Relationship of Phubbing with Depression, Anxiety, Self-Esteem and Other Mental Variables

Yıl 2024, , 122 - 132, 30.06.2024

Feyza Karslı , Begüm Açık Yavuz

https://doi.org/10.51982/bagimli.1332637

Cited By: 1

Öz

Objective: The aim of this study is to examine the relationship phubbing behavior, mood, self-esteem, life satisfaction and mental disorders.
Method: The population of the research consists of people over the age of 18 and using smart phone. A total of 134 people participated in the research. The data collection process was carried out both face-to-face and online. Data collection tools are "General Sociothelist Scale", "Positive and Negative Affect Scale", "Depression Anxiety Stress Scale" and "Personal Information Form" which includes questions about demographic information and the level of satisfaction of the participants with themselves and their lives.
Results: Depression mean score was 5.84, anxiety mean score was 4.60, stress mean score was 8.01, negative affect mean score was 23.01, positive affect mean score was 34.25, and phubbing mean score was 44.98. A statistically significant and positive correlation was found between phubbing and depression, anxiety, stress and negative affect scores. In addition, according to the predictive model, phubbing scores explain 4% of the variance in negative affect scores, 5% of the variance in anxiety scores, 7% of the variance in depression scores, and 12% of the variance in stress scores.
Conclusion: Phubbing is inversely related to depression, anxiety, stress and negative mood and has a share in explaining all these mental health determinants

Anahtar Kelimeler

Phubbing, mental health, mental disorders, mood, self-esteem, life satisfaction

Sosyotelizmin Depresyon, Anksiyete, Benlik Saygısı ve Diğer Ruhsal Değişkenler ile İlişkisi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı sosyotelizm (phubbing), kişilerin duygu durumları, benlik saygısı, yaşam doyumu ve ruhsal bozukluk belirtilerinin düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkileri incelemektir.
Yöntem: Çalışmanın evrenini 18 yaş üzeri ve akıllı telefon kullanan kişiler oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmaya toplam 134 kişi katılmıştır. Veri toplama süreci hem yüzyüze hem de çevrimiçi olarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veri toplama araçları ‘’Genel Sosyotelist Olma Ölçeği’’, ‘’Pozitif ve Negatif Duygudurum Ölçeği’’, ‘’ Depresyon Anksiyete Stres Ölçeği’’ ve demografik bilgilerin ve katılımcıların kendileri ve yaşamlarından memnun olma düzeylerinin değerlendiren soruların yer aldığı ‘’Kişisel Bilgi Formu’’ dur.
Bulgular: Depresif belirtilerin puan ortalaması 5.84, anksiyete belirtilerinin puan ortalaması 4.60, stres belirtilerinin puan ortalaması 8.01, negatif duygu durum puan ortalaması 23.01, pozitif duygu durum puan ortalaması 34.25 ve sosyotelizm puan ortalaması 44.98 olarak belirlenmiştir. Sosyotelizm ile depresyon, anksiyete ve stres belirtilerinin düzeyi ve negatif duygu durum puanları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve pozitif yönlü bir ilişki saptanmıştır. Buna ek olarak yordayıcı modele göre sosyotelizm puanları, negatif duygu durum puanlarına ilişkin varyansın %4’ünü, anksiyete belirtilerinin puanlarına ilişkin varyansın %5’ini, depresif belirtilerin puanlarına ilişkin varyansın %7’sini ve stres belirtilerinin puanlarına ilişkin varyansın %12’sini açıklamaktadır.
Sonuç: Sosyotelizmin, depresyon, anksiyete, stres ve negatif duygu durum ile ters yönde ilişkili olduğu ve tüm bu ruh sağlığı belirleyicilerinin açıklanmasında bir paya sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sosyotelizm, ruh sağlığı, ruhsal bozukluklar, duygu durum, benlik saygısı, yaşam doyumu

Kaynakça

• Garrido EC, Issa T, Esteban PG, et al. A descriptive literature review of phubbing behaviors. Heliyon 2021; 7(5): e07037.
• Karadağ E, Tosuntaş ŞB, Erzen E, et al. Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: A structural equation model. J Behav Addict 2015; 4(2): 60-74.
• Blanca MJ, Bendayan R. Spanish version of the Phubbing Scale: Internet addiction, Facebook intrusion, and fear of missing out as correlates. Psicothema, 2018; 30(4): 449–454.
• Aagaard J. Digital akrasia: a qualitative study of phubbing. AI Soc 2020; 35(2): 237–244.
• Parmaksız İ. Sosyotelizm (phubbing) ile bilinçli farkındalık arasındaki ilişkide sosyal kaygının aracı rolü. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 2021; 22(2): 1387-1420.
• Roberts JA, David ME. My life has become a major distraction form my cell phone: partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Comput Hum Behav 2016; 54: 134-141.
• Karadağ E, Tosuntaş ŞB, Erzen E, et al. The virtual world’s current addiction: phubbing. Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions 2016; 3(2): 250-269.
• T’ng ST, Ho K H, Low SK. Are you “phubbing” me? The determinants of phubbing behavior and assessment of measurement invariance across sex differences. Int Multidiscip J Soc Sci 2018; 7(2): 159-190.
• Chu X, Ji S, Wang X, et al. Peer phubbing and social networking site addiction: The mediating role of social anxiety and the moderating role of family financial difficulty. Front Psychol 2021; 12: 670065.
• Argan M, Köse, H, Özgen, C, et al. Do sports, take photo and share: Phubbing, social media addiction and narcisism of body builders. Eur J Sport Sci 2019; 5(9): 79-94.
• Schneider FM, Hitzfeld S. I ought to put down that phone but I phub nevertheless: Examining the predictors of phubbing behavior. Soc Sci Comput Rev 2021; 39(6): 1075-1088.
• Ko CH, Yen JY, Yen CF, et al. The association between Internet addiction and psychiatric disorder: a review of the literature. Eur Psychiatry 2012; 27(1): 1-8.
• Vanden Abeele MM, Postma Nilsenova M. More than just gaze: an experimental vignette study examining how phone-gazing and newspaper-gazing and phubbing-while-speaking and phubbing-while-listening compare in their effect on affiliation. Commun Res 2018; 35(4): 303-313.
• Ergün N, Göksu İ, Sakız H. Effects of phubbing: Relationships with psychodemographic variables. Psychol Rep 2020; 123(5): 1578-1613.
• Ivanova A, Gorbaniuk O, Błachnio A, et al. Mobile phone addiction, phubbing, and depression among men and women: A moderated mediation analysis. Psychiatr Q 2020; 91(3): 655–668.
• Bitar Z, Akel M, Salameh P, et al. Phubbing among Lebanese young adults: Scale validation and association with mental health (depression, anxiety, and stress). Curr Psychol 2022; doi: 10.1007/s12144-022-03104-z.
• Xie X, Xie J. Parental phubbing accelerates depression in late childhood and adolescence: A two-path model. J Adolesc 2020; 78: 43-52.
• Bai Q, Lei L, Hsueh F H, et al. Parent adolescent congruence in phubbing and adolescents’ depressive symptoms: A moderated polynomial regression with response surface analyses. J Affect Disord 2020; 275: 127–135.
• McDaniel BT, Coyne SM. “Technoference”: The interference of technology in couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational well-being. Psychol Pop Media Cult. 2016; 5(1): 85-98.
• González-Rivera JA, Hernández-Gato I. Conflicts in romantic relationships over Facebook use: Validation and psychometric study. Behav Sci. 2019; 9(2): 18.
• Chotpitayasunondh V, Douglas KM. Measuring phone snubbing behavior: Development and validation of the Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP) and the generic scale of being phubbed (GSBP). Comput Human Behav. 2018; 88: 5-17.
• Al‐Saggaf Y, O'Donnell SB. Phubbing: Perceptions, reasons behind, predictors, and impacts. Hum Behav Emerg 2019; 1(2): 132–140.
• Sayıner B, Akbağ M. Sosyotelizm: Farklı bağlamlarda bir değerlendirme. Akademik Hassasiyetler 2023; 10(21): 80-115.
• Orhan-Göksün D. Sosyotelist olma ve sosyotelizme maruz kalma ölçeklerinin Türkçeye uyarlanması. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 2019; 21(3): 657-671.
• Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988; 54(6): 1063-1070..
• Gençöz T. Pozitif ve Negatif Duygu Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi 2000; 15(46): 19-26.
• Lovibond PF, Lovibond SH. The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behav Res Ther 1995; 33: 335-343.
• Antony MM, Bieling PJ, Cox BJ, et al. Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychol Assess 1998; 10(2): 176- 181.
• Sarıçam H. The psychometric properties of Turkish version of Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) in health control and clinical samples. Journal of Cognitive Behavioral Psychotherapy and Research 2018; 7(1): 19-30.
• Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2007: 497-516.
• Finney SJ, DiStefano C. Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. Hancock GR, Mueller RO (Editors). Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course. Greenwich, CT: Information Age, 2006: 269–314.
• Field A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3th edition. London: Sage Publications, 2009.
• Davey S, Davey A, Raghav S, et al. Predictors and consequences of “Phubbing” among adolescents and youth in India: An impact evaluation study. J Fam Community Med 2018; 25(1): 35–42.
• Guazzini A, Duradoni M, Capelli A, et al. An explorative model to assess individuals’ phubbing risk. Future Internet. 2019; 11(1): 21.
• Nuñez TR, Radtke T, Eimler SC. A third-person perspective on phubbing: Observing smartphone-induced social exclusion generates negative affect, stress, and derogatory attitudes. Cyberpsychology 2020; 14(3): 94-115.
• Li YX, Zhang YH, Yang R, et al. Relationship between perceived social norms and phubbing: individual control and fear of missing out as mediators. Int J Ment Health 2021; (21): 1-16.
• Gonzales AL, Wu Y. Public cellphone use does not activate negative responses in others… Unless they hate cellphones. J Comput Mediat Commun 2016; 21(5): 384-398.
• Hales AH, Dvir M, Wesselmann ED, et al. Cell phone-induced ostracism threatens fundamental needs. J Soc Psychol 2018; 158(4): 460-473.
• Beukeboom CJ, Pollmann M. Partner phubbing: Why using your phone during interactions with your partner can be detrimental for your relationship. Comput Hum Behav 2021; 124: 106932.
• McDaniel BT, Wesselmann E. “You phubbed me for that?” Reason given for phubbing and perceptions of interactional quality and exclusion. Hum Behav Emerg 2021; 3(3): 413-422.
• Guazzini A, Raimondi T, Biagini B, et al. Phubber’s emotional activations: The association between PANAS and phubbing behavior. Future Internet 2021; 13(12), 311.
• Bitar, Z, Hallit, S, Khansa, W, et al. Phubbing and temperaments among young Lebanese adults: the mediating effect of self-esteem and emotional intelligence. BMC Psychol 2021; 9(1), 87.
• Błachnio A, Przepiórka A. Facebook intrusion, fear of missing out, narcissism, and life satisfaction: A cross-sectional study. Psychiatry Res 2018; 259: 514-519.
• Wang X, Znao F., Lei L. Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction: Self-esteem and marital status as moderators. Curr Psychol 2021; 40(7): 3365-3375.
• Keane L, Loades M. Low self‐esteem and internalizing disorders in young people–a systematic review. Child Adolesc 2017; 22(1): 4-15.
• Shahbaz K, Rasul F, Khan A, et al. Phubbing positively predicts psychological distress and poor quality of life in community adults. Int J Manag 2020; (11): 2229-2240.
• Michalski CA, Diemert LM, Hurst, et al. Is life satisfaction associated with future mental health service use? An observational population-based cohort study. BMJ Open 2022; 12(4): e050057.