Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Adnan Menderes University, Faculty of Education, Department of Counseling and Guidance, Merkez Kamps Aytepe, 09010 Aydn, Turkey
Adnan Menderes University, Faculty of Education, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Merkez Kamps Aytepe, 09010 Aydn, Turkey
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Available online 15 March 2014
Keywords:
Depression
Loneliness
Internet addiction
Self-control
a b s t r a c t
This study aimed to explore both the direct and indirect relationships between depression, loneliness,
low self-control, and Internet addiction in a sample of Turkish youth, based on a cognitive-behavioral
model of generalized problematic Internet use. Data for the present study were collected from 648 undergraduate students with a mean age of 22.46 years (SD = 2.45). Participants completed scales for depression, loneliness, self-control and Internet addiction. Structural equation modeling was used to test the
model in which depression and loneliness predicted Internet addiction through low self-control. The
ndings revealed that of the two factors, only loneliness was related to Internet addiction through low
self-control. The results are discussed in terms of the cognitive-behavioral model of generalized problematic Internet use, and implications for practice are considered.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Internet usage rates in Turkey have increased signicantly in recent years. The rate of Internet use for the 1624-year-old age
group increased from 50.4% in 2007 to 65.8% in 2011 (TurkStat,
2011). This rapid increase has inevitably led to issues such as problematic Internet use (Kim & Davis, 2009) and Internet addiction
(Block, 2008). The rate of risk for Internet addiction is thought to
be between 8.68% and 18.4% (Whang, Lee, & Chang, 2003). In a recent study in Turkey, Cmert and gel (2009) found that 4.5% of
participants (96.4% of the sample were below the age of 16, 3.6%
were aged 17 and above) could be diagnosed as Internet addicts.
In the literature, there is no clear agreement on which term to
use for Internet-use-related problems. Current terms in use include
Internet addiction (Block, 2008), Internet dependence (Scherer,
1997), compulsive use (Meerkerk, Van den Eijnden, & Garretsen,
2006), problematic Internet use (Shapira, Goldsmith, Keck, Khosla,
& Mcelroy, 2000), pathological Internet use (Davis, 2001), and
unregulated Internet usage (LaRose, Lin, & Eastin, 2003). Although
the debate over the conceptualization of this issue continues,
numerous studies have concluded that problems with Internet
use are associated with impairments in psychological and social
functioning (Canan, Ataoglu, Ozcetin, & Icmeli, 2012; Ko, Yen, Liu,
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 256 2142023; fax: +90 256 2141061.
E-mail addresses: yalcinozd@yahoo.com (Y. zdemir), yasarku@yahoo.com
(Y. Kuzucu), serifeak@gmail.com (S
. Ak).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.009
0747-5632/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
285
286
Deppression
Low Self-Control
Internet Addiction
5
Loneliness
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
This study involved 648 undergraduate students randomly selected from a university in a small city in western Turkey. Of the
participants, 428 (66%) were male and 220 (34%) were female.
The ages of the participants ranged between 18 and 35 years, with
a mean of 22.46 (SD = 2.45) years.
2.2. Measurements
2.2.1. Internet addiction
This study used the Internet Addiction Test (IAT), which consists of 20 items with a six-point Likert scale ranging from rarely
to always. The IAT was developed by Young (1998) and adapted
to Turkish by Bayraktar (2001). The content includes items related
to the impact of Internet use on social interactions and the inuence of Internet use on everyday life (e.g., How often do you
choose to spend your time online rather than going out with others? or How often do you become defensive or secretive when
someone asks you what you do online?). In this study, the alpha
for the scale was 0.93, and the alpha for the four parcels ranged
from .76 to .90.
2.2.2. Low self-control
Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklevs (1993) scale was used to
measure low self-control. This scale has 24 items and six subscales:
impulsivity, simple tasks, risk-seeking, physical activities, self-centeredness, and temper. The response items varied from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), coded so that higher scores indicated lower levels of self-control. Consistent with previous studies
conducted in Turkish (zdemir et al., 2013), the alpha for the scale
in this study was 0.86.
2.2.3. Depression
The brief symptom inventory (BSI) was used to measure depression symptoms. The scale was developed by Derogatis (1992) as a
shortened version of the SCL-90-R and adapted to Turkish by S
ahin
and Durak (1994). The adapted version of the BSI revealed ve subscales as a result of an exploratory factor analysis: anxiety, depression, negative self, somatization, and hostility. Only the depression
subscale was used in the present study. The Cronbachs alpha reliability coefcients have been found to be good, .95.96 of the Turkish form. The internal consistency coefcient for depression for the
present data was .87. The Cronbachs alpha reliability coefcients
for the three parcels ranged from .76 to .77.
2.2.4. Loneliness
The 20-item UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona,
1980) was used to assess the participants degree of global loneliness. Participants rated the items from 1 (never) to 4 (always). The
Cronbachs alpha for internal consistency was reported as 0.94. For
the Turkish sample, Cronbachs alpha was reported as .93 (Demir,
1989). In this study, the alpha for the scale is 0.90, and for the four
parcels, it ranged from .76 to .80.
2.3. Procedures
The study consisted of a self-reporting data collection instrument, which included instructions on how to complete the survey
and assurances of anonymity. The battery of scales was administered to participants at their schools. Students completed the
questionnaires individually in group sessions, and the overall
administration time was approximately 45 min. All participants
were volunteers and allowed to withdraw at any point. No personal identifying information was collected. The data were collected in 2012.
2.4. Analysis
First, we computed bivariate correlations between depression,
loneliness, low self-control, and Internet addiction. Second, we
tested a measurement model and structural equation models using
Amos 18 (Arbuckle and Woethke, 2009). The model t was assessed by the standard chi-square t statistic and the comparative
t index (CFI; Bentler & Dudgeon, 1996), the Tucker-Lewis Index
(TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973), and the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck, 1993). A CFI and TLI
greater than .95 and a RMSEA less than .08 indicate a good model
t (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Because the x2 statistic is sensitive to sample size, we used the x2 to degrees of freedom ratio (x2/df) to assess
model t. A x2/df ratio of less than 3 indicates an acceptable model
t.
We treated depression, loneliness, self-control and Internet
addiction as latent variables. We created parcels for the depression,
loneliness and Internet addiction variables by assigning the most
highly loaded items to Parcel 1, the next highly loaded items to
Parcel 2, and so forth, based on exploratory factor analyses. Three
parcels for the depression measures and four parcels each for the
loneliness and Internet addiction measures were created. Low
self-control was represented in the model by its subscales as observed variables (Impulsive, Simple task, Risk-seeking, Physical
activity, Self-centered, and Temper). Prior to testing the structural
287
1. Depression
2. Loneliness
3. Low self-control
4. Internet addiction
Mean
SD
.30
.24
.22
2.202
0.681
.25
.32
1.971
0.554
.32
2.561
0.518
1.796
0.563
N = 648.
p < 01.
For the partial mediation model, the t indices indicated a better t to the data than the full mediation model: v2 (113,
N = 648) = 218.427; v2/df = 1.88; CFI = .97; TLI = .95; RMSEA = .037
(90% condence interval for RMSEA = .029.044). The AIC and ECVI
statistics were found to be 332.42 and .485, respectively. The paths
from depression and loneliness to low self-control (.20 and .27,
p < .01 and p < .001, respectively) and low self-control to Internet
addiction (.26, p < .001) were signicant. Additionally, the direct
path from loneliness to Internet addiction (.27, p < .01) was significant, whereas the direct path from depression to Internet addiction (.09, p > .05) was not signicant.
Testing the mediational effect of low self-control between
depression and Internet addiction, where path 4 was set to zero,
indicated that the model ts the data very well and resulted in
the following goodness-of-t statistics: v2(114, N = 648) =
220.136; CFI = .96; TLI = .95; RMSEA = 0.037 (90% condence interval for RMSEA = 0.030.05). The Chi-square difference test (1.70, 1:
p > .001) indicated that there are no differences between these
models. The results show that the path from depression to Internet
addiction should be omitted from the model. The AIC and ECVI statistics were 332.427 and .484, respectively, and supported the
model in which the path is not retained.
Regarding path 5, testing the mediational effect of low control
between loneliness and Internet addiction indicated the following
statistics: v2 (114, N = 648) = 228.268; CFI = .96; SRMR = 0.048;
TLI = .95; RMSEA = 0.038 (90% condence interval for RMSEA =
0.0310.045). The chi-square difference test (9.814, 1: p < . 001)
indicated a difference between models, meaning that the path
from loneliness to Internet addiction is necessary to achieve a better t to the data and should not be omitted. The AIC and ECVI statistics were 340.268 and 0.496, respectively, and supported the
model in which the path is retained. It is clear from the ndings
that the relationship between depression and loneliness is partially
mediated by self-control.
Two alternative structural equation models were also tested to
rule out the possibility that the t of the proposed model was simply the result of a statistical coincidence. The rst alternative model proposed that Internet addiction contributes to low self-control
through the mediator roles of depression and loneliness. Structural
equation model results showed that this model was a poorer t to
the data, as indicated by the following goodness-of-t statistics: v2
(115, N = 648) = 243; TLI = .94; CFI = .96; RMSEA = .04 (90% condence interval for RMSEA = 0.0330.047). The second alternative
model tested the hypothesis that the relationship between low
self-control and Internet addiction was mediated by depression
Table 2
Measurement model: unstandardized and standardized parameter estimates.
Unstandardized parameter estimates
Depression ? Parcel l
Depression ? Parcel 2
Depression ? Parcel 3
Loneliness ? Parcel 1
Loneliness ? Parcel 2
Loneliness ? Parcel 3
Loneliness ? Parcel 4
Self-control ? Impulsive
Self-control ? Simple task
Self-control ? Risk seeking
Self-control ? Physical
Self-control ? Self-centered
Self-control ? Temper
Addiction ? Parcel l
Addiction ? Parcel 2
Addiction ? Parcel 3
Addiction ? Parcel 4
SE
CR
0.924
1.128
1.000
1.216
1.207
1.139
1.000
1.000
0.821
0.611
0.604
1.099
1.308
1.000
0.998
0.850
0.917
0.039
0.041
27.396
23.932
0.078
0.081
0.080
14.281
14.819
15.508
0.107
0.102
0.101
0.121
0.144
7.647
5.999
5.968
9.115
9.071
0.043
0.044
0.047
23.118
19.531
19.378
0.80
0.95
0.84
0.89
0.85
0.83
0.78
0.63
0.51
0.38
0.37
0.66
0.66
0.91
0.91
0.84
0.84
288
4. Discussion
The present study examined the effects of depression and loneliness on Internet addiction and the mediator role of low self-control on the relationship between depression, loneliness and
Internet addiction. Loneliness was signicantly associated with
Internet addiction, whereas depression was not.
These ndings are consistent with previous studies (Caplan,
2010; Gmez-Guadix et al., 2012) suggesting that negative emotions are associated with negative outcomes through low self-control. Previous research has identied the existence of psychological
problems as a risk factor for addiction in general (e.g., Sinha, 2007)
and also for Internet addiction (e.g., Caplan, 2007). Individuals with
psychological problems are inherently at risk for addiction because
of their preference for online interaction more than face-to-face
communication (Caplan, 2003). The risk for addiction among these
individuals is more signicant when they use the Internet to cope
with negative feelings such as sadness, anxiousness, or loneliness
(Muoz-Rivas et al., 2010) because the relief that the Internet
interaction provides from these problems is a potential cause of
addiction (Larose et al., 2003). The expectation of relief that develops over time could function as a reinforcement for continuing online interaction, which may lead to Internet addiction.
Moreover, the ndings of the present study support the cognitive-behavioral model of generalized problematic Internet use.
Caplan (2003) suggested that negative mood states can drive people to use online interactions for mood regulation, a behavior that
is associated with a deciency in self-control (LaRose et al., 2003);
individuals with low self-control are more likely to use the Internet
inappropriately or to become addicted (Caplan, 2010; Davis, 2001;
Kim & Davis, 2009). In other words, negative feelings are positively
associated with low self-control (Sinha, 2009), and using the Internet to escape from these feelings is associated with pathological
use (Davis, 2001).
Although past research has provided support for the links between Internet addiction and both depression and loneliness,
(Caplan, 2007; Gmez-Guadix et al., 2012; Larose et al., 2003;
Odac & Kalkan, 2010), loneliness has been shown to have the
stronger relationship with Internet addiction, indicating that it is
a more important risk factor than depression. In other words,
lonely people are more likely to turn to the Internet for social interaction than people with depression. There is some empirical evidence that can explain this difference. In one recent study, it was
shown that of the two factors, namely loneliness and depression,
only the former was associated with Internet addiction (Casale &
Fioravanti, 2011). Related research demonstrates that the Internet
provides an ideal social environment for interaction with others
(Morahan-Martin & Schumacher, 2000), and people who feel
lonely tend to spend excessive amounts of time on the Internet
(Amichai-Hamburger & Ben-Artzi, 2003). This last nding is also
consistent with the results of Caplans (2002) study, which indicated that among the psychosocial variables (loneliness, depression, shyness, and self-esteem), only loneliness was associated
with problematic Internet use. A possible explanation for the relatively low correlation between depression and Internet addiction is
that depression increases the tendency to withdraw from daily
activities (Beck, 1976).
The nding that low self-control is positively related to Internet
addiction is consistent with current theoretical notions and empirical ndings, which highlight that the majority of problem behaviors are associated with low self-control (e.g., Baumeister et al.,
1994; zdemir et al., 2013). Moreover, this nding is consistent
with previous studies that documented a relationship between
impulsivity and/or low self-control and Internet addiction (Cao,
Su, Liu, & Gao, 2007; LaRose et al., 2003; Meerkerk, van den Eijnden,
Franken, & Garretsen, 2010). Low self-control explains an important
289
References
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Ben-Artzi, E. (2003). Loneliness and Internet use.
Computers in Human Behavior, 19(1), 7180.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
411423.
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (2009). IBM SPSS AMOS 18. Meadville PA: Smallwaters
Corporation.
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In Annals of child development. In R.
Vasta (Ed.). Six theories of child development (Vol. 6, pp. 160). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Bandura, A. (1991). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and selfregulatory mechanisms. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.). Perspectives on motivation:
Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 69164). Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John
(Eds.), Handbook of personality (2nd ed., pp. 154196). New York: Springer
(Reprinted in D. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coherence of personality. New
York: Guilford Press).
Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An overview.
Psychological Inquiry, 7, 115.
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why
people fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bayraktar, F. (2001). The role of Internet use in adolescences development.
Unpublished Master Thesis, Ege University Graduate School of Social Sciences,
_
Izmir.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York:
International Universities Press.
Bentler, P. M., & Dudgeon, P. (1996). Covariance structure analysis: Statistical
practice, theory, directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 563592.
Block, J. J. (2008). Issues for DSM-V: Internet addiction. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 165, 306307.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model t. In K. A.
Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136162).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Canan, F., Ataoglu, A., Ozcetin, A., & Icmeli, C. (2012). The association between
Internet addiction and dissociation among Turkish college students.
Comprehensive Psychiatry, 53, 422426.
Cao, F., Su, L., Liu, T., & Gao, X. (2007). The relationship between impulsivity and
Internet addiction in a sample of Chinese adolescents. European Psychiatry, 22,
466471.
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, 553575.
Caplan, S. E. (2003). Preference for online social interaction: A theory of problematic
internet use and psychosocial well-being. Communication Research, 30(6),
625648.
Caplan, S. E. (2007). Relations among loneliness, social anxiety, and problematic
Internet use. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10, 234242.
Caplan, S. E. (2010). Theory and measurement of generalized problematic internet
use: A two-step approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 10891097.
Casale, S., & Fioravanti, G. (2011). Psychosocial correlates of internet use among
Italian students. International Journal of Psychology, 46, 288298.
Chrismore, S., Betzelberger, E., Bier, L., & Camacho, T. (2011). Twelve-step recovery
in inpatient treatment for Internet addiction. In K. S. Young & C. N. DeAbreu
(Eds.), Internet addiction: A handbook and guide to evaluation and treatment
(pp. 205222). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
_
rnekleminde internet ve bilgisayar
Cmert, I. T., & gel, K. (2009). Istanbul
bagmllgnn yaygnlg ve farkl etkenlerle iliskisi. Trkiye Klinikleri Adli Tp
Dergisi, 6(1), 916.
Davis, R. A. (2001). A cognitive-behavioral model of pathological internet use.
Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 187195.
Demir, A. (1989). U.C.L.A. Yalnzlk leginin geerlikve gvenirligi. Psikoloji Dergisi,
7(23), 1418.
Derogatis, L. R. (1992). BSI: Administration, scoring, and procedures manualII.
Towson, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research.
DeWall, C., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T., & Gailliot, M. (2007). Violence restrained:
Effects of self-regulation and its depletion on aggression. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 43, 6276.
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting
academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939944.
Fischer, D., & Fick, C. (1993). Measuring social desirability: Short forms of the
Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Education and Psychological
Measurement, 53(2), 417423.
Gailliot, M. T., & Baumeister, R. F. (2007). Self-regulation and sexual restraint:
Dispositionally and temporarily poor self-regulatory abilities contribute to
failures at restraining sexual behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
33, 173186.
Gmez-Guadix, M., Villa-George, F. I., & Calvete, E. (2012). Measurement and
analysis of the cognitive-behavioral model of generalized problematic Internet
use among Mexican adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 15811591.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
290
Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J., Jr., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core
empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschis general theory of crime.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 529.
Heatherton, T. F. (2011). Self and identity: Neuroscience of self and self-regulation.
Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 363390.
Hofmann, W., Friese, M., & Strack, F. (2009). Impulse and self-control from a dualsystems perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 162176.
Hu & Bentler (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Coventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1),
155.
Kim, H. K., & Davis, K. E. (2009). Toward a comprehensive theory of problematic
Internet use: Evaluating the role of self-esteem, anxiety, ow, and the self-rated
importance of Internet activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 450500.
Kim, E. J., Namkoong, K., Ku, T., & Kim, S. J. (2008). The relationship between online
game addiction and aggression, self-control and narcissistic personality traits.
European Psychiatry, 23, 212218.
Ko, C. H., Yen, J. Y., Liu, S. C., Huang, C. F., & Yen, C. F. (2009). The associations
between aggressive behaviors and internet addiction and online activities in
adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 44(6), 598605.
LaRose, R., Lin, C. A., & Eastin, M. S. (2003). Unregulated Internet usage: Addiction,
habit, or decient self-regulation? Media Psychology, 5, 225253.
Lin, C. A. (1999). Predicting online service adoption likelihood among potential
subscribers: A motivational approach. Journal of Advertising Research, 39, 7989.
Marlatt, G., Baer, J., Donovan, D., & Kivlahan, D. (1988). Addictive behaviors:
Etiology and treatment. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 223252.
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, 729735.
Meerkerk, G. J., Van den Eijnden, R. J. J. M., & Garretsen, H. F. L. (2006). Predicting
compulsive internet use: Its all about sex! CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9(1),
95103.
Montag, C., Jurkiewicz, M., & Reuter, M. (2010). Low self-directedness is a better
predictor of problematic internet use than high neuroticism. Computers in
Human Behavior, 26, 15311535.
Morahan-Martin, J., & Schumacher, P. (2000). Incidence and correlates of
pathological internet use among college students. Computers in Human
Behavior, 16, 1329.
Muoz-Rivas, M. J., Fernndez, L., & Gmez-Guadix, M. (2010). Analysis of the
indicators of pathological Internet use in Spanish University students. The
Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13(2), 697707.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited
resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126,
247259.
Muraven, M., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1999). Longitudinal improvement of
self-regulation through practice: Building self-control strength through
repeated exercise. Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 446.
Niemz, K., Grifths, M., & Banyard, P. (2005). Prevalence of pathological Internet use
among university students and correlations with self-esteem, the general
health questionnaire (GHQ), and disinhibition. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 8,
562570.
Oaten, M., & Cheng, K. (2006). Improved self-control: The benets of a regular
program of academic study. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 116.
Odac, H., & Kalkan, M. (2010). Problematic Internet use, loneliness and dating
anxiety among young adult university students. Computers and Education, 55,
10911097.
zdemir, Y., Vazsonyi, A. T., & ok, F. (2013). Parenting processes and aggression:
The role of self-control among Turkish adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 36,
6577.
Quinn, P. D., & Fromme, K. (2010). Self-regulation as a protective factor against risky
drinking and sexual behavior. Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 24, 376385.
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA loneliness scale:
Concurrent and discriminate validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39, 472480.
Rutter, M. (2002). Family inuences on behavior and development: Challenges for
the future. In J. McHale & W. Grolnick (Eds.), Retrospect and prospect in the
psychological study of families. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
S
ahin, N. H., & Durak, A. (1994). Ksa semptom envanteri: Trk genleri iin
uyarlanmas. TrkPsikolojiDergisi, 9(31), 4456.
Scherer, K. (1997). College life on-line: Healthy and unhealthy internet use. Journal
of College Student Development, 38, 655665.
Schmeichel, B. J., & Zell, A. (2007). Trait self-control predicts performance on
behavioral tests of self-control. Journal of Personality, 75, 743756.
Shapira, N. A., Goldsmith, T. D., Jr., Keck, P. E., Khosla, U. M., & Mcelroy, S. L. (2000).
Psychiatric features of individuals with problematic Internet use. Journal of
Affective Disorders, 57, 267272.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non experimental
studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7,
422445.
Sinha, R. (2007). The role of stress in addiction relapse. Current Psychiatry Reports, 9,
388395.
Sinha, R. (2009). Modeling stress and drug craving in the laboratory: Implications
for addiction treatment development. Addiction Biology, 14, 8498.
Slater, B. M. D. (2003). Alienation, Aggression, and Sensation Seeking as Predictors
of Adolescent Use of Violent Film, Computer, and Website Content. Journal of
Communication, 53, 105121.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts
good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success.
Journal of Personality, 72, 271322.
Trimmel, M., & Kopke, E. (2000). Motivations to control drinking behavior in
abstainers, moderate, and heavy drinkers. Pharmacology Biochemistry Behavior,
66, 169174.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefcient for maximum likelihood
factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 110.
TurkStat (2011). Youth in Statistics, 2011.Turkish Statistical Institute, Printing
Division, Ankara.
Ward, A., & Mann, T. (2000). Dont mind if I do: Disinhibited eating under cognitive
load. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 753763.
Whang, L. S., Lee, S., & Chang, G. (2003). Internet over users psychological proles:
A behavior sampling analysis on internet addiction. CyberPsychology and
Behavior, 6(2), 143150.
Wiebe, R. P. (2006). Using an expanded measure of self-control to predict
delinquency. Psychology, Crime and Law, 12, 519536.
Wiers, R. W., Bartholow, B. D., van den Wildenberg, E., Thush, C., Engels, R. C. M. E.,
Sher, K. J., et al. (2007). Automatic and controlled processes and the
development of addictive behaviors in adolescents: A review and a model.
Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 86, 263283.
Witkiewitz, K., & Villarroel, N. A. (2009). Dynamic association between negative
affect and alcohol lapses following alcohol treatment. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 77, 633644.
Young, K. S. (1998). Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder.
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 1, 237244.
Young, K. S., & Rogers, R. C. (1998). The relationship between depression and
internet addiction. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 1, 2528.