Advertisement

Psychiatric Quarterly

, Volume 90, Issue 1, pp 217–227 | Cite as

Effect of Abstinence from Social Media on Time Perception: Differences between Low- and At-Risk for Social Media “Addiction” Groups

  • Ofir TurelEmail author
  • Daniel R. Cavagnaro
Original Paper
  • 257 Downloads

Abstract

Time distortion is a hallmark feature of addictive behaviors including excessive technology use. It has clinically significant implications for diagnosis and treatment. Additional information on such distortions after prolonged abstinence from technology use is needed. We seek to examine differences in the effects of several days of abstinence on time-distortion in two groups: social media users who are at-risk and those who are at low risk for social media “addiction.” To examine this, we employed a randomized, two group, pre (t1) - post (t2) design. Both groups completed survey tasks that cued social media use at t1 and at t2. Between t1 and t2, the treatment group (n = 294) abstained from social media use for up to one week (less if they “broke” and decided to resume use), and the control group (n = 121) did not. Results indicated that low-risk individuals in both the treatment and control groups presented downward time bias at t1; at-risk individuals presented non-significant upward bias. After abstinence, both low- and at- risk individuals in the treatment group presented upward time distortion. This effect did not take place in the control group; low-risk users still presented significant downward bias at t2. The post-abstinence increase in time distortion was significantly more pronounced in at-risk users. These differences between pre- and post-abstinence time distortion patterns in normal and at-risk-for-“addiction” social media users can be used for adjusting and interpreting self-reports related to addictive uses of technologies.

Keywords

Abstinence Addictive use of social media Internet addiction Time distortion Time perception 

Notes

Author Contributions

OT and DC designed the study, collected data, ran analyses and wrote a draft. It was edited and approved by OT and DC.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Ofir Turel declares that he has no conflict of interest. Daniel Cavagnaro declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Wittmann M, Leland DS, Churan J, Paulus MP. Impaired time perception and motor timing in stimulant-dependent subjects. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;90(2–3):183–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lin YH, Lin YC, Lee YH, Lin PH, Lin SH, Chang LR, et al. Time distortion associated with smartphone addiction: identifying smartphone addiction via a mobile application (app). J Psychiatr Res. 2015;65:139–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2015.04.003.
  3. 3.
    Rau PLP, Peng SY, Yang CC. Time distortion for expert and novice online game players. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2006;9(4):396–403.  https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Turel O, Brevers D, Bechara A. Time distortion when users at-risk for social media addiction engage in non-social media tasks. J Psychiatr Res. 2018;97:84–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.11.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Turel O. Quitting the use of a habituated hedonic information system: a theoretical model and empirical examination of Facebook users. European Journal of Information Systems, 2015;24(4):431–446.  https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.19.
  6. 6.
    Turel O. Untangling the complex role of guilt in rational decisions to discontinue the use of a hedonic Information System. European Journal of Information Systems, 2016;25(5):432–447.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-016-0002-5.
  7. 7.
    Turel O, He, Xue, Xiao, Bechara. Examination of neural systems sub-serving Facebook "addiction". Psychological Reports, 2014;115(3):675–695.  https://doi.org/10.2466/18.PR0.115c31z8.
  8. 8.
    Turel O, Mouttapa, Donato. Preventing problematic Internet use through video-based interventions: a theoretical model and empirical test. Behaviour & Information Technology, 2015;34(4):349–362.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2014.936041.
  9. 9.
    Turel O, Poppa, Gil-Or. Neuroticism Magnifies the Detrimental Association between Social Media Addiction Symptoms and Wellbeing in Women, but Not in Men: a three-Way Moderation Model. Psychiatric Quarterly, 2018;89(3):605–619.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-018-9563-x.
  10. 10.
    Turel O, Qahri-Saremi. Problematic use of social networking sites: Antecedents and consequence from a dual system theory perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2016;33(4):1087–1116.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Turel O, Serenko, Giles. Integrating technology addiction and use: An empirical investigation of online auction sites. MIS Quarterly, 2011;35(4):1043–1061.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andreassen CS, Pallesen S, Griffiths MD. The relationship between addictive use of social media, narcissism, and self-esteem: findings from a large national survey. Addict Behav. 2017;64:287–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Banyai F, Zsila A, Kiraly O, Maraz A, Elekes Z, Griffiths MD, et al. Problematic social media use: results from a large-scale nationally representative adolescent sample. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0169839.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    He, Turel O, Bechara. Association of excessive social media use with abnormal white matter integrity of the corpus callosum. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 2018;278;42–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2018.06.008.
  15. 15.
    Turel O, He, Brevers, Bechara. Social networking sites use and the morphology of a social-semantic brain network. Social Neuroscience, 2018;13(5):628–636.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2017.1382387.
  16. 16.
    Klein LC, Corwin EJ, Stine MM. Smoking abstinence impairs time estimation accuracy in cigarette smokers. Psychopharmacol Bull. 2003;37(1):90–5.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Merson F, Perriot J. Social deprivation and time perception, the impact on smoking cessation. Sante Publique. 2011;23(5):359–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sayette MA, Loewenstein G, Kirchner TR, Travis T. Effects of smoking urge on temporal cognition. Psychol Addict Behav. 2005;19(1):88–93.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164x.19.1.88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fraisse P. Perception and estimation of time. Annu Rev Psychol. 1984;35(1):1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wei L, Zhang S, Turel O, Bechara A, He Q. Tripartite neurocognitive model of internet gaming disorder. Front Psychol. 2017;8(285):1–11.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00285. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wittmann M, Paulus MP. Decision making, impulsivity and time perception. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12(1):7–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.10.004. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Turel O, Bechara A. A triadic reflective-impulsive-interoceptive awareness model of general and impulsive information system use: behavioral tests of neuro-cognitive theory. Front Psychol. 2016;7(Article 601):1–11.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00601.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Andreassen CS, Torsheim T, Brunborg GS, Pallesen S. Development of a Facebook addiction scale. Psychol Rep. 2012;110(2):501–17.  https://doi.org/10.2466/02.09.18.PR0.110.2.501-517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wittmann M. In: Butler E, editor. Felt time: the psychology of how we perceive time. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2015.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brand M, Young KS, Laier C, Wölfling K, Potenza MN. Integrating psychological and neurobiological considerations regarding the development and maintenance of specific internet-use disorders: an interaction of person-affect-cognition-execution (I-PACE) model. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016;71:252–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Platt JJ. Heroin Addiction: Theory, Research, and Treatment. 2nd ed. Malabar: Robert E. Kreiger; 1986.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lortie CL, Guitton MJ. Internet addiction assessment tools: dimensional structure and methodological status. Addiction. 2013;108(7):1207–16.  https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Decision Neuroscience, Department of PsychologyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Information Systems and Decision SciencesCalifornia State UniversityFullertonUSA

Personalised recommendations