Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2501–2511

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

The Media and Technology Usage and Attitudes Scale: An empirical

investigation
L.D. Rosen ⇑, K. Whaling, L.M. Carrier, N.A. Cheever, J. Rokkum
California State University, Dominguez Hills, CA 90747, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Current approaches to measuring people’s everyday usage of technology-based media and other com-
Available online 29 June 2013 puter-related activities have proved to be problematic as they use varied outcome measures, fail to mea-
sure behavior in a broad range of technology-related domains and do not take into account recently
Keywords: developed types of technology including smartphones. In the present study, a wide variety of items, cov-
Technology and media usage ering a range of up-to-date technology and media usage behaviors. Sixty-six items concerning technology
Anxiety and media usage, along with 18 additional items assessing attitudes toward technology, were adminis-
Attitudes toward technology
tered to two independent samples of individuals, comprising 942 participants. Factor analyses were used
Smartphone
Video gaming
to create 11 usage subscales representing smartphone usage, general social media usage, Internet search-
Facebook ing, e-mailing, media sharing, text messaging, video gaming, online friendships, Facebook friendships,
phone calling, and watching television in addition to four attitude-based subscales: positive attitudes,
negative attitudes, technological anxiety/dependence, and attitudes toward task-switching. All subscales
showed strong reliabilities and relationships between the subscales and pre-existing measures of daily
media usage and Internet addiction were as predicted. Given the reliability and validity results, the
new Media and Technology Usage and Attitudes Scale was suggested as a method of measuring media
and technology involvement across a variety of types of research studies either as a single 60-item scale
or any subset of the 15 subscales.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and laptop computers or video game consoles. The advent of por-
table technology—including MP3 players, smartphones and other
Until recently, before mobile computer technologies became wireless mobile devices—changed the landscape so that nearly
the norm, measuring media and technology use most often in- any activity that can be performed on a desktop or laptop machine
volved monitoring hours and minutes spent doing various com- can also be performed on a small, pocket size device. With a Wi-Fi
puter activities (Kraut et al., 1998; Stanger & Gridina, 1999; enabled mobile device, people can access the Internet, e-mail, text,
Subrahmanyam, Kraut, Greenfield, & Gross, 2000), watching televi- and use applications that can do most traditional computing activ-
sion (Stanger, 1998), playing video games (Phillips, Rolls, Rouse, & ities anywhere and at any time of the day or night and research
Griffiths, 1995) or some combination of those activities (Media Me- shows that people are doing just that. A recent national study of
trix, 1999; Nielsen Media Research, 1999). In the pioneering Home- 7446 18- to 44-year-old smartphone users (IDC, 2013) found that
Net Study, for example, Kraut et al. (1998) reported Internet use in nearly eight in 10 adults and nine in ten young adults reach for
hours per week. Similarly, in a widely quoted study, the Kaiser their phone within 15 min of waking. Other research (Oulasvirta,
Family Foundation (Rideout, Foehr, Roberts, & Brodie, 1999) re- Rattenbury, Ma, & Raita, 2012) has demonstrated that adults typi-
ported a national sample of children ages 2- to 18-year-old chil- cally access their smartphones for an average of 34 daily short
dren’s daily television, movies, computers, music, video games, durations (less than 30 s) while another national study (Mobile
and radio use in hours and minutes. Mindset, 2012) showed that 58% of US smartphone users check
Those measurements were only possible because technology their phones at least every hour, and 73% feel panicked if they mis-
interaction—particularly computer use and online activities—was place their phone. In a study on Japanese students’ cell phone and
primarily accomplished on stationary devices including desktop text message use, Kamibeppu and Sugiura (2005) found that al-
most half of the respondents experienced a feeling of insecurity
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Psychology, California State
when their text messages went unanswered. The students devel-
University, Dominguez Hills, Carson, CA 90747, United States. Tel.: +1 310 243 oped insecurity and a perception of being ignored, which the
3427; fax: +1 619 342 1699. authors concluded could cause great anxiety among children.
E-mail address: lrosen@csudh.edu (L.D. Rosen).

0747-5632/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.006
2502 L.D. Rosen et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2501–2511

1.1. Methods for assessing technology usage an, 2012; Moore & McElroy, 2012; Oldmeadow, Quinn, & Kowert,
2012; Rosen et al., 2013; Skues, Williams, & Wise, 2012; Tosun,
A survey of recent research indicates that there are four current 2012; Trepte & Reinecke, 2013), and a raw count or assessment
methods for assessing general technology usage including: (1) time of Facebook activities and friends (Clayton et al., 2013; Deters &
measured in hours or minutes per day or per usage (Becker, Alza- Mehl, 2013; Kittinger et al., 2012; Moore & McElroy, 2012; Ong ,
habi, & Hopwood, 2012; Carrier, Cheever, Rosen, Benitez, & Chang, Ang, Ho, Lim, Goh, Lee, & Chua 2011; Pempek, Yermolayeva, & Cal-
2009; Junco, 2013; Kimbrough, Guadagno, Muscanell, & Dill, 2012; vert, 2009).
Padilla-Walker & Coyne, 2011; Pea et al., 2012; Reich, Subrahman-
yam, & Espinoza, 2012; Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010; Rosen, 1.3. Multitasking and technology usage
Carrier, & Cheever, 2013; Rosen, Chang, Erwin, Carrier, & Cheever,
2010; Rosen, Whaling, Rab, Carrier, & Cheever, 2013; Turner & Numerous research studies have shown a relationship between
Croucher, 2013); (2) frequency measured in the number uses in a preference for multitasking or task switching as it is often labeled
particular time period (Burak, 2012; Johnson, 2010; Thompson, and the use of various technologies (Media Metrix, 1999; Pea et al.,
2013); (3) attitudinal Likert-type scales measured on a continuum 2012; Rideout et al., 1999; Rideout et al., 2010). For example, Rosen
from strongly agree to strongly disagree (Jenkins-Guarnieri, et al. (2013) replicated studies by Gonzalez and Mark (2004), Dab-
Wright, & Johnson, 2013a, 2013b; Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, bish, Mark, and Gonzalez (2011) and Judd and Kennedy (2011) in
2012); and (4) experience sampling, querying use at a particular demonstrating that students and office workers switched tasks of-
prompted point in time (Moreno, Jelenchick, Koff, & Eikoff, ten and the impetus was most often technological in nature such as
2012a; Moreno, Jelenchick, Koff, Eikoff, Diermyer, & Christakis, an incoming text message or e-mail message or a perceived need to
2012b; Wang & Tchernev, 2012). check in with a social network site. A recent study by Moreno et al.
Although it is appealing to measure actual time of usage, this (2012a, 2012b) reported that when they sent daily text messages
has proven problematic. For example, Junco (2013) compared ac- to university students to assess their multitasking activities at ran-
tual versus self-reported time by first having 45 university stu- dom times during the day and evening, more than half the time
dents report how many hours and minutes they felt that they they were using the Internet they were multitasking. In addition,
accessed Facebook, Twitter, and their e-mail in addition to how Carrier et al. (2009) showed that younger people in the Net Gener-
much time they searched for information online on a typical day. ation believe that they can perform more tasks simultaneously,
Following this self-reported time, monitoring software was in- particularly those that are technological, than older members of
stalled on their computers and their actual use of these websites Generation X or Baby Boomers. Based on these results the pro-
was evaluated over a one-month period. Although the correlations posed measurement tool will include a measure of one’s prefer-
between self-reports and actual time were significant and reason- ence for task switching or multitasking.
ably high (e.g., the correlation between self-reported and actual
Facebook use was .587 and for e-mail it was .628), the estimates 1.4. The Current Study: developing a comprehensive method for
were drastically different. For example, while users self-reported assessment
spending an average of 149 min per day accessing Facebook on
their computer, the actual average time, according to the monitor- With such a variety of methods for evaluating media and tech-
ing software, was 26 min per day. Similar results were found for all nology usage and attitudes, it is often difficult to make compari-
time estimates suggesting that users are not accurate at estimating sons across different research studies as each uses its own
time they spend on the computer. measurement tools and most often assesses activities and attitudes
in a limited domain. In addition, many of the current measurement
1.2. Assessing social media usage tools were developed far enough in the past that new technologies
have been developed and their usage needs to be assessed. The cur-
Since the emergence of social media—particularly Facebook— rent study examined a new, comprehensive measurement tool that
special efforts have been performed to measure its usage. An early incorporates prior models for assessing self-reported frequency of
attempt saw the creation of the Facebook Intensity Scale (Ellison, media and technology use as well as attitudes toward technology
Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007), which presented six attitudinal state- use, rather than relying on inaccurate self-reports of time spent
ments (e.g., ‘‘Facebook is part of my everyday activity’’ or ‘‘I would using a variety of technologies.
be sorry if Facebook shut down’’) initially as open-ended questions Nearly all studies measuring time spent using technology ask
(Ellison et al., 2007) plus an assessment of daily hours and minutes about computer usage in general or do not differentiate between
spent on the site and an accounting of the number of Facebook using the same functions through a variety of devices, including
friends on a 10-point numerical scale. Later, the attitudinal ques- computers and mobile phones. The current measure was created
tions were modified to be closed-ended requiring Likert scale re- with several precepts: (1) it must measure self-reported frequency
sponses (Steinfield, Ellison, & Lampe, 2008) and several studies of use rather than self-reported time of use; (2) it must include
have used that scale to assess Facebook activities (Clayton, Os- activities performed on computers as well as those on mobile
borne, Miller, & Oberle, 2013; Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2011; phones and those on dedicated devices such as televisions, music
Glynn, Huge, & Hoffman, 2012; Jenkins-Guarnieri et al., 2013a, players, and video game players; (3) it must include attitudinal
2013b; Kalpidou, Costin, & Morris, 2011; Kapidzic, 2013; Lampe, scales to capture beliefs about the use of technology and (4) it must
Wohn, Vitak, Ellison, & Wash, 2011; Lou, Yan, Nickerson, & McMor- be validated by traditional measures such as self-reported time of
ris, 2012; Ross et al., 2009; Tazghini & Siedlecki, 2013). use and Internet addiction.
Facebook usage has been measured in other ways including dai- Through a literature search and pilot studies performed by the
ly time spent on the site (Hunt, Atkin, & Krishnan, 2012; Jelenchick, researchers, a wide variety of constructs were gathered about the
Eichoff, & Moreno, 2012; Junco, 2012a, 2012b; Karpinski, Kirsch- use of technology which was, through focus groups, streamlined
ner, Ozer, Mellott, & Ochwo, 2013; McAndrew & Jeong, 2012; to include 50 items that spanned usage of all major technologies
Moore & McElroy, 2012; Rosen et al., 2013), number of times log- on a variety of standard devices. Eighteen additional items that
ging onto Facebook on a typical day (Hunt et al., 2012; Junco, measured attitudes toward technology and toward task switching
2012a, 2012b; Kittinger, Correia, & Irons, 2012; Locatelli, Kluwe, were culled from previous work (Rosen et al., 2013) to form an ini-
& Bryant, 2012; McAndrew & Jeong, 2012; McKinney, Kelly, & Dur- tial 68-item measurement tool. This tool was evaluated using data
 L.D. Rosen et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2501–2511 2503

from two separate studies with separate samples to allow an games with other people online; listening to music; video chat;
assessment of the validity of the new scales compared to more tra- texting or instant messaging; shopping), and social networking
ditional measures of self-reported time of use, technological anxi- activities, which were only answered by those indicating that they
ety and Internet addiction. Two independent studies using online, had a Facebook page (checking Facebook and other social net-
anonymous survey methodology—one examining the impact of works, checking from a smartphone, checking from work or school,
technology use on magical thinking and the other examining the posting status updates, posting photos, browsing profiles, reading
impact of technology use on sleep—used sets of items for possible posts, commenting on posts, clicking like). A 10-item frequency re-
inclusion into the Media and Technology Usage and Attitudes sponse scale was used for these items including: never, once a
Scale. Each of those studies also used identical demographic items month, several times a month, once a week, several times a week,
as well as items to be used for validity assessment. They will be re- once a day, several times a day, once an hour, several times an hour
ferred to as the ‘‘magical thinking study’’ and ‘‘sleep study’’ for clar- and all the time. Five additional questions queried Facebook users
ity. Factor analyses were applied to the results from the combined on the number of friends on Facebook, the number of Facebook
sample to refine a series of subscales based on the data. friends known in person, the number of people met online but
never met in person, the number of people regularly interacting
with online but never met in person and the number of close
2. Methods
friends online never met in person. Each of these was answered
on a 9-point numerical scale including 0, 1–5, 51–100 101–175,
2.1. Participants
176–250, 251–375, 376–500, 501–750 and 751 or more.
Eighteen items were included to assess attitudes toward tech-
In both studies participants were required to be at least
nology with responses on a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree,
18 years of age. Both studies allowed students in an upper division
agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree).
course to participate and/or to solicit participants from the general
These items included attitudes toward the importance of finding
community. For the magical thinking study 397 participants com-
any information online, the importance of being able to access
pleted the entire online survey without any incomplete or missing
the Internet any time, the importance of keeping up with technol-
data. For the sleep study 545 participants completed an online sur-
ogy, getting anxious without availability of a cell phone, getting
vey without any incomplete or missing data. Participants from the
anxious without availability of the Internet, feeling dependent on
two studies were combined to form a sample of 942 participants of
technology, believing that technology will provide solutions to
which 62% were female, ranging in age from 18 to 73 (M = 29.96;
our problems, believing that with technology anything is possible,
Mdn = 25; SD = 12.48), and including the following ethnic or cul-
believing that more gets accomplished due to technology, believ-
tural backgrounds: 9% Asian, 15% Black/African-American, 14%
ing that technology is easy to use, enjoying using technology as
Caucasian, 55% Hispanic and 7% other. The sample included mainly
soon as it hits the market, believing that technology makes people
participants with some college (51%), or a college degree (32%),
waste time, believing that technology makes life more complicated
29% of which were employed part-time and 33% employed full-
and believing that technology makes people more isolated. Finally,
time. Overall 49% were single, never married and living with family
this scale included four items taken from the Multitasking Prefer-
or relatives while 31% were married or living with someone in a
ence Inventory (Poposki & Oswald, 2010) such as ‘‘I prefer to work
romantic relationship; 40% of the sample participants had a mean
on several projects in a day rather than completing one project and
of 2.68 children while 60% had no children. Participants supplied
then switching to another.’’ Items were selected from the original
additional demographic information including residence ZIP code,
14-question inventory (a = .88) by using those with the top four
which was transformed into estimated median income based on
loadings in a factor analysis (Poposki & Oswald, 2010).
U.S. Census figures (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011). Overall med-
ian income averaged $41,004 (SD = 15,007). These figures match
the census figures for the Los Angeles area (U.S. Census Bureau, 2.2.2. Validity scales
2006). Additional validity items were collected in the sleep study that
allowed for the assessment of the validity of the MTUAS. These in-
2.2. Materials cluded the following:

2.2.1. Media and Technology Usage and Attitudes Scale (MTUAS)  Daily media usage hours: Participants were asked nine questions
The proposed media and technology usage portion of the MTU- concerning the amount of time they spent ‘‘on a typical day’’
AS, used in both studies, included 50 items. These items were using 10 forms of media and technology (going online, using a
developed by generating a set of possible technology uses includ- computer for other than being online, e-mailing, instant mes-
ing activities performed specifically on a mobile phone (searching saging/chatting, phone calling, social networking, texting, video
for information, browsing the web, using apps, listening to music, gaming, listening to music, and watching television) and one
taking photos, recording video, reading e-mail, getting directions additional question on reading books or magazines for pleasure
or using a GPS, checking text messages, sending and receiving text on a daily use scale including: not at all, 1–30 min, 31 min to
messages, using a mobile phone during class or work time, check- 1 h, 1–2 h, 3 h, 4–5 h, 6–8 h, more than 8 h. Responses were
ing voice calls, making and receiving voice calls, checking the transformed into hours of use by converting each response into
phone in the middle of the night, getting news, use while driving), hours including not at all (0), 1–31 min (.25), 31 min to 1 h
activities performed specifically on a computer (downloading (.75), 1–2 h (1.5), 4–5 h (4.5), 6–8 h (7), more than 8 h (9).
media files, watching video clips, watching television shows or  Technology-related anxiety: A set of six items were included that
movies, sharing media files), activities performed specifically using asked, ‘‘If you can’t check in with the following technologies as
a television set (watching TV shows or movies, watching video often as you’d like, how anxious do you feel?’’ The list of tech-
clips), device-free (non-mobile phone) technological activities nologies included: text messages, cell phone calls, Facebook
(searching the Internet for information, images, videos, or news; and other social networks, personal e-mail, work e-mail and
sending and receiving e-mail; checking personal, work or school voice mail and each were assessed on a four-point scale (not
e-mail; sending or receiving files via e-mail; playing games with anxious at all, a little anxious, moderately anxious, and highly
other people in the same room, playing games alone, playing anxious).
2504 L.D. Rosen et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2501–2511

 Internet Addiction Test: Young’s (1998) short 8-item Internet friendships, (2 items; 3.69%), phone calling (2 items; 3.35%), and
Addiction Test (IAT) was used. This measure includes eight watching television (2 items; 3.07%). Each factor was computed
yes/no items taken from the DSM diagnostic criteria for addic- using the mean score as all items were scaled on the same fre-
tion disorders with a higher score indicating more Internet quency scale. Overall, 669 participants (71%) indicated that they
addiction. Inadvertently, Item 2 (‘‘Do you feel the need to use had a Facebook page. Those who did not participate in social net-
the Internet with increasing amounts of time in order to achieve working were removed from three scales: general social media
satisfaction?’’) and Item 3 (‘‘Have you repeatedly made unsuc- usage, online friendships and/or Facebook friendships.
cessful efforts to control, cut back, or stop Internet use?’’) were The 18 attitudinal items, when subjected to an orthogonal fac-
displayed together with only the option to say ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ for tor analysis with a varimax rotation, resulted in four factors
both. A ‘‘yes’’ on that item was scored as indicating two diag- accounting for 66.13% of the variance. Two items failed to meet
nostic criteria met and a ‘‘yes’’ on any other item was scored the .55 threshold and were not included in any factor. With this
as indicating one diagnostic criterion met. IAT scores were trea- criterion, the first factor included six items related to positive atti-
ted as a bivariate variable with a score of ‘‘5’’ or more indicating tudes toward technology including the importance of finding infor-
an Internet addiction disorder as noted by Young (1998). mation online on demand, the importance of access the Internet on
demand, the importance of keeping up with technology trends, the
3. Results assertion that with technology anything is possible, getting more
accomplished with technology, and the belief that technology will
3.1. Factor structure of the Media and Technology Usage and Attitudes provide solutions to many of our problems. Items were reversed
Scale (MTUAS) scored so that higher scores indicated more positive attitudes to-
ward technology. The second factor included three items reflecting
The 50 media usage items were subjected to a varimax-rotated anxiety related to being without a phone or the Internet and tech-
factor analysis using the assumption that the factors would and nological dependence, while the third factor included the four task
should be intercorrelated as they all represent uses of similar tech- switching items after reverse scoring one item (‘‘I like to finish one
nologies. Using a factor loading cutoff of .55 and an eigenvalue of task completely before focusing on anything else’’) and then calcu-
1.0, the analysis yielded 11 usable factors, which included 44 of lating the mean score with higher scores indicating a stronger pref-
the items. These are displayed in Tables 1 and 2 and in the Appen- erence to task switch. Finally the fourth factor included three items
dix. These 11 factors, which accounted for 68% of the variance, reflecting negative attitudes toward technology including technol-
were easily identifiable as representing 11 daily media uses includ- ogy wasting time, technology making people more isolated, and
ing smartphone usage (9 items accounting for 11.94% of the vari- technology being too complicated. Items for two subscales were
ance), general social media usage (9 items; 11.61%), Internet reversed scored so that higher scores indicated more technology
searching (4 items; 7.15%), e-mailing (4 items; 6.94%), media shar- anxiety and dependence and more negative attitudes toward tech-
ing (4 items; 5.81%), text messaging (3 items; 5.56%), video gaming nology, respectively. Each factor was computed using the mean
(3 items; 4.69%), online friendships (2 items; 4.23%), Facebook score as all items were measured on the same scale.

Table 1
Factor loadings for first five daily media usage factors (minimum factor loading .55).

Media usage items Media usage factors

1 2 3 4 5
Smartphoneusage General social media usage Internet searching E-mailing Media sharing
Search for information with a mobile phone .80
Browse the web on a mobile phone .79
Use apps (for any purpose) on a mobile phone .74
Listen to music on a mobile phone .72
Check the news on a mobile phone .69
Take pictures using a mobile phone .66
Record video on a mobile phone .63
Read e-mail on a mobile phone .63
Get directions or use GPS on a mobile phone .62
Read social media postings .85
Comment on social media postings, status updates, photos, etc. .82
Click ‘‘Like’’ to a social media posting, photo, etc. .81
Check Facebook page or other social networks .80
Browse social media profiles and photos .76
Check Facebook at work or school .72
Post social media status updates .66
Check Facebook page from smartphone .65
Post social media photos .60
Search the Internet for informationon any device .81
Search the Internet for images or photos on any device .73
Search the Internet for news on any Device .72
Search the Internet for videos on any device .72
Send, receive and read e-mails(not including spam or junk mail) .87
Check your personal e-mail .86
Check your work or school e-mail .81
Send or receive files via e-mail .81
Download media files from other people on a computer .78
Watch video clips on a computer .76
Watch TV shows, movies, etc. on a computer .62
Share your own media files on a computer .61
 L.D. Rosen et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2501–2511 2505

Table 2
Factor loadings for second five daily media usage factors (minimum factor loading .55).

Media usage factors Media usage items

6 7 8 9 10 11
Text Video Online Social media Phone Television
messaging gaming friendships friendships calling viewing
Check for text messages on a mobilephone .72
Send and receive text messages on a mobile phone .69
Use Your Mobile phone during class or work time .59
Play games on a computer, video game console or smartphone WITH OTHER .82
PEOPLE IN THE SAME ROOM
Play games on a computer, video game console or smartphone BY YOURSELF .79
Play games on a computer, video game console or smartphone WITH OTHER .78
PEOPLE ONLINE
Number of people you regularly interact with online that you have never .80
met in person
People have you met online that you have never met in person .74
Facebook friends you know in person .89
Friends you have on Facebook .86
Check for voice calls on a mobile phone .69
Make and receive mobile phone calls .56
Watch TV shows, movies, etc. on a TV set .83
Watch video clips on a TV set .72

Table 3 displays the means, standard deviations, skewness there was no significant age difference among the top, middle
scores and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of all 15 subscales. All sub- and bottom thirds of online friendships [F(2, 666) = .64, p > .05]
scales had acceptable to excellent reliabilities. Only two subscales but there was a significant age difference between tertiles of video
had suspect skewness scores: video gaming (1.13) and online gaming [F(2, 939) = 30.93, p < .001] with lower third (mean
friendships (2.45). In each case the positive skewness was due to age = 34.28) significantly older than those in the middle third
a larger percentage of nonusers or infrequent users and a few par- (M = 27.96) and the top third (M = 27.54). In addition, older people
ticipants who played video games very often or who reported a showed less positive attitudes toward technology and were less
large number of online friendships. Both variables were examined anxious about not checking in with technology but age was not
as the skewed raw averages and also after splitting the averages correlated with preference for task switching or negative attitudes
into approximate thirds; all analyses of these two scales were per- toward technology.
formed with the raw scores as well as the tertile splits. Note that
based on the mean scores across all participants the most com- 3.2.3. Ethnic background
monly used technologies were text messaging, phone calling, e- Oneway ANOVAs were used to assess ethnic background differ-
mailing and Internet searching, respectively. ences on the subscales. Only three subscales demonstrated signif-
icant differences with both the omnibus F-test and a posthoc
3.2. Demographic differences Scheffe Test: online friendships [F(3, 614) = 5.92, p < .001; Black
(M = 2.33) significantly higher than Asian (M = 1.64) and Hispanic
Comparisons were made between each demographic—gender, (M = 1.83)]; voice calls [F(3, 868) = 3.19, p = .023; Black (M = 6.89)
age, ethnic background, education, employment, living situation significantly higher than Asian (M = 6.10)]; and negative attitudes
and median income—and the 15 subscales of the Media and Tech- toward technology [F(3, 491) = 3.44, p = .017; Caucasian (M = 3.60)
nology Usage and Attitude Scale. significantly higher than Black (M = 3.11)].

3.2.1. Gender
3.2.4. Education
Across all these demographics only four significant two-tailed
Education level was correlated with several subscales includ-
differences were apparent with males (M = 3.63; SD = 2.63) playing
ing: smartphone usage (r = .14, p < .001), Internet searching
video games more often than females (M = 3.06; SD = 2.35;
(r = .20, p < .001), e-mailing (r = .25, p < .001), media sharing
t(940) = 3.44, p < .001); males (M = 2.06; SD = 1.25) having signifi-
(r = .08, p = .011), text messaging (r = .19, p < .001), voice calls
cantly more online friends than females (M = 1.79, SD = 1.11;
(r = .13, p < .001), positive attitudes (r = .21, p < .001), and techno-
t(940) = 2.91, p = .004); males (M = 4.14; SD = 2.38) doing signifi-
logical anxiety (r = .19, p < .001). In all cases, more educated partic-
cantly more media sharing than females (M = 3.52, SD = 2.19;
ipants showed higher scores.
t(543) = 2.55, p = .011); and females (M = 3.25; SD = 1.09) having
significantly less technological anxiety and dependency than males
(M = 3.00, SD = 1.08; t(940) = 2.55, p = .011). Using the third split 3.2.5. Employment
variables indicated that a higher percentage of males were in Part-time employees showed significantly higher scores than
the top third of video game playing frequency [v2 (2, N = 942) = either full-time employees or unemployed (mostly students) on
15.51, p < .001] as well as in the top third of online friendships the following subscales: smartphone usage, general Facebook
[v2 (2, N = 669) = 8.04, p < .018]. use, Internet searching, media sharing, e-mailing, texting, Face-
book friends, voice calling and anxiety.
3.2.2. Age
Table 4 displays the correlations between the subscales and age. 3.2.6. Living situation
As is apparent, older people showed significantly lower daily use of Single/unmarried participants showed significantly higher
all media/technology items with the exception of online friend- scores than either married participants or separated/divorced/wid-
ships and general Facebook usage. When treated as a tertile split, owed participants on the following subscales’’ smartphone usage,
2506 L.D. Rosen et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2501–2511

Internet searching, e-mailing, media sharing, text messaging, video (.530) followed by Internet searching (.245), and media sharing
game playing, Facebook friendships and anxiety. (.211). All other beta weights were below .180.

3.2.7. Median income 3.4. Multitasking and technology usage

Using a one-tailed test, median income was significantly corre-
lated with only general social media use (r = .07, p = .039) indicat- Research has demonstrated a positive relationship between
ing that those who had a higher median income used social media technology use and multitasking. Correlations were computed be-
more often. tween the preference for task switching subscale and the 11 usage
scales of which eight were significant in the predicted direction.
3.3. Facebook users vs. nonusers Those participants who preferred to task switch showed more
usage of smartphones (r = .10, p < .05), more general Facebook
Table 5 displays the comparisons between Facebook users and usage (r = .14, p < .01), more Internet searching (r = .14, p < .001),
nonusers on the 12 relevant subscales completed by all partici- more e-mail use (r = .14, p < .001), more media sharing (r = .11,
pants and, thus, did not include the Facebook usage, online friend- p < .05), more text messaging (r = .10, p < .05), more video gaming
ships and Facebook friends subscales. As is evident, Facebook users (r = .10, p < .05) and more phone calling (r = .09, p < .05). Those
showed significantly more use of nearly all technologies except for who preferred to task switch more often also showed more anxiety
television viewing. When examining the tertile split in video gam- about not checking in often enough with technology (r = .21,
ing, Facebook users were more likely to be in the top and middle p < .001) and less positive attitudes (r = .19, p < .001).
third while nonusers were more likely to be in the bottom third
[v2 (2, N = 942) = 58.27, p < .001]. In addition, Facebook users 3.5. Validity assessment
showed significantly more positive attitudes and less negative atti-
tudes toward technology but also significantly higher anxiety 3.5.1. Daily media usage hours
about not checking in often enough with technology. There was Several measures were collected in the sleep study that allowed
no difference in multitasking preferences between Facebook users an examination of the validity of the 15 subscales. A set of ques-
and nonusers. A discriminant function analyses was performed tions queried the hours per day that the participant typically used
using the eight relevant media usage factors (not including the a variety of media and technologies. The top two correlations be-
three that relate to social media use, Facebook friendships or on- tween these measures of media and technology usage and the
line friendships) as potential discriminators between Facebook new subscales are presented in Table 6. As can be seen, nearly all
users and nonusers. Results indicated a significant discriminant the top two correlations are the ones that would have been pre-
function [v2 (8, N = 942) = 132.59, p < .001] with the three highest dicted. For example, those who self-reported watching television
canonical discriminant function coefficients (beta weights) attrib- for more daily hours had a higher frequency of watching television
uted to: text messaging (.632), Internet searching (.338) and in the MTUAS. This result was also evident for other activities
e-mailing (.308). No other coefficient exceeded .175. When the including texting, video game playing, e-mailing, social network-
attitudes subscales were included (which were only collected in ing, phone calling and media sharing. One noteworthy result is that
the sleep study) the discriminant function analysis showed similar those who used smartphones more often spent more hours texting
results with the reduced sample [v2 (12, N = 545) = 150.64, and social networking, which are the two most common smart-
p < .001] with the top beta weights belonging to text messaging phone activities.

3.5.2. Technology-related anxiety

Table 3
Table 7 displays the correlations between each of the subscales
Mean, standard deviation, and skewness of subscales.
and anxiety about not checking in often enough with six different
Subscale Mean SD Skewness Alpha communication technologies. As is evident, with the exception of
Usage subscales television viewing, the subscales were all correlated with at lest
Smartphone usagea 5.00 2.61 .01 .93 two areas of anxiety and most correlated with four or five of the
General Facebook usagea 4.82 2.21 .08 .97
six anxiety items. The fact, for example, that those who used
Internet searchinga 5.64 2.73 .01 .91
E-mailinga 5.89 2.37 .23 .91
smartphones more showed more anxiety about missing out on text
Media sharinga 3.76 2.29 .97 .84
Text messaginga 7.21 2.41 .85 .84 Table 4
Video gaminga 3.28 2.33 1.13 .83 Correlations between all subscales and participant age.
Online friendshipsb 1.89 1.17 2.45 .83
Facebook friendshipsb 4.92 1.94 .24 .96 Subscale r p-value
Phone callinga 6.47 2.06 .28 .71 Usage subscales
Television viewinga 5.33 2.42 .42 .61 Smartphone usage .37 <.001
Attitudes subscales General Facebook usage .07 .083
Positivec 3.66 .84 .70 .87 Internet searching .32 <.001
Anxiety and dependenced 3.15 1.09 .23 .83 E-mailing .25 <.001
Negativee 3.35 .92 .23 .80 Media sharing .27 <.001
Multitasking preferencef 3.25 .92 .05 .85 Text messaging .45 <.001
Video gaming .21 <.001
a
Scale ranges from 1 to 10 with higher numbers indicating more daily usage. Online friendships .04 .355
b
Scale ranges from 1 to 10 with higher numbers indicating more friendships. Facebook friendships .19 <.001
c
Scale ranges from 1 to 5 with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes Phone calling .12 <.001
toward technology. Television viewing .10 <.005
d
Scale ranges from 1 to 5 with higher scores indicating more technological
Attitudes subscales
anxiety and dependence.
e Positive .21 <.001
Scale ranges from 1 to 5 with higher scores indicating more negative attitudes
Anxiety and dependence .29 <.001
toward technology.
f Negative .03 .482
Scores range from 1 to 5 with lower scores indicating increased preference for
Multitasking preference .03 .465
task switching.
 L.D. Rosen et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2501–2511 2507

messages and social networks shows validity for this subscale as moving to another or working on one task and then switching to
those are the two main activities that are performed with smart- another before its completion—have been shown in previous re-
phones. Similarly, the Facebook usage scale was most highly corre- search to relate to technology usage (Rosen et al., 2013). The resul-
lated with anxiety about not checking in often enough with social tant 60-item measurement tool—the Media and Technology Usage
networks and similar results were seen for each subscale with the and Attitudes Scale—includes 15 subscales, 11 measuring usage
most anxiety reported by people who used that communication and four assessing attitudes. The subscales can be used together
function the most. or separately as they are internally reliable and externally valid.
The 11 usage subscales of the new measure provide a solid mix-
3.5.3. Internet Addiction Test ture combining the use of older technologies such as television
The Internet Addiction Test yielded a bivariate variable where with newer technologies such as smartphones as well as separat-
those participants with five or more signs of Internet addiction ing device-based assessments (e.g., smartphone usage subscale,
(n = 64; 22%) could be compared to those with fewer than five television viewing subscale) from device-free assessments (e.g.,
signs (n = 230; 78%). From the MTUAS, an independent t-test Internet searching subscale, e-mailing subscale). They are also
indicated that those who were more likely to be addicted to the phrased in such a manner as to make them available for new items
Internet were those who: used Internet searching more often as new technologies emerge.
[t(292) = 1.96, p < .05]; shared media more often [t(292) = Three of the 11 usage subscales also involve social networking
3.41, p < .001]; and played video games more often [t(292) = with two subscales relating directly to Facebook usage and one
2.21, p < .05] all three activities that have been linked to Internet to generic online friendships. This is of extreme importance given
addictive behaviors. The only other variable showing a significant the nearly ubiquitous use of Facebook as the current social net-
difference between those addicted and those not addicted was work (Smith 2012). When Facebook users and nonusers were com-
anxiety about being without technology and dependence on tech- pared they showed strong differences on individual subscales of
nology [t(292) = 3.83, p < .001]. This latter result shows strong the MTUAS, painting a picture of social media users as consumers
validity as these anxieties and dependencies are reflective of items of other media and technology—with the exception of television—
in the IAT. and possessing both positive attitudes, but also anxieties about
missing out on technology as well as feeling dependent on technol-
4. Discussion ogy. Although two subscales directly relate to Facebook, the indi-
vidual items can be modified to fit any social networking site or
Attempts to measure media and technology usage have been application that may arise in the future.
widespread and no single measurement tool has been adopted The MTUAS also offers the inclusion of four attitude-based sub-
by more than a handful of studies. This makes it difficult to com- scales including both positive and negative attitudes toward tech-
pare results across studies. The current study was designed to de- nology in general rather than toward any specific technologies as
velop a tool that could fill that gap and be used across research well as attitudes that reflect anxiety and dependence on technol-
paradigms in different fields. The initial tool included two parts: ogy and preferences for task switching over task completion. The
a pool of items assessing frequency of usage of various technolo- addition of these four subscales makes the MTUAS a robust mea-
gies and media and a smaller pool of items assessing attitudes surement tool as it includes both frequency of usage and attitudes
toward technology and toward task switching. The latter items— toward that usage where the attitudes expressed are independent
assessing one’s attitude toward either completing one task before of the specific form of technology being used. Again, the MTUAS
can be used with or without the attitudinal items.
The 15 subscales of the MTUAS showed strong reliability and
Table 5
Comparison between Facebook users (n = 669) and nonusers (n = 273) on all relevant validity. In every case when assessing the validity of individual
subscales. subscales there was a stronger correlation with the predicted sub-
scale and daily media usage, anxiety about not checking in often
Subscale Users mean Nonusers mean t-score
(SD) (SD) enough and Internet addiction. This supports the power and stabil-
ity of the MTUAS. In addition to the direct validity and reliability
Usage subscalesa
Smartphone usage 5.42 (2.44) 3.95 (2.72) 8.10***
Internet searching 6.13 (2.50) 4.46 (2.92) 8.82***
E-mailing 6.29 (2.07) 4.90 (2.75) 8.49*** Table 6
Media sharing 4.02 (2.25) 3.11 (2.25) 5.68*** Top two correlations between MTUAS subscales and daily hours using media and
Text messaging 7.71 (2.00) 6.00 (2.86) 10.38*** technology (all correlations are significant at p < .001 unless otherwise noted).
Video gaming 3.51 (2.49) 2.70 (2.35) 4.61***
Subscale Top Second
Phone calling 6.65 (1.88) 6.05 (2.41) 4.07***
Television viewing 5.35 (2.40) 5.27 (2.48) 0.48 Usage subscales
Smartphone usage Texting (.46) Social network (.45)
Attitudes subscales
General Facebook usage Social network (.51) Online (.37)
Positiveb 3.85 (.70) 3.26 (.95) 8.15***
Internet searching Online (.48) Social Network (.45)
Anxiety and 3.39 (.97) 2.67 (1.16) 7.63***
E-mailing E-mail (.48) Computer (.40)
Dependencec
Media sharing Games (.36) Online (.36)
Negatived 3.23 (.90) 3.58 (.92) 4.26***
Text messaging Texting (.61) Social network (.43)
Multitasking 3.22 (.91) 3.31 (.93) 1.11
Video gaming Video games (.57) Online (.41)
Preferencee
Online friendships Video games (.31) Social network (.19)
***
p < .001. Facebook friendships Texting (.31) Social network (.19)
a
Scale ranges from 1 to 10 with higher numbers indicating more daily usage. Phone calling Phone calling (.27) E-mail (.22)
b
Scale ranges from 1 to 5 with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes Television viewing TV (.41) IM/Chat (.20)
toward technology. Attitudes subscales
c
Scale ranges from 1 to 5 with higher scores indicating more technological Positive Online (.29) Social network (.27)
anxiety and dependence. Anxiety and dependence Social network (.35) Online (.30)
d
Scale ranges from 1 to 5 with higher scores indicating more negative attitudes Negative IM/Chat ( .16) E-mail ( .16)
toward technology. Multitasking preference Online ( .16) E-mail ( .12a)
e
Scores range from 1 to 5 with lower scores indicating increased preference for
a
task switching. p = .004.
2508 L.D. Rosen et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2501–2511

Table 7
Correlations between MTUAS subscales and anxiety about not being able to check in with various technologies.

Subscale Anxiety about not checking in often enough with specific media/technology
Text messages Phone calls Social networks Personal E-mail Work/school E-mail Voice mail
Media usage subscalea
Smartphone usage .44*** .19*** .33*** .17*** .17*** .09*
General Facebook usage .35*** .23*** .44*** .19*** .08 .04
Internet searching .32*** .16*** .30*** .30*** .24*** .04
E-mailing .24*** .17*** .15*** .36*** .38*** .12**
Media sharing .27*** .14** .28*** .21*** .18*** .07
Text messaging .51*** .27*** .29*** .18*** .23*** .07
Video gaming .24*** .10* .27*** .16*** .09* .06
Online friendships .08 .05 .22*** .14** .08 .10
Facebook friendships .31*** .08 .17** .03 .04 .01
Phone calling .20*** .30*** .12** .20*** .14** .26***
Television viewing .06 .05 .09* .04 .00 .03
Attitude subscale
Positiveb .36*** .29*** .28*** .28*** .21*** .13**
Anxiety and dependencec .57*** .46*** .46*** .36*** .28*** .16***
Negatived .17*** .17*** .21*** .17*** .08* .09*
Multitasking preferencee .16*** .12** .13** .17*** .16*** .07
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
a
Scale ranges from 1 to 10 with higher numbers indicating more daily usage.
b
Scale ranges from 1 to 5 with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes toward technology.
c
Scale ranges from 1 to 5 with higher scores indicating more technological anxiety and dependence.
d
Scale ranges from 1 to 5 with higher scores indicating more negative attitudes toward technology.
e
Scores range from 1 to 5 with lower scores indicating increased preference for task switching.

assessment, the 15 MTUAS subscales were also examined as a research should also assess mobile device usage, which is more dif-
function of the sample demographics. As expected, the subscale ficult to assess as many users simply check in briefly with their so-
differences were exactly those that one would expect from past re- cial media, electronic communication, and information apps,
search. For example, males were more active in video gaming and taking in the necessary information in a matter of seconds. Any
media sharing, older people used less technology than younger smartphone monitoring system must account for both frequency
people, and more highly educated people used more technology and time of access to provide validity information for the new
than less highly educated people. measurement tool.
One interesting side note is the lack of correlations between
median income, as measured by residence ZIP code, and 14 of Acknowledgements
the 15 subscales with only social media showing a small significant
correlation. This result suggests that the once prevalent ‘‘digital di- Thanks to the George Marsh Applied Cognition Laboratory
vide’’ may no longer be as strong (Zickuhr & Smith, 2012). for their work on this project. Sincere appreciation to the Na-
tional Institutes of Health Minority Access to Research Careers
Undergraduate Student Training in Academic Research Program
4.1. Limitations
(MARC U⁄STAR Grant No. GM008683) for supporting Ms. Kelly
Whaling.
This study was done with participants comprised a self-selected
sample of convenience from urban Southern California and, as
Appendix A
such, was comprised of a unique mixture of cultural backgrounds
that may not generalize to other settings. However, the fact that
Media. and Technology Usage and Attitudes Scale (60 items)
there were very few differences in ethnic backgrounds on the 15
subscales supports the use across any sample. In addition, the res-
Usage. subscales
idence-based median income assessment showed that the sample
This scale includes 44 items which comprise 11 subscales:
was firmly middle class with a range of incomes spanning the typ-
Smartphone Usage (9 items), General Social Media Usage (9 items),
ical census figures. The current study also has several other obvi-
Internet Searching (4 items), E-Mailing (4 items), Media Sharing (4
ous limitations including: (1) combining samples from two
items), Text Messaging (4 items), Video Gaming (3 items), Online
different but similar research projects, (2) using online survey
Friendships (2 items), Online Friendships (2 items), Facebook
methodology to collect data and (3) being collected through uni-
Friendships (2 items), Phone Calling (2 items) and TV Viewing (2
versity classroom participation and friends and family of those
items)
same students. Additional studies with different samples, collected
10-point frequency scale for items 1–40 (with scoring in
from different parts of the country or the world, should be done to
parentheses):
further validate the MTUAS. Further, although validity was as-
sessed with concurrently collected measures of time spent using Never (1)
various technologies, technology-related anxiety, and Internet Once a month (2)
addiction, future research should consider validating the measure- Several times a month (3)
ment tool with actual usage measured similar to that done by Jun- Once a week (4)
co (2013). In addition to Junco’s software monitoring system, Several times a week (5)
 L.D. Rosen et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2501–2511 2509

Once a day (6) 27. (Internet Searching Subscale) Search the Internet for
Several times a day (7) videos on any device.
Once an hour (8) 28. (Internet searching subscale) Search the Internet for
Several times an hour (9) images or photos on any device.
All the time (10) 29. (Video gaming subscale) Play games on a computer, video
game console or smartphone BY YOURSELF.
30. (Video Gaming Subscale) Play games on a computer, video
Please indicate how often you do each of the following e-mail game console or smartphone WITH OTHER PEOPLE IN THE
activities on any device (mobile phone, laptop, desktop, etc.) SAME ROOM.
1. (E-mailing subscale) Send, receive and read e-mails (not 31. (Video gaming subscale) Play games on a computer, video
including spam or junk mail). game console or smartphone WITH OTHER PEOPLE ONLINE.
2. (E-mailing subscale) Check your personal e-mail.
3. (E-mailing subscale) Check your work or school e-mail.
Do you have a Facebook account? If the answer is ‘‘yes,’’ con-
4. (E-mailing subscale) Send or receive files via e-mail.
tinue with item 32; if ‘‘no’’, skip to the Attitudes subscales below.
NOTE: The word ‘‘social media’’ may be substituted for Facebook
Please indicate how often you do each of the following activities in the question stem above and in items 32–34.
on your mobile phone. How often do you do each of the following activities on social
networking sites such as Facebook?
5. (Text messaging subscale) Send and receive text messages
on a mobile phone. 32. (General social media usage subscale) Check your
6. (Phone calling subscale) Make and receive mobile phone Facebook page or other social networks.
calls. 33. (General social media usage subscale) Check your
7. (Text messaging subscale) Check for text messages on a Facebook page from your smartphone.
mobile phone. 34. (General social media usage subscale) Check Facebook at
8. (Phone calling subscale) Check for voice calls on a mobile work or school.
phone. 35. (General social media usage subscale) Post status updates.
9. (Smartphone usage subscale) Read e-mail on a mobile 36. (General social media usage subscale) Post photos.
phone. 37. (General social media usage subscale) Browse profiles and
10. (Smartphone usage subscale) Get directions or use GPS on photos.
a mobile phone. 38. (General social media usage subscale) Read postings.
11. (Smartphone usage subscale) Browse the web on a mobile 39. (General social media usage subscale) Comment on
phone. postings, status updates, photos, etc.
12. (Smartphone usage subscale) Listen to music on a mobile 40. (General social media usage subscale) Click ‘‘Like’’ to a
phone. posting, photo, etc.
13. (Smartphone usage subscale) Take pictures using a mobile
phone. Please answer the following questions about your Facebook and
14. (Smartphone usage subscale) Check the news on a mobile other online friends. NOTE: In items 41 and 42 the words ‘‘social
phone. media’’ (or any specific social media site) may be substituted for
15. (Smartphone usage subscale) Record video on a mobile Facebook.
phone. 9-point scale for items 37–40 (with scoring in parentheses:
16. (Smartphone usage subscale) Use apps (for any purpose) 0 (1)
on a mobile phone. 1–50 (2)
17. (Smartphone usage subscale) Search for information with 51–100 (3)
a mobile phone. 101–175 (4)
18. (Text messaging subscale) Use your mobile phone during 176–250 (5)
class or work time. 251–375 (6)
376–500 (7)
How often do you do each of the following activities?
501–750 (8)
19. (TV viewing subscale) Watch TV shows, movies, etc. on a 751 or more (9)
TV set. 41. Facebook friendships subscale) How many friends do
20. (TV viewing subscale) Watch video clips on a TV set. you have on Facebook?
21. (Media sharing subscale) Watch TV shows, movies, etc. on 42. (Facebook friendships subscale) How many of your
a computer. Facebook friends do you know in person?
22. (Media sharing subscale) Watch video clips on a 43. (Online friendships subscale) How many people have
computer. you met online that you have never met in person?
23. (Media sharing subscale) Download media files from other 44. (Online friendships subscale) How many people do you
people on a computer. regularly interact with online that you have never met in
24. (Media sharing subscale) Share your own media files on a person?
computer.
25. (Internet searching subscale) Search the Internet for news
on any device. Attitudes. subscales
26. (Internet searching subscale) Search the Internet for These subscales includes 16 items, which comprise four sub-
information on any device. scales: Positive Attitudes Toward Technology (6 items), Anxiety
2510 L.D. Rosen et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2501–2511

About Being Without Technology or Dependence on Technology (3 Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital
implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media and
items), Negative Attitudes Toward Technology (3 items) and Pref-
Society. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385389.
erence for Task Switching (4 items) Glynn, C. J., Huge, M. E., & Hoffman, L. H. (2012). All the news that’s fit to post: A
5-point Likert scale for all items (with scoring in parentheses): profile of news use on social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 28,
113–119.
Strongly agree (5) Gonzalez, V. M., & Mark, G. (2004). Constant, constant, multitasking
craziness: Managing multiple working spheres. In Proceedings of CHI ’04 (pp.
Agree (4)
113–120).
Neither agree nor disagree (3) Hunt, D., Atkin, D., & Krishnan, A. (2012). The influence of computer-mediated
Disagree (2) communication apprehension on motives for Facebook use. Journal of
Strongly disagree (1) Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 56(2), 187–202.
IDC (2013). Always Connected: How smartphones and social media keep us
engaged. IDC Research. Retrieved <http://www.scribd.com/doc/133393152/IDC-
Facebook-Always-Connected>.
1. (Positive attitudes) I feel it is important to be able to find any Jelenchick, L., Eichoff, R., & Moreno, M. A. (2012). ‘‘Facebook Depression?’’ Social
information whenever I want online. networking site use and depression in older adolescents. Journal of Adolescent
2. (Positive attitudes) I feel it is important to be able to access Health, 52(1), 128–130.
Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., Wright, S. L., & Johnson, B. (2013a). Development and
the Internet any time I want. validation of a social media use integration scale. Psychology of Popular Media
3. (Positive attitudes) I think it is important to keep up with the Culture, 2(1), 38–50.
latest trends in technology. Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., Wright, S. L., & Johnson, B. (2013b). The interrelationships
among attachment style, personality traits, interpersonal competency, and
4. (Anxiety/dependence) I get anxious when I don’t have my Facebook use. Psychology of Popular Media Culture. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
cell phone. a0030946.
5. (Anxiety/dependence) I get anxious when I don’t have the Johnson, G. M. (2010). Internet use and child development: The techno-
microsystem. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology,
Internet available to me.
10, 32–43.
6. (Anxiety/dependence) I am dependent on my technology. Judd, T., & Kennedy, G. (2011). Measurement and evidence of computer-based task
7. (Positive attitudes) Technology will provide solutions to switching and multitasking by ‘Net Generation’ students. Computers and
many of our problems. Education, 56, 625–631.
Junco, R. (2012a). Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between
8. (Positive attitudes) With technology anything is possible. multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Computers in
9. (Positive attitudes) I feel that I get more accomplished Human Behavior, 28(1), 187–198.
because of technology. Junco, R. (2012b). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use,
participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers and
10. (Negative attitudes) New technology makes people waste Education, 58(1), 162–171.
too much time. Junco, R. (2013). Comparing actual and self-reported measures of Facebook use.
11. (Negative attitudes) New technology makes life more Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 626–631.
Kalpidou, M., Costin, D., & Morris, J. (2011). The relationship between Facebook and
complicated. the well-being of undergraduate college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,
12. (Negative attitudes) New technology makes people more and Social Networking, 14(4), 183–189.
isolated. Kamibeppu, K., & Sugiura, H. (2005). Impact of the mobile phone on junior high-
school students’ friendships in the Tokyo metropolitan area. CyberPsychology
13. (Preference for task switching) I prefer to work on several and Behavior, 8(2), 121–130.
projects in a day, rather than completing one project and Kapidzic, S. (2013). Narcissism as a predictor of motivations behind Facebook
then switching to another. profile picture selection. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(1),
14–19.
14. (Preference for task switching) When doing a number of
Karpinski, A. C., Kirschner, P. A., Ozer, I., Mellott, J. A., & Ochwo, P. (2013). An
assignments, I like to switch back and forth between them exploration of social networking site use, multitasking, and academic
rather than do one at a time. performance among United States and European university students.
15. (Preference for task switching) I like to finish one task com- Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1182–1192.
Kimbrough, A. M., Guadagno, R. E., Muscanell, N. L., & Dill, J. (2012). Gender
pletely before focusing on anything else. differences in mediated communication: Women connect more than do men.
16. (Preference for task switching) When I have a task to com- Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 896–900.
plete, I like to break it up by switching to other tasks Kittinger, R., Correia, C. J., & Irons, J. G. (2012). Relationship between Facebook use
and problematic Internet use among college students. Cyberpsychology,
intermittently. Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(6), 324–327.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukipadhyay, T., & Scherlis,
 W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social
Scoring for item 15 is reversed with strongly agree = 1 and
involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9),
strongly disagree = 5. 1017–1031.
Lampe, C., Wohn, D. Y., Vitak, J., Ellison, N. B., & Wash, R. (2011). Student use of
References Facebook for organizing collaborative classroom activities. Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 6, 329–347.
Locatelli, S. M., Kluwe, K., & Bryant, F. B. (2012). Facebook use and the tendency to
Becker, M. W., Alzahabi, R., & Hopwood, C. J. (2012). Media multitasking is
ruminate among college students: Testing meditational hypotheses. Journal of
associated with symptoms of depression and social anxiety. Cyberpsychology,
Educational Computing Research, 46(4), 377–394.
Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(2), 132–135.
Lou, L. L., Yan, Z., Nickerson, A., & McMorris, R. (2012). An examination of
Burak, L. (2012). Multitasking in the university classroom. International Journal for
the reciprocal relationship of Loneliness and Facebook use among first-
the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1–12.
year college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1),
Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., Rosen, L. D., Benitez, S., & Chang, J. (2009). Multitasking
105–117.
across generations: Multitasking choices and difficulty ratings in three
McAndrew, F. T., & Jeong, H. S. (2012). Who does what on Facebook? Age, sex, and
generations of Americans. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 483–489.
relationship status as predictors of Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior,
Clayton, R. B., Osborne, R. E., Miller, B. K., & Oberle, C. D. (2013). Loneliness,
28, 2359–2365.
anxiousness, and substance use as predictors of Facebook use. Computers in
McKinney, B. C., Kelly, L., & Duran, R. L. (2012). Narcissism or openness? College
Human Behavior, 29(3), 687–693.
students’ use of Facebook and Twitter. Communication Research Reports, 29(2),
Dabbish, L., Mark, G., & Gonzalez, V. (2011). Why do I keep interrupting myself?
108–118.
Environment, habit and self-interruption. In Proceedings of the 2011 annual
Media Metrix (1999). Simultaneous use of PC and television growing rapidly. New
conference on human factors in, computing systems (pp. 3127–3130).
York: Media Metrix. <http://www.mediametrix.com/usa/press/releases/
Deters, F. G., & Mehl, M. R. (2013). Does posting Facebook status updates increase or
19990712.jsp>.
decrease loneliness? An online social networking experiment. Social
Mobile Mindset (2012). Mobile Mindset Study. Lookout Mobile Security. Retrieved
Psychological and Personality Science. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
<https://www.lookout.com/_downloads/lookout-mobile-mindset-2012.pdf>.
1948550612469233.
Moore, K., & McElroy, J. C. (2012). The influence of personality on Facebook
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook ‘‘friends:’’
usage, wall postings, and regret. Computers in Human Behavior, 28,
Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of
267–274.
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168.
 L.D. Rosen et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2501–2511 2511

Moreno, M. A., Jelenchick, L., Koff, R., & Eikoff, J. (2012a). Depression and Internet Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009).
use among older adolescents: An experience sampling approach. Psychology, 3, Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human
743–748. Behavior, 25(2), 578–586.
Moreno, M. A., Jelenchick, L., Koff, R., Eikoff, J., Diermyer, C., & Christakis, D. A. Skues, J. L., Williams, B., & Wise, L. (2012). The effects of personality traits, self-
(2012b). Internet use and multitasking among older adolescents: An experience esteem, loneliness, and narcissism on Facebook use among university students.
sampling approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1097–1102. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2414–2419.
Nielsen Media Research (1999). TV viewing in Internet households. New York: Nielsen Smith, C. (2012). Facebook S-1 amendment: New stats from Q1 2012 and more.
Media Research. <http://www.nielsenmedia.com>. Huffington Post. Retrieved <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/
Oldmeadow, J. A., Quinn, S., & Kowert, R. (2012). Attachment style, social skills, facebook-s-1-amendment_n_1446853.html>.
and Facebook use amongst adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), Stanger, J. D. (1998). Television in the home 1998. Philadelphia: Annenberg Public
1142–1149. Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania.
Ong, E., Ang, R., Ho, J., Lim, J., Goh, D., Lee & Chua (2011). Narcissism, extraversion, Stanger, J. D., & Gridina, N. (1999). Media in the home 1999: The fourth annual survey
and adolescent’s self-presentation on Facebook. Personality and Individual of parents and children. Philadelphia: Annenberg Public Policy Center, University
Differences, 50, 180–185. of Pennsylvania. 1999.
Oulasvirta, A., Rattenbury, T., Ma, L., & Raita, E. (2012). Habits make smartphone use Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of
more pervasive. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(1), 105–114. online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied
Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Coyne, S. M. (2011). ‘‘Turn that thing off!’’ Parent and Developmental Psychology, 29, 434–445.
adolescent predictors of proactive media monitoring. Journal of Adolescence, 34, Subrahmanyam, K., Kraut, R. E., Greenfield, P. M., & Gross, E. F. (2000). The impact of
705–715. home computer use on children’s activities and development. Children and
Pea, R., Nass, C., Meheula, L., Rance, M., Kumar, A., Bamford, H., et al. (2012). Computer Technology, 10(2), 123–144.
Media use, face-to-face communication, media multitasking, and social well- Tazghini, S., & Siedlecki, K. L. (2013). A mixed method approach to examining
being among 8- to 12-year-old girls. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), Facebook use and its relationship to self-esteem. Computers in Human Behavior,
327–336. 29, 827–832.
Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students’ social Thompson, P. (2013). The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and
networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental approaches to learning. Computers and Education, 65, 12–33.
Psychology, 30(3), 227–238. Tosun, L. P. (2012). Motives for Facebook use and expressing ‘‘true self’’ on the
Phillips, C. A., Rolls, S., Rouse, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (1995). Home video game playing Internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1510–1517.
in school children: A study of incidence and patterns of play. Journal of Trepte, S., & Reinecke, L. (2013). The reciprocal effects of social network site use and
Adolescence, 18(6), 687–691. the disposition for self-disclosure: A longitudinal study. Computers in Human
Poposki, E. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2010). The multitasking preference inventory: Behavior, 29, 1102–1112.
Toward an improved measure of individual differences in polychronicity. Turner, J. S., & Croucher, S. M. (2013). An examination of the relationships among
Human Performance, 23, 247–264. United States college students’ media use habits, need for cognition, and grade
Reich, S. M., Subrahmanyam, K., & Espinoza, G. (2012). Friending, IMing, and point average. Learning, Media and Technology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
hanging out face-to-face: Overlap in adolescents’ online and offline social 17439884.2013.777349.
networks. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 356–368. U.S. Census Bureau (2006). American community survey. <http://factfinder.
Rideout, V., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&_langx=585en&_sse=on&geo_
to 18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. id=05000US06037&_ county=Los+Angeles+County>.
Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., Roberts, D. F., & Brodie, M. (1999). Kids and media at the U.S. Census Bureau (2007–2011). American Community Survey. Retrieved <http://
new millennium: A comprehensive national analysis of children’s media use. Palo www.census.gov/acs/www>.
Alto, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. T., & Xu (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of
Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Facebook and texting made me information technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
Behavior, 29(3), 948–958. Wang, Z., & Tchernev, J. M. (2012). The ‘‘myth’’ of media multitasking: Reciprocal
Rosen, L. D., Chang, J., Erwin, L., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2010). The dynamics of media multitasking, personal needs, and gratifications. Journal of
Relationship between ‘‘Textisms’’ and Formal and Informal Writing Among Communication, 62, 493–513.
Young Adults. Communication Research, 37(3), 420–440. Young, K. S. (1998). Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder.
Rosen, L. D., Whaling, K., Rab, S., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Is Facebook CyberPsychology and Behavior, 1(3), 237–244.
Creating ‘‘iDisorders’’? The link between clinical symptoms of psychiatric Zickuhr, K., & Smith, A. (2012). Digital differences. Washington, DC: Pew Internet &
disorders and technology use, attitudes and anxiety. Computers in Human American Life Project.
Behavior, 29, 1243–1254.