Advertisement

Daily and Compulsive Internet Use and Well-Being in Adolescence: A Diathesis-Stress Model Based on Big Five Personality Traits

  • Niels van der Aa
  • Geertjan Overbeek
  • Rutger C. M. E. Engels
  • Ron H. J. Scholte
  • Gert-Jan Meerkerk
  • Regina J. J. M. Van den Eijnden
Empirical Research

Abstract

This study examined the associations between adolescents’ daily Internet use and low well-being (i.e., loneliness, low self-esteem, and depressive moods). We hypothesized that (a) linkages between high levels of daily Internet use and low well-being would be mediated by compulsive Internet use (CIU), and (b) that adolescents with low levels of agreeableness and emotional stability, and high levels of introversion would be more likely to develop CIU and lower well-being. Data were used from a sample of 7888 Dutch adolescents (11–21 years). Results from structural equation modeling analyses showed that daily Internet use was indirectly related to low well-being through CIU. In addition, daily Internet use was found to be more strongly related to CIU in introverted, low-agreeable, and emotionally less-stable adolescents. In turn, again, CIU was more strongly linked to loneliness in introverted, emotionally less-stable, and less agreeable adolescents.

Keywords

Internet use Personality Adolescence Well-being 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Geertjan Overbeek was supported by veni-grant (# 451-05-015) from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research during the preparation of this manuscript.

References

  1. Armstrong, L. P., Phillips, J. G., & Saling, L. L. (2000). Potential determinants of heavier Internet usage. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 537–550. doi: 10.1006/ijhc.2000.0400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parcelling issues in structural equation modelling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumaker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modelling (pp. 269–296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Birnbaum, M. H. (2004). Human research and data collection via the Internet. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 803–832. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Caplan, S. E. (2003). Preference for online social interaction. A theory of problematic Internet use and psychosocial well-being. Communication Research, 30, 625–648. doi: 10.1177/0093650203257842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (1996). Equifinality and multifinality in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 597–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cicchetti, D., & Tucker, D. (1994). Development and self-regulatory structures of the mind. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 533–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for behavioural sciences (Revised edition ed.). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, R. A. (2001). A cognitive-behavioral model of pathological Internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 187–195. doi: 10.1016/S0747-5632(00)00041-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gazzaniga, M. S., & Heatherton, T. F. (2003). Psychological science. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  11. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gross, E. F., Juvonen, J., & Gable, S. L. (2002). Internet use and well-being in adolescence. The Journal of Social Issues, 58, 75–90. doi: 10.1111/1540-4560.00249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Kandel, D. B., & Davies, M. (1986). Adult sequelae of adolescent depressive symptoms. Archives of General Psychiatry, 43, 255–262. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, V. H., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. The Journal of Social Issues, 58, 49–74. doi: 10.1111/1540-4560.00248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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? The American Psychologist, 53, 1017–1031. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.9.1017.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McAdams, D. P. (1992). The 5-factor model in personality – a critical appraisal. Journal of Personality, 60, 329–361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity “demarginalization” through virtual group participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 681–694. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meerkerk, G. J., van den Eijnden, R. J. J. M., Vermulst, A. A., & Garretsen, H. F. L. (submitted for publication-a). The compulsive Internet use scale (CIUS).Google Scholar
  22. Meerkerk, G. J., van den Eijnden, R. J. J. M., Vermulst, A. A., & Garretsen, H. F. L. (submitted for publication-b). The relationship between personality, psychosocial well-being, and compulsive Internet use: The Internet as cyber prozac?Google Scholar
  23. Morahan-Martin, J., & Schumacher, P. (2000). Incidence and correlates of pathological Internet use among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 13–29. doi: 10.1016/S0747-5632(99)00049-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children’s friendship relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 306–347. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (2000). What is beyond the Bog Five? Plenty! Journal of Personality, 68, 821–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.Google Scholar
  27. Rabiner, D. L., Lenhart, L., & Lochman, J. E. (1990). Automatic versus reflective social problem solving in relation to children’s sociometric status. Developmental Psychology, 26, 1010–1016. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.26.6.1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image (Revised edition ed.). Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Rubin, K. H., LeMare, L. J., & Lollis, S. (1990). Social withdrawal in childhood: Developmental pathways to peer rejection. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 217–249). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA loneliness scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 472–480. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.472.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sanders, C. E., Field, T. M., Diego, M., & Kaplan, M. (2000). The relationship of Internet use to depression and social isolation among adolescents. Adolescence, 35, 237–242.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Pancea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427–459. doi: 10.1177/009365094021004001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., & Kreutzer, T. (1990). The fate of early experience following developmental change: Longitudinal approaches to individual adaptation in childhood. Child Development, 61, 1363–1373. doi: 10.2307/1130748.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Subrahmanyam, K., Greenfield, P., Kraut, R., & Gross, E. (2001). The impact of computer use on children’s and adolescents’ development. Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 7–30. doi: 10.1016/S0193-3973(00)00063-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Preadolescents' and adolescents’ online communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 43, 267–277.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van den Eijnden, R.J.J.M., Meerkerk, G.J., Vermulst, A.A., Sijkerman, R., & Engels, R.C.M.E. (2008). Online communication, compulsive Internet use, and psychosocial well-being among adolescents: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 44, 655–665.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vermulst, A., & Gerris, J. R. M. (2005). QBF: Quick big five Persoonlijkheidstest Handleiding [quick big five personality test manual]. Leeuwarden, The Netherlands: LDC Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Wastlund, E., Norlander, T., & Archer, T. (2001). Internet blues revisited: Replication and extension of an Internet paradox study. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 4, 385–391. doi: 10.1089/109493101300210295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weiser, E. B. (2001). The functions of Internet use and their social and psychological consequences. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 4, 723–742. doi: 10.1089/109493101753376678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wood, R. T. A., Griffiths, M. D., & Eatough, V. (2004). Online data collection from video game players: Methodological issues. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7, 511–518.Google Scholar
  41. Ybarra, M. L., Alexander, C., & Mitchell, K. J. (2005). Depressive symptomatology, youth Internet use, and online interactions: A national survey. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 36, 9–18. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2003.10.012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niels van der Aa
    • 1
  • Geertjan Overbeek
    • 2
  • Rutger C. M. E. Engels
    • 2
  • Ron H. J. Scholte
    • 2
  • Gert-Jan Meerkerk
    • 3
  • Regina J. J. M. Van den Eijnden
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Biological PsychologyVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Behavioral Science Institute (BSI)Radboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Addiction Research InstituteRotterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of General Social SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations