Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 103, Issue 1, pp 23–32 | Cite as

The Mediator Roles of Life Satisfaction and Self-Esteem between the Affective Components of Psychological Well-Being and the Cognitive Symptoms of Problematic Internet Use

  • Emre Senol-DurakEmail author
  • Mithat Durak
Article

Abstract

The factors associated with cognitions about problematic Internet use have been empirically tested in various studies. The aim of the present study was to examine the mediator roles of both life satisfaction and self-esteem between affective components of subjective well-being and cognitions about problematic Internet use. For this purpose, the model that was conceptualized by Davis (Comput Human Behav 17:187–195, 2001), Caplan (Comput Human Behav 18:553–575 2002), and Lent et al. (J Vocat Behav 74:190–198 2009) was modified and used as the theoretical framework for this study. The impacts of life satisfaction and self-esteem on the association between affective components of psychological well-being (positive and negative) and cognitions about problematic Internet use were tested by using structural equation modeling (SEM) in a sample of 480 Turkish university students. The results reveal that by playing a mediator role, self-esteem impacted positive/negative affect and life satisfaction and, hence, indirectly influenced cognitions about problematic Internet use. Examining the roles of self-esteem and subjective well-being will provide a new starting point for further studies.

Keywords

Problematic Internet use Cognitions Positive affect Negative affect Life satisfaction Self-esteem 

References

  1. Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos (version 7.0) [Computer program]. Chicago: SPSS.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, L., Phillips, J. G., & Saling, L. L. (2000). Potential determinants of heavier Internet usage. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 537–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 17, 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Caplan, S. E. (2002). Problematic Internet use and psychosocial well-being: Development of a theory-based cognitive—Behavioral measurement instrument. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 553–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caplan, S. E. (2005). A social skill account of problematic internet use. Journal of Communication, 55, 721–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chou, C. (2001). Internet heavy use and addiction among Taiwanese college students: An online interview study. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 4, 573–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chou, C., & Hsiao, M. C. (2000). Internet addiction, usage, gratification, and pleasure experience: The Taiwan college students’ case. Computers & Education, 35, 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cuhadaroglu, F. (1986). Self-esteem in adolescents. Unpublished dissertation. Hacettepe University.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, R. A. (2001). A cognitive-behavioral model of pathological Internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, R. A., Flett, G. L., & Besser, A. (2002). Validation of a new scale for measuring problematic Internet use: Implications for pre-employment screening. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 5, 331–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Douglas, A. C., Mills, J. E., Niang, M., Stepchenkova, S., Byun, S., Ruffini, C., et al. (2008). Internet addiction: Meta-synthesis of qualitative research for the decade 1996–2006. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 3027–3044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Durak, M., Senol-Durak, E. & Gencoz, T. (in press). Psychometric properties of the satisfaction with life scale among Turkish University students, correctional officers, and elderly adults. Social Indicators Research. doi: 10.1007/s11205-010-9589-4.
  17. Durak, M., & Senol-Durak, E. (2010a). Associations of social anxiety and depression with problematic internet use. Manuscript under evaluation.Google Scholar
  18. Durak, M., & Senol-Durak, E. (2010b). Which personality traits are associated with cognitions related to problematic internet use? Manuscript under evaluation.Google Scholar
  19. Gencoz, T. (2000). Positive and negative affect schedule: A study of validity and reliability. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 15(46), 27–28.Google Scholar
  20. Ho, M. Y., Cheung, F. M., & Cheung, S. F. (2010). The role of meaning in life and optimism in promoting well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 658–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2002). Understanding the dynamic relationships among personality, mood, and job satisfaction: A field experience sampling study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 1119–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim, H.-K., & Davis, K. E. (2009). Toward a comprehensive theory of problematic internet use: Evaluating the role of self-esteem, anxiety, flow, and the self-rated importance of Internet activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 490–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ko, C. H., Yen, J. Y., Yen, C. F., Lin, H. C., & Yang, M. J. (2007). Factors predictive for incidence and remission of Internet addiction in young adolescents: A prospective study. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10, 545–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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, 1017–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. LaRose, R., Lin, C. A., & Eastin, M. S. (2003). Unregulated Internet usage: Addiction, habit, or deficient self-regulation? Media Psychology, 5, 225–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lent, R. W., Taveira, M. D., Sheu, H. B., & Singley, D. (2009). Social cognitive predictors of academic adjustment and life satisfaction in Portuguese college students: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 190–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu, X., & Larose, R. (2008). Does using the Internet make people more satisfied with their lives? The effects of the Internet on college students’ school life satisfaction. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11, 310–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meerkerk, G. J., van den Eijnden, R. J. J. M., Franken, I. H. A., & Garretsen, H. F. L. (2010). Is compulsive internet use related to sensitivity to reward and punishment, and impulsivity? Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 729–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morahan-Martin, J. (2005). Internet abuse—Addiction? Disorder? Symptom? Alternative explanations? Social Science Computer Review, 23, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morahan-Martin, J., & Schumacher, P. (2000). Incidence and correlates of pathological Internet use among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennet, N., Lind, S., & Stillwell, C. D. (1989). An evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ozcan, N. K., & Buzlu, S. (2007). Internet use and its relation with the psychosocial situation for a sample of university students. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10, 767–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2004). The subjective evaluation of well-being in adulthood: Findings and implications. Ageing International, 29(2), 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Senol-Durak, E., Durak, M., & Kepekcioglu, S. E. (2010). The effects of cognitive appraisals of stress and coping strategies on problematic Internet use. Manuscript under evaluation.Google Scholar
  37. Shapira, N. A., Goldsmith, T. D., Keck, P. E., Khosla, U. M., & McElroy, S. L. (2000). Psychiatric features of individuals with problematic internet use. Journal of Affective Disorders, 57, 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Spada, M. M., Langston, B., Nikcevic, A. V., & Moneta, G. B. (2008). The role of metacognitions in problematic internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2325–2335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stepanikova, I., Nie, N. H., & He, X. (2010). Time on the Internet at home, loneliness, and life satisfaction: Evidence from panel time-diary data. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tsai, H. F., Cheng, S. H., Yeh, T. L., Shih, C. C., Chen, K. C., Yang, Y. C., et al. (2009). The risk factors of Internet addiction—a survey of university freshmen. Psychiatry Research, 167(3), 294–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wan, C., & Chiou, W. (2006). Why are adolescents addicted to online gaming? An Interview study in Taiwan. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9(6), 762–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect—the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yang, S. C., & Tung, C. J. (2007). Comparison of Internet addicts and non-addicts in Taiwanese high school. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Young, K. S. (1999). Internet addiction: Symptoms, evaluation and treatment. In L. Van de Creek, & X. Jackson (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (Vol. 17, 19 ± 31). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arts and Science Faculty, Department of PsychologyAbant Izzet Baysal UniversityGolkoy, BoluTurkey

Personalised recommendations