Advertisement

Journal of Happiness Studies

, 10:685 | Cite as

Exploring Internet Motives and Life Satisfaction Among Hungarian and Israeli Medical Students, Living in Hungary

  • Liliana Vas
  • Anita GomborEmail author
Research Paper

Abstract

Objective Using the Internet can influence psychological well-being, for instance life satisfaction has been negatively related to Internet uses. The first aim of this study was to compare the motives for Internet use and life satisfaction. The second aim was to explore nation- and gender-based differences in Internet uses. Method The questionnaires related to Internet motives and life satisfaction, and were filled out by 300 medical students, including 150 Israeli students (75 females, 75 males) and 150 Hungarian students (75 females, 75 males). Results In the Israeli and Hungarian sample, the entertainment motive was rated the highest while the escape motive was rated the lowest. There were significant differences between the Israeli male and female students in arousal and information-seeking, while for the Hungarian male and female students there were significant differences for pass time. Life satisfaction was higher in the Israeli sample. In both samples it was shown that the higher the life satisfaction was, the less likely the students were to use the Internet for companionship purposes. Again in both samples, a higher life satisfaction predicted less frequent use of the Internet for the social interaction motives.

Keywords

Internet motives Life satisfaction Hungarian Israeli Medical Students 

References

  1. Amiel, T., & Sargent, S. (2004). Individual differences in Internet usage motives. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(6), 711–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, K. (1999). Internet use among college students: Should we be concerned? Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: America’s perception of life quality. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boase, J., Horrigan, J. B., Wellman, B., & Rainie, L. (2006). The strength of Internet ties: The Internet and e-mail aid users in maintaining their social networks and provide pathways to help when people face big decisions. Washington, D.C.: The Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved on June 22, 2007 from www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Internet_ties.pdf.
  5. Caplan, S. E. (2003). Preference for online social interaction: A theory of problematic Internet use and psychosocial well-being. Communication Research, 30(6), 625–648. Retrieved on October 8, 2007 from http://crx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/6/625.
  6. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness, and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43. Retrieved on May 20, 2007 from https://www.psych.uiuc.edu/reprints/index.php?site_id=24.
  8. Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2000). Subjective emotional well-being. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions (2nd ed., pp. 325–337). New York: Guilford. Retrieved on May 20, 2007 from https://www.psych.uiuc.edu/reprints/index.php?site_id=24.
  9. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. Retrieved on May 20, 2007 from https://www.psych.uiuc.edu/reprints/index.php?site_id=24.
  10. Diener, E., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (1997a). Recent findings on subjective well-being. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 25–41.Google Scholar
  11. Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. E. (1997b). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. E. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Survey of Information Society Projects and Actions. (2001). Basic facts & indicators, Israel. (Online). Retrieved on February 22, 2007 from http://www.american.edu/carmel/nk3791a/Internet.htm.
  14. Fallows, D. (2004). The Internet and daily life: Many Americans use the Internet in everyday activities; but traditional offline habits still dominate. Washington, D.C.: The Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved on May 20, 2007 from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Internet_and_Daily_Life.pdf.
  15. Fallows, D. (2005). Search engine users: Internet searchers are confident, satisfied and trusting-but they are also unaware and naïve. Washington, D.C.: The Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved on April 12, 2007 from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Searchengine_users.pdf.
  16. Ferguson, D. A., & Perse, E. M. (2000). The world wide web as a functional alternative to television. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44(2), 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fortson, B. L., Scotti, J. R, Chen, Y. C., Malone, J., & Del-Ben, K. S. (2007). Internet use, abuse and dependence among students at a Southeastern Regional University. Journal of American College Health, 56(2), 137–143. Retrieved on May 29, 2008 from http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1137247/internet_use_abuse_and_dependence_among_students_at_a_southeastern/index.html?source=r_technology.
  18. Gordon, C., Juang, L., & Syed, M. (2007). Internet use and well-being among college students: Beyond frequency of use. Journal of College Student Development, 48(6), 674–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenburg, B. S. (1974). Gratifications of television viewing and their correlates for British children. In J. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communication: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 71–92). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Greenfield, D. N. (2000). The net effect: Internet addiction and compulsive Internet use. Retrieved on May 29, 2008 from http://www.virtual-addiction.com/neteffect.html.
  21. Joiner, R., Gavin, J., Duffield, J., Brosnan, M., Crook, C., Durndell, A., et al. (2005). Gender, Internet identification, and Internet anxiety: Correlates of Internet use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8(4), 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (1997). Understanding quality of life: Scientific perspectives on enjoyment and suffering. New York: Russell-Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Katz, J. E., & Aspden, P. (1997). A nation of strangers? Communications of the ACM, 40(12), 81–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaye, B. K. (1998). Uses and gratifications of the world wide web: From couch potato to web potato. New Jersey Journal of communication, 6, 21–40.Google Scholar
  25. Korgaonkar, P., & Wolin, L. (1999). A multivariate analysis of web usage. Journal of Advertising Research, 39, 53–68.Google Scholar
  26. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017–1031. Retrieved on May 29, 2008 from http://www.ilstu.edu/~posull/kraut.htm.
  27. Kraut, R., Mukhopadhyay, T., Szczypula, J., Kiesler, S., & Scherlis, B. (1999). Information and communication: Alternative uses of the Internet in households. Information Systems Research, 10(4), 287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49–74. Retrieved on March 6, 2007 from http://www.webuse.umd.edu/webshop/resources/kraut.pdf.Google Scholar
  29. Kubey, R. W., Lavin, M. J., & Barrows, J. R. (2001). Internet use and collegiate academic performance decrements: Early findings. Journal of Communication, 51(2), 366–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lyubomirsky, S., & Ross, L. (1997). Hedonic consequences of social comparison: A contrast of happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1141–1157. Retrieved on February 6, 2007 from http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~sonja/papers/LR1997.pdf.
  31. Madden, M., & Rainie, L. (2003). America’s online pursuits: The changing picture of who’s online and what they do. Washington, D.C.: The Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved on April 14, 2007 from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Online_Pursuits_Final.PDF.
  32. Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., & Pavot, W. (1993). Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objective life events: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1046–1053. Retrieved on May 20, 2007 from https://www.psych.uiuc.edu/reprints/index.php?site_id=24.
  33. McMillan, S. J., & Morrison, M. (2006). Coming of age with the Internet: A qualitative exploration of how the internet has become an integral part of young people’s lives. New Media Society, 8(1), 73–95. Retrieved on November 11, 2007 from http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/1/73.
  34. Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (1989). Social causes of psychological distress. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  35. Mitra, A., Willyard, J., Platt, C., & Parsons, M. (2005). Exploring web usage and selection criteria among male and female students. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3). Retrieved on May 29, 2008 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/mitra.html.
  36. Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nie, N. H. (2001). Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the Internet: Reconciling conflicting findings. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 426–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nie, N. H., Hillygus, D. S., & Erbring, L. (2002). Internet use, interpersonal relations and sociability: A time diary study. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), Internet and everyday life (pp. 215–243). London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  39. Nua Internet Surveys. (2001). Taylor Nelson Sofres: Isrealis flock to the web. February 1, 2001. Retrieved on February 22, 2007 from http://www.american.edu/carmel/nk3791a/Internet.htm.
  40. Odell, P., Korgen, K., Schumacher, P., & Delucchi, M. (2000). Internet use among female and male college students. CyberPsychoogy & Behavior, 3(5), 855–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet usage. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44, 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164–172. Retrieved on May 20, 2007 from https://www.psych.uiuc.edu/reprints/index.php?site_id=24.
  43. Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2006). Adolescents exposure to sexually explicit material on the Internet. Communication Research, 33(4), 178–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rubin, A. (1983). Television uses and gratification: The interactions of viewing patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 37–51.Google Scholar
  45. Rubin, B., Perse, E. M., & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research, 14(4), 602–628. Retrieved on February 22, 2007 from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00169.
  46. Scherer, K. (1997). College life online: Healthy and unhealthy Internet use. Journal of College Student Development, 38(6), 655–665.Google Scholar
  47. Seidlitz, L., & Diener, E. (1993). Memory for positive versus negative life events: Theories for the differences between happy and unhappy persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 654–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D. J., & Bae, J. (2006). Developing a measure of Internet well-being: A nomological (predictive) validation. Social Indicators Research, 78(2), 205–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Song, I., LaRose, R., Eastin, M. S., & Lin, C. (2004). Internet gratification and internet addiction: On the uses and abuses of new media. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Strack, F., Argyle, M., & Schwarz, N. (1991). Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  51. TÁRKI Research Institute. (2001). Mapping the digital future: Hungarian society and the Internet. In T. Dessewffy, Z. Fábián, A. Galácz, Z. Rét, A. Rigler, & B. Ságvári (Eds.), World Internet Project. Retrieved on February 22, 2007 from http://www.worldinternetproject.net. 22/April/07.
  52. TÁRKI Research Institute. (2004). Mapping the digital future: Hungarian society and the Internet. In T. Dessewffy, Z. Fábián, A. Galácz, Z. Rét, A. Rigler, & B. Ságvári (Eds.), World Internet Project. Retrieved on February 22, 2007 from http://www.tarki.hu/research/wip/index.html.
  53. Tov, W., & Diener, E. (2007). The well-being of nations: Linking together trust, cooperation, and democracy. In B. A. Sullivan, M. Snyder, & J. L. Sullivan (Eds.), Cooperation: The psychology of effective human interaction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  54. Vittersø, J., Røysamb, E., & Diener, E. (2002). The concept of life satisfaction across cultures: Exploring its diverse meaning and relation to economic wealth. In E. Gullone & R. A. Cummins (Eds.), The universality of subjective well-being indicators (pp. 81–103). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  55. Wastlund, E., Norlander, T., & Archer, T. (2001). Internet blues revisited: Replication and extension of an Internet paradox study. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4, 385–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weiser, E. B. (2000). Gender differences in Internet use patterns and Internet application preferences: A two-sample comparison. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3(2), 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weiser, E. B. (2001). The functions of Internet use and their social and psychological consequences. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4, 723–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2003). Escaping or connecting? Characteristics of youth who form close online relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LangendorfSwitzerland
  2. 2.StromstadSweden

Personalised recommendations