected

with others could be a mechanism that underlies the relation between the integration of one’s so-

cial media use and life satisfaction. Limitations of the study, such as the survey method, sample
EFFECTS OF PROBLEMATIC TECHNOLOGY USE iii

and the correlational design, are discussed. Implications for future research, such as studying

changes in variables over time and examining other forms of technology, are discussed.

W
IE
EV
PR
EFFECTS OF PROBLEMATIC TECHNOLOGY USE iv

Acknowledgements

First and foremost I want to thank my husband Mikie, for encouraging, supporting, and

enabling me in every possible way to get through the program. I couldn’t have done it without

you. You are such a loving father and husband. I am so grateful. Yes, I will award you with a

doctorate too!

I want to thank my parents. Dad thank you for always inquiring, caring, and being proud

of my progress. Mom, thank you for encouraging me to start the program, being by my side

through the thick and thin, and supporting me in every way. Thank you both for all of the

W
babysitting, last minute groceries, suppers, and love that you shower my family and me. I

couldn’t have done it without you! IE

I want to thank my extended family including my sister in law, Jordana, and brother Alex

for always providing guidance and support throughout this long process.
EV

Thank you to my amazing babysitter Rochelle. You are part of the family and you have

made my life so much easier. You give my children so much love. I can’t say thank you enough!
PR

Special thank you to my dissertation chair Nancy Fagley. You have been such an amaz-

ing support throughout this process. From late night editing to meeting in the computer lab for

many hours…I am so incredibly grateful for all of the guidance and support you have given me. I

also want to thank my co-chair Cary Cherniss for providing me with support and encouragement

throughout this process.

Above all, I want to thank the One who has given me assistance throughout my entire

life. I am eternally grateful for all of the many blessings He has bestowed upon my family and

me.
EFFECTS OF PROBLEMATIC TECHNOLOGY USE v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. viii

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1

Psychological Well Being ......................................................................................... 2

Life Satisfaction ........................................................................................................ 3

W
Appreciation .............................................................................................................. 4

Social Connectedness................................................................................................ 5
IE
Internet, Social Media, and Television ..................................................................... 6

Internet .......................................................................................................... 7
EV

Social Media ................................................................................................. 9

Television ...................................................................................................... 11
PR

Hypotheses ................................................................................................................ 13

METHOD ................................................................................................................. 13

Participants .................................................................................................... 13

Procedure ...................................................................................................... 14

INSTRUMENTS....................................................................................................... 14

Psychological Well Being Scale ................................................................... 14

Satisfaction with Life Scale .......................................................................... 15

Appreciation Scale ........................................................................................ 15

Social Connectedness Scale .......................................................................... 15

EFFECTS OF PROBLEMATIC TECHNOLOGY USE vi

Online Cognition Scale ................................................................................. 16

Social Media Use Integration Scale .............................................................. 16

Television Addiction Scale ........................................................................... 17

RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 18

Descriptive Statistics ..................................................................................... 18

Hypothesis 1.................................................................................................. 24

Hypothesis 2.................................................................................................. 38

Hypothesis 3.................................................................................................. 44

W
DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 46

Discussion of Hypothesis 1 ........................................................................... 47

IE
Discussion of Hypothesis 2 ........................................................................... 50

Discussion of Hypothesis 3 ........................................................................... 51

EV

Implications................................................................................................... 52

Limitations and Future Research .................................................................. 53

PR

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 55
EFFECTS OF PROBLEMATIC TECHNOLOGY USE vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page #

1. Table 1 Descriptive statistics, reliability, and range of scales……………..………………… 20

2. Table 2 Correlations……………………………….….……………………………………….22

3. Table 3a Predictor Variables…………………………..………………………………………23

4. Table 3b Predictor Variables………………………………………………….………………24

5. Table 4 R2 from the Seven Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Addressing Hypothesis

1………………………………………………………………………..…………………………26

W
6. Table 5 HMRA for Life Satisfaction………………………...…..……………………………27

7. Table 6 HMRA for Autonomy……………………………………….………………………..29

IE
8. Table 7 HMRA for Environmental Mastery…………………………………….…………….30

9. Table 8 HMRA for Personal Growth…………………………………………….……………32

EV

10. Table 9 HMRA for Positive Relations with Others……………...…………………………..34

11. Table 10 HMRA for Purpose in Life…………………………...……………………………36

PR

12. Table 11 HMRA for Self-Acceptance……………………...………………………………..37

13. Table 12 Correlations Hypothesis 2………………………………………………………….39

14. Table 13 P Values from the Three Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses addressing

Hypothesis 2 ……………………………………………………………………………………..40

15. Table 14 HMRA for Have Focus…………………………...……………………………......41

16. Table 15 HMRA for Self/Social Comparison………………………..………………………43

17. Table 16 HMRA for Interpersonal……………………………...………………………..…..44

EFFECTS OF PROBLEMATIC TECHNOLOGY USE viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page #

1. Figure 1 Components of the Aroian Test and Comparison Values…………….……………46

W
IE
EV
PR
EFFECTS OF PROBLEMATIC TECHNOLOGY USE 1

Introduction

With the advent of modern technology, including television, internet and the vast world

of social media, there has been an increasing interest on how problematic use of these devices

impact one’s psychological well-being (Chiungjung, 2010; Liu & Yu, 2013; Park & Lee, 2012).

Researchers have attempted to uncover how problematic use of technology affects one’s social

loneliness (Kim, LaRose, & Peng, 2009), social connectedness (Patterson & Kraut, 1998), satis-

faction with life (Stavrositu, 2014), addictive behaviors (Whang, Lee, & Chang, 2003) and de-

pression (Wood & Joseph, 2010), among other outcomes. As modern technological innovations

W
continue to grow at an exponential rate, so has the awareness of how these new inventions affect

us on a psychological level. IE
The field of positive psychology and the study of psychological well-being is fairly new

in comparison to the study of pathology and psychological deficiencies. Diener (1984) noted that
EV

psychology has a long history of devoting much research to the study of psychopathology, suf-

fering, and psychological un-wellness in people. In fact, Diener and Lucas (1999) pointed out
PR

that the study of subjective well-being was an outgrowth to the overwhelming attention research

has devoted to negative psychological states. Recent literature has seen an expansion of research

trying to uncover the processes that underlie psychological well-being (Diener & Lucas, 1999;

Diener & Seligman, 2002).

This study explores the effects of problematic technology use, and extends previous re-

search in three ways. First, prior studies in this field have not examined Carol Ryff’s (1989)

scales of psychological well-being and life satisfaction together. This study explores both out-

comes together as each gives a different perspective on well-being. Second, previous research

has not measured social media, television, and internet together. This study examines these three
EFFECTS OF PROBLEMATIC TECHNOLOGY USE 2

modern day inventions. Third, prior studies in this field have not examined mediators of relation-

ships between the nature of one’s internet, television, social media use and well-being. This

study examines a possible mediator in this relationship. Examining potential mediators in a

cross-sectional survey is an efficient way to assess whether it is worth conducting a longitudinal

study of the hypothesized mediators. I argue that problematic use of internet, television, and so-

cial media will affect psychological well-being and life satisfaction. Further, social connected-

ness will mediate the relationship between the nature of one’s internet, social media, and televi-

sion use and life satisfaction and psychological well-being.

W
Psychological Well Being

Carol Ryff (1989) developed a multidimensional model of psychological well-being that

IE
included six key components: self-acceptance, environmental mastery, purpose in life, positive

relations with others, personal growth, and autonomy. Self-Acceptance is defined as having posi-
EV

tive regard towards oneself and is an important feature of self-actualization, functioning optimal-

ly, and maturity. Environmental Mastery refers to one’s ability to manipulate the world around
PR

oneself through both physical and mental activities. Purpose in Life includes a sense of directed-

ness in life, goals, and intentions. Positive Relations with Others includes loyal and warm inter-

personal relationships, the ability to love, identification with others, and empathy for others. Per-

sonal Growth is defined as realizing one’s potential, actualizing goals, and expanding as a per-

son. Finally, Autonomy is described as having self-determination, independence, and the ability

to regulate one’s behavior. Such characteristics contribute to self-actualization, creativity, ma-

turity, living a meaningful life, and the ability to face new challenges at different stages in life.

In a study by Ryff and Keyes (1995), this six-factor model showed a dramatic improve-

ment over the single factor model of psychological well-being. Interestingly, Ryff (1995)
EFFECTS OF PROBLEMATIC TECHNOLOGY USE 3

acknowledged that these six dimensions do not include any descriptions of happiness or positive

affect. Contrary to what one might expect, many of the features in Ryff’s model actually are ob-

tained at the expense of one’s short-term happiness. Additionally, Ryff found that environmental

mastery and autonomy ratings were higher as one aged, whereas ratings on personal growth and

purpose in life decreased with age. In terms of gender differences among the six dimensions,

women consistently rated themselves higher than men on personal growth and positive relations

with others. As a whole, Americans consistently rated themselves high on personal growth and

autonomy.

W
Life Satisfaction

Subjective well-being is a concept which is composed of two core components, an affec-

IE
tive component which consists of both pleasant and unpleasant affect (Diener & Emmons, 1984),

and a cognitive component known as life satisfaction (Andrews & Withey, 1976). Life satisfac-
EV

tion is an important concept to measure because, while a simple happiness scale measures a

short-term emotional state, life satisfaction measures a more enduring and stable condition
PR

(Mannel and Dupuis, 1996). Shin and Johnson (1978) referred to life satisfaction as a cognitive

process, where one judges one’s own life in comparison to one’s internal standards for how one

thinks one’s life should be. Shin and Johnson (1978) viewed quality of life from a “have want

discrepancy” model, where quality of life is seen as the discrepancy between current and desired

life situation. This model suggests that life satisfaction depends on an appraisal (a cognitive pro-

cess) whereas happiness or positive affect does not. Many researchers (e.g., Cohen, 2000;

Schulz, 1995; Vermunt, Spaans, & Zorge, 1989; Welham, Haire, Mercer, & Stedman, 2001)

agree with this discrepancy model, in which life satisfaction is defined as the gap between one’s

expectations and reality. In light of this model, researchers (e.g. Wu, 2009) have found that if
EFFECTS OF PROBLEMATIC TECHNOLOGY USE 4

one is able to change or shift one’s life goals and minimize this gap, one will in turn increase

one’s quality of life.

Bowling (1997) argued that life satisfaction is a global evaluation of one’s life rather than

a focus on specific aspects of one’s life. This view was utilized by the researchers who construct-

ed the Satisfaction with Life Scale, in which global judgment is elicited rather than judgments of

satisfaction with specific areas of one’s life (Diener et al., 1985). Other researchers (Ferring et

al., 2004) define life satisfaction as a subjective assessment of both one’s global and specific life

circumstances. That is, they include assessments of satisfaction regarding various life domains.

W
Additionally, life satisfaction impacts one’s social, physical, and cognitive functioning (Ni

Mhaolain et al., 2012). Along these lines, researchers (Ferring et al., 2004) have approached this
IE
topic from a bio-psycho-social model, taking into account physical health, self-resources, materi-

al security, social support resources, and life activity.

EV

Appreciation

In a breakthrough study, Adler (2002) found that appreciation contributes significant var-
PR

iance to subjective well-being, even when self-awareness, optimism, and spirituality were con-

trolled. Fagley (2012) demonstrated that appreciation makes a unique contribution to life satis-

faction after demographics and the Big 5 personality factors are controlled. The association be-

tween life satisfaction and appreciation is not merely due to personality. According to the Broad-

en and Build Theory of Positive Emotions, Fredrickson (2004) argued that gratitude can assist

one in building social resources, and it can help maintain and expand social relationships (Adler,

2002; Algoe, Haidt, & Gable, 2008). These findings suggest that there may be something ex-

tremely distinct about appreciation and the role it plays in one’s overall subjective well-being.
EFFECTS OF PROBLEMATIC TECHNOLOGY USE 5

Appreciation is defined as feeling a positive emotional connection to something which

one acknowledges as having value and meaning (Adler, 2002). Adler and Fagley (2005) defined

eight components of appreciation that can be remembered by the acronym HARPS-GLI. They

are: focusing on what we have (“Have” focus), Awe, Ritual, Present Moment, Self/Social Com-

parison, Gratitude, Loss/Adversity, and Interpersonal. The “Have” focus aspect of appreciation

refers to focusing on what one has, and valuing and acknowledging it, rather than focusing on

what one lacks. Awe is defined as connecting deeply to something uniquely special and other-

worldly, feeling awe. Ritual is described as engaging in rituals to help nurture our appreciation.

W
Present Moment refers to engaging in mindfulness practices to help one be more aware of his

present experiences, sensation, and surroundings. Self/Social Comparison is described as using

IE
social comparison to help one appreciate one’s current life circumstance. Gratitude is defined as

the ability to acknowledge and feel grateful towards others from whom one has benefitted.
EV

Loss/Adversity refers to using one’s experiences of personal loss to foster appreciation for what

one has. Finally, Interpersonal refers to noticing and valuing the relationships in one’s life.
PR

Social Connectedness

Kohut (1984) states that a major self-need is the need for belongingness, or being a part

of something bigger than oneself, in order to avoid feelings of isolation and loneliness. This is

unlike the Freudian view (1930), which theorizes that sexuality and aggression are the underpin-

nings for human behavior and interactions. Baumeister and Leary (1995) developed the belong-

ingness hypothesis which states that people are eager to form bonds with others and reluctant to

break them. Additionally, these bonds have an impact on one’s emotional and cognitive states.

Belongingness is viewed as an ability to build and maintain interpersonal relationships with oth-
EFFECTS OF PROBLEMATIC TECHNOLOGY USE 6

ers, and human beings have a natural and innate sense of establishing and sustaining belonging-

ness.

Social connectedness is rooted in the belongingness hypothesis and is one of the three

components of this theory (Lee & Robins, 1995). Lee and Robbins (1995) explained belonging-

ness as having three aspects: companionship, affiliation, and connectedness. On a broad level,

companionship is defined as the ability to form close relationships with others, is developed in

early infancy, and evolves through adulthood. Affiliation refers to the ability to connect oneself

with groups and organizations beyond initial experiences of connections with others (such as

W
one’s parent figure). A healthy sense of affiliation will lead a person to join groups with similar

qualities and values as their initial experience of connection. An unhealthy sense of affiliation
IE
will lead a person to join deviant or rebellious groups (such as gangs or cults). Lastly, connect-

edness refers to successfully building and nurturing companionship with others, and the ability to
EV

feel comfortable in a social context outside of one’s family or friends. This paper focuses on the

role connectedness plays in regard to internet, social media, and television use.
PR

Internet, Social Media, and Television

Internet, social media, and television have become essential parts of modern life. They

bring huge benefits in terms of work flexibility, social networking, rapid communication, and

sharing information. However, modern technology brings along with it a much darker side - that

of new age addictions, cyber bullying, identity theft and a plethora of other issues. In a contro-

versial work, Robert Putnam (1995) argued that there has been a dramatic shift in American so-

ciety. He observed that overall, citizens vote less, engage less frequently in religious practices,

discuss politics and the government less, and are involved in fewer voluntary organizations. Put-

nam reports that, as a whole, society has witnessed a dramatic decrease in civic and social in-