Measuring Nomophobia and Exploration of Consequences and Comorbidities
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Wright State University CORE Scholar Symposium of Student Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities Materials Office of the Vice oPr vost for Research 4-2020 Measuring Nomophobia and Exploration of Consequences and Comorbidities Sarah Marie Fryman Wright State University - Main Campus, [email protected] William L. Romine Wright State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/urop_celebration Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, Engineering Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Medicine and Health Sciences Commons, Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Repository Citation Fryman , S. M., & Romine , W. L. (2020). Measuring Nomophobia and Exploration of Consequences and Comorbidities. This Poster is brought to you for free and open access by the Office of the Vice oPr vost for Research at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Symposium of Student Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities Materials by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact library- [email protected]. Measuring Nomophobia and Exploration of Consequences and Comorbidities p I Sarah Fryman, B.S. Biological Sciences, M.P.H. Candidate 2020 William Romine, Department of Biological Sciences, Wright State University Image by jesadaphom Distribution of Participant Nomophobia Measures (logits) Rasch Model: Nomophobia ….What does it mean? Introduction: What Do We Know? - 4 - 3 - 2 -1 1 2 3 4 ITEM Mean Square Item Description It is estimated that 95% of Americans use some sort of cellular device, while 77% of Americans use smartphones (Pew ----+- -----+ (J:nfit, outfit) Research Center). Excessive use of smartphones has resulted in “Nomophobia”, or fear of not being able to use your ,------+------+- -----+------+------, From the Rasch model, we were able to 1 2 ' 5 5 NMPQlosl (1.00,0.77) (online Identity) smartphone. These devices have, in part, become an extension of ourselves—which raises hesitation on whether or not 1 2 4 5 5 MPACS3 (1.18,1.00) (Off During Work) Loss of Online predict for participants of any measure what society has become addicted to smartphones. There is controversy on whether or not it is appropriate to use the word 1 4 5 5 NMPQlos2 (1.01,0.83) (U.T.D. Social) Identity “addiction” when describing excessive usage of smartphones (Kim 2016). It is apparent, from the literature that mobile 1 4 5 5 MPIQic (1.32 , 1.17) (Excessive Usage) responses they would probably make on each devices have not only affected our personal lives, but also our physical and psychological health (De-Sola 2017). 1 4 5 5 NMPQlos3 (1.01,1.03) (Awkward- Notifications) item. At the very top of the model, the items 1 4 5 5 MPIQr (0.87,1.14) Comorbidities with Nomophobia: 1 5 5 NMPQconv2 (1. 00,1.11) are the most difficult, meaning only those with 1 5 5 NMPQlos5 (1.06,1.12) high nomophobia were predicted to rate these ❑ Social anxiety has been closely studied with cell phone addiction. Those with social anxiety want to make friends and 1 5 5 NMPQlos4 (1.45 , 1.46) (Can' t Check Email) have social contact with others, but their anxiety prevents them from doing so (Richards 2013). Hence, the comfort of 1 5 5 MPIQcs (0. 75,0. 74) (Thinking About Phone) lnterierence items highly. Many of these items dealt with the being physically alone but socially active on the internet is appealing. Those with social anxiety have also reported more 1 5 5 MPIQca (1 . 09,1. 50) (Conflict With Activities) with Daily Life insecure attachment behaviors (McCarty 2005). Specifically, those with a fearful or anxious attachment classification 1 5 5 YAPSbur2 (1. 98 , 3 . 57) (Hiding Phone) loss of online identity and fear of losing touch were significantly more socially anxious (Arpaci 2017). 1 5 5 MPACS6 (0.86,0.81) with the online world. 1 5 5 MPACS8 (1. 04,1. 06) ❑ Social phobia has also been found to be a contributing factor in individuals developing a dependency on communication 1 5 -l.f') 5 NMPQconv3 (1.11,1.07) Within the middle of the Rasch model lies // 1 <-I 5 5 MPACS5 (0. 93,0. 91) through their mobile device or computer in an effort to avoid direct social relations (Uysal 2016, King, Valença, Silva, - l.f') II items that show the separation between those (0. 63,0. 64) (Distressed Without) Baczynski & Carvalho, 2013). Social phobia disorder has been found to be masked by nomophobic behaviors by 1 I"\/ 5 5 MPIQW spending an excessive amount of time on cellular devices in effort to communicate as a means of escape from 1 5 ~ 5 NMPQinfo3 (0. 94,1. 08) (Nervous- No N-s> who have high nomophobia and those who ~ 0 social/personal relations (King 2012). 1 0 5 ..0 5 NMPQcom6 (0.88,0.90) (Anxious-Disconnect F&F) Fear of Being have low nomophobia. These items included QJ ~ 1 - 5 5 MPACSl (0. 94,0. 89) (Craving When Off) Without Phone Q) ❑ Self-esteem is linked to nomophobia. Low self-esteem and cellphone addiction are significantly correlated (Perez 2012, 1 5 :n 5 YAPSref3 (0. 99,0. 95) (Feel "Naked" Without) psychological fears, including fear of losing 1 - s VJ 5 YAPSrefl (0.59,0.57) (Anxiety Without) Lee 2012). One study even found that the most important personality trait in addictive behavior is low self-esteem, :n C: 1 VJ 5 0 5 NMPQconvl (0. 91,0. 90) (Scared Run out of Battery) communication and being without a phone. with the most vulnerable group for addictive behavior being women with low self-esteem (Lee 2012). C: Q. 1 0 2 5 VJ 5 MPACS2 (1. 04,1. 01) Q. QJ Above these items are questions that measure This study explored all of these factors, and additional areas such as phone usage while driving and sleep habits, in order to 1 VJ 2 a:: s NMPQcom3 (0. 69,0. 67) (Not Receiving Nsgs) QJ Fear of Losing get a broader view on cellphone addiction, including its comorbidities and consequences. 1 a:: 2 QJ 5 NMPQcoml (0. 79,0. 76) (Anx'l.ous C'omrn. l interference with daily life (high end of QJ ,. Ill 1 2 -u 5 NMPQcom4 (0.85,0.82) (Keep J:n Touch) Communication nomophobia). 1 -uIll 2 s V) 5 NMPQcom5 (0. 93,0. 96) (Getting Ahold of Me) V) QO 1 2 5 C: 5 YAPSbu rl (1.32 , 2 .02) (Relief W/0) The bottom of the scale includes items that 1 QO 2 5 ·-..... 5 NMPQinfol (0. 87, 0. 86) C: Ill everyone, regardless of their nomophobia level, 1 ..... 2 5 a:: 5 MPACS7 (0.81,0.76) ·-Ill 1 a:: 2 t 5 "tJ 5 MPIQe (0. 85, 0. 88) (Connected to others) are predicted to rate highly. These revolve Diagram of Potential Outcomes and Comorbidities QJ 1 "tJ 2 4 5 ..... 5 MPIQlc (1.27,1.80) (Losing Track of usage) QJ u 1 2 4 5 5 NMPQconv4 (1.38 , 1.48) (Afraid- strande d W/0) around the convenience and safety of having a ....u "tJ·- QJ (1. 07 , 1. 35) 1 "tJ·- 2 4 5 ... 5 YAPSbur3 (Feel Better W/0) mobile phone. 1 QJ 2 4 5 Q. 5 NMPQcom2 (0. 98,0. 90) Nomophobia Q.... Social Anxiety 141 1 2 4 5 5 NMPQconvS (0. 92,0. 90) Items highlighted gray represent items that (5),16),(71 1 2 4 5 5 MPACS4 (1.20,1.14) (Discomfort-Left At Home) misfit the Rasch model. People respond to GPA/Academic 1 2 4 5 5 MPIQbs (1.36 , 1. 2 4) (Beha vioral Sa lie nce ) Convenience Performance 1 2 4 5 5 NMPQinfo4 (1. 08,1.11) (Annoyed, couldn't use) and Safety of these items unpredictably, meaning that they 1 4 5 5 NMPQinfo2 (1.13, 1 .10) (Annoyed, Couldn't Look Up) Phone 1 2 4 5 5 YAPSref2 (0.88,0.93) (Feeling Safer With) are less useful for measuring nomophobia. 1------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------1 = Misfitting Item (fit> 1.50) -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Figure 1: Map of most probable item responses based on a participant’s logit measure. Self-Esteem 13) Table 1. Pearson correlations between nomophobia factors derived from NMP-Q, MPIQ, MPACS, YAPS, RSE, SIAS and DDS Results:Results: Multivariate Multivariate Linear Regression Linear instruments. Regression Age Phone Conclusion Cellphone The tendency to drive distracted with mobile phones Attachment 121 Social Personal/Social Usage While Self- Email While is a significant and positive predictor of nomophobia Nomophobia Anxiety Responsibility Driving Esteem Driving (B = 0.108, SE = 0.023, rpartial = 0.359), indicating that With drug and substance addiction, there is often a distracted driving provides a useful diagnostic Gender defined point where the abuse starts to affect daily life. overall Personality Nomophobia - .178* - .379** - - indicator for the disease. Nomophobia tends to 111 increase with a person’s level of social anxiety (B = However, studies have shown that cell phone addiction Social Anxiety - - -.410** - -.445** - 0.018, SE = 0.006, rpartial = 0.246) as found in prior does not possess such clear criteria. Based on a single Personal/Social studies. Females have significantly higher levels of Responsibility - - - - .411** - nomophobia on average than males (B = 0.417, SE = nomophobia measure, the degree to which mobile Cellphone Usage While 0.153, rpartial = 0.216). phone use interferes with daily life can be qualified Driving - - - - -.217** .351** Our model provides no evidence that self esteem (Figure 1). Methodology/Materials affects nomophobia, nor any association of The relationship between Self-Esteem - - - - - -.151* nomophobia with sleep quality.