國家圖書館典藏電子全文

Transcription

1 III

2 801 t phi Crame's Vc BBS ICQ IV

3 WWW ICQ BBS V

4 Internet Using Behaviors, Internet Addiction, and Related Factors among University Students in Taiwan Sen-chi Yu Abstract The purposes of the study were to explore the internet using behaviors, internet addiction and related factors among university students in Taiwan. The study examed the difference of addiction proneness and internet using behaviors of subjects; explored different addiction-pattern clusters; and found out discriminate factors related to personality traits, life events, psychological variables and internet addiction. Moreover, this study developed the structural equation model of personality traits, internet addiction, depression, and anxiety, which served the purpose of illustrating the linear structural relationships among the relevant variables. Subjects of 801 university students were evaluated by the instruments, including Internet Usage Survey, Internet Addiction Scale, Five Factor Model Personality Scale, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), and Anxiety Scale. The data were analyzed VI

5 by t-test, ANOVA, Chi-square Test, Pearson Product-moment Correlation, Phi-coefficient, Crame's Vc Coefficient, Canonical Correlation, Discriminate Analysis, Cluster Analysis, and Structural Equation Modeling. The main finding were as follows: 1. The subjects used internet average minutes per day. The most popular internet using behaviors were WWW, BBS, , ICQ, and internet games. 2. There was significant addiction proneness among different grades, colleges, lodging conditions, and broad-band usages. 3. Internet addicted subjects spent more time on internet. Besides, they had poorer grades, smaller social network, and lager virtual social network. 4. Internet addicted subjects used significantly more time in WWW, Chat rooms, ICQ, BBS, internet games, and internet pornography. But there were no significant differences in FTP, on-line shopping, and on-line gambling. 5. Internet addicted subjects had higher scores of depression and anxiety than those of general users. 6. Concerning Five-Factor Model Personality Traits, internet addicted subjects had higher scores of Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness; and lower scores of Conscientiousness as well; but no significant differences in Agreeableness. 7. Personality traits, depression, and anxiety could significantly VII

6 distinguish internet addicted and non-addicted subjects. 8. According to Cluster Analysis, internet addicted subjects could divide to four clusters, including internet pornography and video game addiction proneness, on-line shopping addiction proneness, virtual friendship dependence addiction proneness, and compulsive information seeking addiction proneness. 9. There was significant correlation between internet addiction and internet using behaviors. 10. The theoretical model constructed in the study could explain the relationship among main variables tested by LISREL. Finally, some suggestions for teachers, schools, students and further study were made according to the findings. Key Words: Internet Addiction, Internet Applications, Personality Traits, Depression, Anxiety, Structural Equation Modeling. VIII

7 Internet 1969 Advanced Research Project Agency Network, ARPA Net 1990 WWW Berners-Lee World Wide Web Project Netscape Andressen 1993 Mosaic 1994 Capron, 1999; Greenfield, Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society, SIQSS, % IX

8 FIND e TANet New Economics 1999 O'Brien, home page dot com Wagner 1995 X

9 American Psychological Association, APA, 2000 addictive behaviors Young, 1998 SIQSS, 2000 Anderson, 1999 Young, 1999 Greenfield % 384,000 Dr. Young Netaddiction.com Young, 1996; 1998 Dr. Young Dr. Orzack Potera, 1998 Yang & Dori, 2000 ~aholic, addiction web, Internet Webaholic, XI

10 Netaholic Internet Addiction Disorder, IAD On-line Addiction, Internet Addiction, Netaddiction Pathological Internet Use, PIU Compulsive Internet Use Internet Dependence Anderson, 1999; Goldberg, 1996; Young, Anderson, % 229 6% 400 Anderson, accessibility XII

11 Anderson, 1999 Kandall, disease entity etilogy Allport 1999 Five Factor Model, FFM wide array Piedmont, 1998 Peele 1998 simultaneously sequentially alternately XIII

12 Chein, Gerard, Lee, & Rosenfeld 1964 learned incompetence Spotts & Shontz 1982 Jungian personality types Lang 1983 Peele, 1998 Matthews & Deary, 1998; Piedmont, 1998 Piedmont, 1998 Matthews & Deary, % 5% 1/6 Castleman, 2000 XIV

13 2001 Yang & Dori, 2000; Young, 1997; Young & Rodgers, 1998 Young 1997 Young & Rodgers 1998 Zung Depression Scale, ZDI, Beck Depression Scale, BDI Young, Pistnew, O'Mara, & Buchanan % Kraut, Lundmark, Patterson, Kiesler, Mukopadhyay, & Scherlis 1998 XV

14 2000 Young & Rodgers 1998 BDI ã = -.015, p <.05 ã =.001 ~.008 latent independent variables multicollinerity 1999; Shaver & Brennan, 1991 Leary, 1991 Malondy & Kranz, 1991 XVI

15 self-medication Young et al % Leary, 1991 social anxiety prospect Leary & Kowalski, 1995 shyness stage fright heterosexual anxiety dating anxiety embarrassment audience anxiety social phobia Edelmann, 1992 Olson % Loytsker & Alello 1997 XVII

16 Young & Rodgers Young 1996 Chat Rooms Newsgroups Greenfield % Morahan-Martin & Schumacher 1997 MUD XVIII

17 FIND 2000 ICQ, I-Seek-You 3-G Mobile Phone Find 2000 Discriminate Analysis King 1996 Cluster Analysis Canonical XIX

18 Analysis Structural Equation Modeling, SEM 384, XX

19 XXI

20 ( ) ( XXII

21 ) XXIII

22 University Students Personality Traits Five Factor Model, FFM Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Internet Use www chat room / ICQ BBS ftp XXIV

23 e-commerce Internet Addiction Depression 1992 Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, CES-D Anxiety 1992 XXV

24 XXVI

25 XXVII

26 WWW /ICQ 4. BBS N 5. E 6. O 7. A 8. C XXVIII

27 % 43.4% % % % % / % % % / % % % 3

28 % % % % % % % % 4

29 / Kraut et al., 1998 BBS DSM-IV, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition etiology prognosis 1999 diagnostic criteria 5

30 DSM-IV Anderson 1999 Davis 1999 Greenfield 1999; 2000 Griffiths 1998 Suler 1996; 1998 Young 1996, 1997, 1999 Davis Likert %-10% Anderson % 10% salience escape numbing high

31 tolerance withdrawal symptoms Compulsive Internet Use context Denial Virtual Friendship Dependence Davis Young 1996 Suler 1996;

32 CR, Critical Ratio 27% t t p >.05 Pearson á =

33 *** *** *** *** 2.771*** *** *** *** 3.746*** *** *** *** 4.669*** *** *** *** 5.446*** *** *** *** 6.813*** *** *** *** 7.615*** *** *** *** 8.495*** *** *** *** 9.704*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** p <.001. Principal Component Analysis Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.30 9

34 Tolerance and Compulsive Behavior Withdrawal Symptom and Related Problems Virtual Relationship Dependence

35 (%) (%) Cronbach á

36 Goldberg 2000 International Personality Item Pool: A Scientific Collaboratory for the Development of Advanced Measures of Personality and Other Individual Difference, IPIP 1,412 IPIP Preliminary Scale Measuring the NEO 30 Constructs NEO-PI Likert 90 CR, Critical Ratio 1.96 p >

37 3-3-3 Pearson.30 á =

38 *** *** *** *** 2.291*** 2.174* *** *** 3.468*** *** *** *** 4.636*** 8.794*** *** 7.856*** 5.648*** *** *** *** 6.568** 9.612*** *** 7.674*** 7.654*** *** *** *** 8.686*** *** *** *** 9.621*** *** *** *** *** 6.716*** *** 5.981*** *** *** *** 7.704*** ** 6.456*** *** 6.417*** *** 9.979*** *** *** *** 7.195*** *** *** *** *** *** 8.134*** *** *** *** 9.209*** *** *** *** 9.398*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 6.839*** *** 8.082*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 7.055*** *** *** *** 4.101*** *** 6.678*** *** *** p <

39 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 9.633*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 5.174*** *** *** *** 5.336*** *** *** *** 9.417*** *** *** * p <.05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001. Neuroticism Extraversion and Low-Modesty Openness and Activity Conscientiousness Agreeableness.30 15

40

41

42 (%) (%) Cronbach á Randoff 18

43 Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression, CES-D Shaver & Brennan, Likert Hann, Winter, & Jacobsen, 1999; Radloff, 1977 Shaver & Brennan, 1991 depressogenic symptoms Shaver & Brennan, 1991 CR, 19

44 Critical Ratio 1.96 p > *** *** *** *** 2.406*** *** *** 2.177* 3.637*** *** *** 9.056*** 4.314*** 2.099* *** *** 5.526*** *** *** 9.992*** 6.809*** *** *** 2.025* 7.688*** *** *** *** 8.495*** 2.022*** *** *** 9.622*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *p<.05. *** p <.001. Pearson.30 =

45 .30 Hamilton Raskin 0.44~ SDS 0.90 Radloff Marlowe-Crowne Depressive Emotion Sadness Poor Interpersonal Relationship Negative Self-concept

46 Cronbach á Cronbach á

47 Shaver & Brennan,1991 Leary 1991 SAD Jerabek 2000 Anxiety Inventory 12 Likert CR, Critical Ratio 1.96 p >

48 ( ) Pearson.30 á = *** 7.098*** 7.529*** 3.741*** 2.809*** 5.667*** 8.746*** 5.067*** 3.853*** 5.601*** 9.806*** 4.526*** 4.758*** 5.916*** *** 3.920*** 5.802*** 6.618*** *** 4.527*** 6.852*** 6.081*** *** 4.485*** *** p <.001. ( ).30 24

49 Anxious Emotion Social Anxiety (%) (%)

50 Cronbach á

51 1 Y1 Y X1 ç 1 ä1 X Y3 3 2 X ã Y4 Y5 X4 2 Y ä 4 â 32 X Y7 7 Y

52 Model Specification Jöreskong & Sörborm 1993 LISREL Linear Structural Relation LISREL ã ( 1, 1 ) Matthews & Deary 1998 Piedmont 1998 Peele 1998 â ( 2, 1 ) Kraut et al Young 1997 & Rodgers 1998 â( 3, 2 ) Edelmann 1992 Leary 1991 Shaver & Brennan 1991 LISREL stability index recursive model â ( 3, 1 ) Young et al Suler 1998; 1999 ã 1, 2 ã 1, 3 Matthews & Deary 1998 McCosta & Coata 1991 Piedmont 1998 indicator variables 1 X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 28

53 29 1 Y1 Y2 Y3 2 Y4 Y5 Y6 3 Y7 Y8 X X δ ξ χ + Λ [ ] + = δ δ δ δ δ ξ λ λ λ λ λ χ χ χ χ χ Y η y Λ

54 30 + = Υ Υ Υ Υ Υ Υ Υ Υ ε ε ε ε ε ε ε ε λ λ λ λ λ λ λ λ Ë X structrual coefficient matrix ËY ç 1 = ã 11 î 1 + æ 1 ç 2 = ã 21 æ 1 + â 21 ç 1 + æ 2 ç 3 = ã 31 î 1+ â 31 ç 1 + â 32 ç 2 + æ η η η = γ γ γ [ ] ζ ζ ζ η η η β β β ξ Model Identification 1998 Mueller, 1996 Mueller 1996

55 reference variable LX 1,1 LY 1,1 LY 4,2 LY 7,3 1 0 P X Y C NX NY NX NY 1 / 2 NX X NY Y 32 NX NY NX NY 1 / / = 59 Mueller Kelloway 1998 Mueller 1996 Jöreskong & Sörborm 1993 overall model fit of internal structural 31

56 1995; Mueller, t LISREL Jöreskong, & Sörborm 1993 Kelloway Jöreskong & Sörborm 1981; 1993 Goodness-of-Fit Index, GFI 0.9 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index, AGFI Bentler & Bonett Normed Fit Index, NFI 32

57 0.9 NFI Comparative Fit Index, CFI Bollen 1989 Incremental Fit Index, IFI Relative Fit Index, RFI Akaike Information Index, AIC Saturated Model Independence Model AIC

58 1 Y1 å 1 ç1 å 2 Y2 ä1 X1 ã â21 X2 Y3 å 3 3 X1 21 Y4 å å 5 Y

59 Jöreskong & Sörborm 1993 LISREL Linear Structural Relation LISREL Gamma 1, 1 Kraut et al Young 1997 Young & Rodgers 1998 â 2, 1 Edelmann 1992 Leary 1991 Shaver & Brennan 1991 LISREL ã (2, 1) Young et al Suler 1998; 1 X1 X2 X3 1 Y1 Y2 Y3 2 Y4 Y5 35

60 36 X X δ ξ χ + Λ x x x = λ λ λ 1 ξ δ δ δ Y η y Λ Υ Υ Υ Υ Υ = λ λ λ λ λ 1 η ε ε ε ε ε Ë X ËY

61 ç 1 = ã 11 î 1 + æ 1 ç 2 = ã 21 æ 1 + â 21 ç 1 + æ 2 η 1 η 2 γ 11 = γ ξ 1 + β 21 0 η η 1 2 ζ 1 + ζ Mueller, 1996 Mueller 1996 reference variable LX 1,1 LY 1,1 LY 4,2 1 indicator variable 0 P X Y C C NX NY NX NY 1 / 2 NX X NY Y 19 NX NY NX NY 1 / /

62

63 , SPSS 8.01 LISREL

64 SPSS 8.01 for Windows LISREL 8.30 Factor Analysis Cronbach descriptive statistics central tendency dispersion tendency t t-test One-Way ANOVA t 40

65 2 test / PHI / Crame s Vc Coefficient / Crame s Vc Coefficient 2 / Crame s V Pearson Product-Moment Correlation, ã Cluster Analysis Canonical Correlation Discriminate Analysis Linear Structural Relation, LISREL LISREL GFI AGFI NFI NNFI CFI 41

66

67 4-1-1 Q1 Q , / , / / % 43

68 51.5% 1, % 46.0% 85.8% 14.8% 48.5% 14.8% 61.2% 14.2% % % FIND

69 % 4.31 hypertext

70 / Q1 Q BBS WWW ICQ ftp/mp

71 BBS ICQ ftp /MP WWW 25% BBS 25% 13% ICQ 9% 9% WWW 50.1% 29.5% 7.4% ICQ 3.6% BBS 3.6% 1.1% 47

72 2000 BBS ICQ WWW Anderson, 1999 BBS ICQ BBS ICQ BBS WWW ICQ % 30.7% ADSL Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line 13.5% 10.3% 13.5% ADSL 10.3% Cable Modem 1.9% ISDN Integrated Services Digital Network 1.2% 10.3% 46.1% 17.3% 12.9% ADSL 13.0% Cable 48

73 Modem 8.3% ISDN 5.9% 4.1% ADSL MP3 57.3% 54.2% 41.4% 20.7% 11.8% 93.3% 40.0% 38.1% 32.7% 18.8% 18.7% 49

74 53.4% 33.1% 12.7% 11.5% 11.1% % 10.1% 10.2% 8.0% 7.3% 5.3% ICQ 1/7 14.8% 2.5% 50

75 Kandall 1998 WWW BBS ICQ BBS FTP MP3 MP3 1/10 1/3 ADSL 51

76 p <.01 2 X 2 Phi 1999; Freund & Simon, p < χ 14.51*** ***p<

77 Cramer's V 1999; Freund & Simon, p < χ 31.71*** ***p < p < p <

78 χ 49.66*** ***p< χ.475 ISDN ADSL.255 p <

79 χ 14.08*** ***p< ADSL Cable Modem ISDN χ 32.57*** ***p<.001. Cramer's V 55% : 45%

80 % 43.4% 2000; Anderson, 1999 Anderson % % Anderson, 1999 Anderson % Greenfield 2000 Greenfield NetValue

81 ISDN ADSL t

82 4-2-7 t *** *** *** ** *** ** p <.01. *** p <

83 / Young 1996 Grohol 1999 Young % Grohol

84 Anderson 1999 Young 1996 Kraut et al %

85 4-2-8 BBS t ** ** /mp * ICQ *** * WWW **

86 * p<.05. ** p<. 01. *** p <.001. WWW ICQ BBS

87 ICQ BBS Anderson 1999 Suler 1998 Young 1996 Kandall 1998 Suler 1998 Young 1997 Anderson, 1999; Suler, 1999; Young,

88 Greenfield, 2000; Morahan-Martin & Schumacher, 1997; Suler,1998; Young, 1996 Cooper 1998 Greenfield 2000 Suler 1998; 1999 Young 1997 post 64

89 sex addiction Morahan-Martin & Schumacher 1997 Grohol % WWW Young 1996 Young WWW WWW WWW WWW WWW

90 4-2-9 t ** ** ** p<

91 t *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** * *** * 67

92 t * *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** * p <.05. *** p <.010. *** p <

93 Piedmont,

94 Piedmont, 1998 WWW 70

95

96

97 4-3-1 Fisher's Wilks' ë F ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *** **p<.01. *** p < Wilk's Lambda 73

98 1998 Johnson & Wichern, Fisher Johnson & Wichern, p < % 90.3% 74

99 % 2.0% % 20.6% 91.1% % 2.6% % 17.6% 90.3% 75

100 Kraut et al Suler 1999 Young 1998 Suler 1999 Piedmont 1998 Piedmont 76

101 King 1996 subtype K K-means Method

102 WWW BBS CHAT FTP/MP ICQ

103 Young 1999 Cybersex Addiction 8000 Young 1999 Net Compulsion Dvais 1999 ICQ Young 1999 Cyber-relationship Addiction Davis 1999 BBS King

104 Rheingold 1996 Suler 1998; 1999 Young 1996; 1997 BBS WWW BBS MP3 Young 1999 Information Overload Internet Addiction 1998 Davis 1999 Young

105 Greenfield, 2000; Young, 1996 King

106 X ICQ BBS Y ***.307***.171* *p<.05. *** p < p < X 82

107 Y 23.81% X Y 1988 WWW ICQ ICQ ICQ WWW BBS WWW BBS 83

108 WWW ICQ ICQ BBS WWW BBS WWW BBS WWW ICQ ICQ BBS King 1996 Young 1999 ICQ ICQ 84

109 WWW BBS WWW BBS WWW BBS WWW BBS *** ***.583*** 1.00 *** p < Kraut et al Young 1997 Young & Rodgers 1998 Young

110 *** *** *** *** -.265***.261***.446*** *** ***.092*.203*** 1.00 * p <.05. ***p < Piedmont(1998) 86

111 LISREL Maximum Likelihood, ML multivariate normality distribution Bollen, 1989 ; Jöreskong & Sörborm, 1989 SPSS Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk p >.01 LISREL LISREL Completely Standardized 87

112 Solution X1 Y Y2 ç ä Y X2 2 X3 3 X4.023 Y Y Y6 ä X Y Y

113 p <.001 Goodness of Fit Index, GFI Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index, AGFI Normed Fit Index, NFI Non- Normed Fit Index, NNFI Comparative Fit Index, CFI Incremental Fit Index, IFI Relative Fit Index, RFI AIC Independence AIC Saturated AIC Parsimony Normed Fit Index, PNFI

114 4-6-1 Goodness of Fit Statistics Degrees of Freedom = 59 Minimum Fit Function Chi-Square = (P = 0.0) Chi-Square for Independence Model with 78 Degrees of Freedom = Independence AIC = Model AIC = Saturated AIC = Independence CAIC = Model CAIC = Saturated CAIC = Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) = Parsimony Goodness of Fit Index (PGFI) = Normed Fit Index (NFI) = Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) = Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI) = Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = Incremental Fit Index (IFI) = Relative Fit Index (RFI) = R-square ; Mueller,

115 ~.0006 Model modification Mueller 1996 diagnostic statictics Kelloway 1998 Jöreskong & Sörborm 1993 Mueller

116 (model trimming) Pedhazur 1982 theory trimming backward elimination PNFI AIC ë x LISREL Modification Index free parameter Jöreskong & Sörborm, 1993 Kelloway

117 Bagozzi & Yi Jöreskong & Sörborm 1993 LISREL Type I error Kelloway, Piedmont 1998 χ. 05 (1 ) 93

118 (X1) (X2) (X3) ( X1 X2 X2 X3 X1 X3 ) ( non-positive defin ite ) Wothke

119 p <.001 Jöreskong & Sörborm χ Parsimony Principle Mueller, 1996 GFI AGFI NFI NNFI 95

120 0.927 CFI IFI RFI LISREL Goodness of Fit Statistics Degrees of Freedom = 29 Minimum Fit Function Chi-Square = (P = 0.0) Normal Theory Weighted Least Squares Chi-Square = (P = 0.0) Estimated Non-centrality Parameter (NCP) = Percent Confidence Interval for NCP = ( ; ) Minimum Fit Function Value = Population Discrepancy Function Value (F0) = Percent Confidence Interval for F0 = (0.164 ; 0.299) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = Percent Confidence Interval for RMSEA = ( ; 0.102) P-Value for Test of Close Fit (RMSEA < 0.05) = Chi-Square for Independence Model with 45 Degrees of Freedom = Independence AIC = Model AIC = Saturated AIC = Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) = Parsimony Goodness of Fit Index (PGFI) = Normed Fit Index (NFI) = Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) = Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI) = Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = Incremental Fit Index (IFI) = Relative Fit Index (RFI) = Critical N (CN) =

121 AIC Independence AIC Saturated AIC PNFI R-square 0.5 ( 1995; Mueller, 1996)

122 y y y y y y y y x x

123 Direct Effect, DE Beta Gamma LISREL Completely Standardized Solution p < p < p >.01 99

124 Y Y2.264 ç Y3.337 X1 Y Y5.511 X Y Y Y

125 ***.578***.553***.633*** *.0077*.546***.578***.620***.710***.218***.645***.123*.218***.112***.331*** ***.330***.975***.123*.330*** ***.580*** ***.580*** *p <.05. ***p< p <

126 LISREL 102

127 Piedmont 1998 Mathew & Deary 1998 Piedmont 1998 Costa & McCrae 1991 Matthews 1990 Furnham Costa & McCrae

128 Piedmont 1998 Suler 1998 Maslow competence post Peele

129 Argyle & Lu 1990 Eysenck & Eysenck 1985 Matthews & Deary 1998 Mohamed 1996 Eysenck & Eysenck 1985 Matthews, Mohamed & Lochire 1994 Matthews & Deary 1998 tense arousal Kraut et al Young 1997 & Rodgers 1998 Young et al Kraut et al Young 1997 Young 105

130 & Rodgers 1998 Young et al % Davis 1999 Young & Rodgers 1998 heterogeneous Shaver & Brerran,

131 Suler,1998; Young, 1996 weak tie strong tie Kraut et al.,

132 Young & Rodgers, NCP F0 RMESA Parsimony Normed Fix Index, PNFI AIC 26 p <

133 SPSS Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk ( p >.01) LISREL p 109

134 <.001 GFI AGFI NFI NNFI CFI IFI RFI RMESA 0.05 LISREL 415 AIC Independence AIC Saturated AIC PNFI

135 4-7-1 Goodness of Fit Statistics Degrees of Freedom = 17 Minimum Fit Function Chi-Square = (P = 0.000) Normal Theory Weighted Least Squares Chi-Square = (P = ) Minimum Fit Function Value = Population Discrepancy Function Value (F0) = Percent Confidence Interval for F0 = ( ; ) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = Percent Confidence Interval for RMSEA = ( ; ) P-Value for Test of Close Fit (RMSEA < 0.05) = Chi-Square for Independence Model with 28 Degrees of Freedom = Independence AIC = Model AIC = Saturated AIC = Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) = Parsimony Goodness of Fit Index (PGFI) = Normed Fit Index (NFI) = Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) = Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI) = Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = Incremental Fit Index (IFI) = Relative Fit Index (RFI) = Critical N (CN) = R-square 111

136 ; Mueller, ã

137 4-7-3 t t y y y y y x x x LISREL Completely Standardized Solution

138 0.012 p < Y1.232 ç1.724 Y X Y3.447 X X1.823 Y Y p 114

139 < ***.501*** ***.922*** ***.462*** ***.501***.184***.473***.369***.922*** ***p< p <.01 LISREL 115

140 Young

141 Suler 1998 Loytsker & Alello 1997 Young & Rodgers 1997 Griffiths 1998 King 1996 fantasy proneness Wesson 30% King,

142 118

143 t 119

144 % BBS ICQ ftp /MP % 30.7% ADSL 13.5% 10.3% 10.3% ISDN 1.9% 1.2% 57.3% 54.2% 41.4% 20.7% 11.8% 93.3% 40.0% 38.1%

145 32.7% 18.8% 18.7% 53.4% 33.1% 12.7% 11.5% 11.1% 11.0% 10.8% 10.1% 10.2% 8.0% 7.3% 5.3% ISDN ADSL 121

146 / WWW ICQ BBS 122

147 123

148 Young 1999 Young 1999 Dvais 1999 ICQ BBS 124

149 WWW ICQ ICQ BBS WWW BBS WWW BBS 125

150 126

151 24 127

152 abstinence model relapse King 1996 base line Young, 1999 Peele 1998 ritual Young

153 Young

154 WWW BBS ICQ King 1996 Greenfield, 2000; Young, 1996 ICQ WWW 130

155 Kraut et al Suler 1999 Davis 1999 Young

156 ( ) ( ) Kelloway, 1998 Marsh, Balla, & MacDonald Bentler ,

157 ( ) Kraut et al ( ) prognosis 133

158 FIND 2000 On-line Available: On-line Available: : (1999) - [On-line]. Available: report.ice.ntnu.edu.tw/nscreport/ n On-line Available: scripts/chinatimes

159 1997 : (1994) SPSS For Windows - : (1998) - On-line Available: com.tw/ scripts/chinatimes (1999) - 1/2 [On-line] Available: edu.tw/ nscreport/ n (1995) (1998) SPSS SAS BMDP : 1988 : 1999 : :

160 ,63, , On-line Available: archive/2000/7/25/infotech/ htm On-line Available : (1998) % e On-line Available: news/papers/online/tech/c htm : (1999) On-line Available: itst.ios.sinica.edu.tw/seminar.htm 136

161 American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition). Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association. American Psychological Association Internet can be addicting as alcohol, drug and gambling says new research. APA Public Communications. On-line. Available: apa.org/ releases/internet.html. Anderson, K. E Internet use among college student: An exploratory study. On-line. Available: ~anderk4/research.html Argyle, M. & Lu, L. (1990). The happiness of extraverts. Personality and individual difference, 11, Bagozzi, R. P.& Yi, Y.(1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academic of Marketing Science, 16, Bentler, P. M.(1993). EQS: Structural Equation Program Manual. LA: BMDP Statistical Software. Bollen, K. A.(1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Boeree, (1998). Personality theories. On-line. Available: Brenner, V. (1997). Psychology of computer use: XLVII. Parameters of Internetuse,abuse and addiction: The first 90 days of the Internet 137

162 usage survey. Psychological Reports, Vol 80, Capron, H. L.(1999). Computers: Tools for an information age. NEW YORK: Addison-Wesley. Castleman, M Types of depression. On-line. Available: Chein, I., Gerard, D. L., Lee, R. S., & Rosenfeld, E. (1964). The road to H. New York: Basic Books. Cooper, A. (1998). Sexuality and the Internet: Surfing into the new millennium. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 1, 2, Cooper. A., Scherer, C. R., Boies, S. C. & Gordon, B. L (1999). Sexuality on the Internet: From Sexual Exploration to Pathological Expression. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. On-line. Available : pro html#c38 /pro/ Costa, P. T.& McCrae, R. P.(1985). The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resource. Costa, P. T.& McCrae, R. P.(1992). NEO-PIR: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resource. Costa, P. T.& McCrae, R. P.(2000).Trait personality and the revival of personality and culture studies. The American behavior scientist, 44, pp Creed, F Assessing depression in the context of physical illness. In Robertson, M. M. & Katona, C. L. E. Eds., Depression and physical illness pp New York: John Wiley & sons. 138

163 Davis, R.A., (1999). A cognitive-behavioral model for pathological Internet use (PIU). [On-line]. Available : victoriapoint.com/ PIU.htm Edelmann, R. J. (1992). Anxiety theory, research and clinical intervention in clinical and health psychology. London: John Wiley & Sons. Egger, O. (1996). Internet Behavior and Addiction. [On-line]. Available Eysenck, S.BG. & Eysenck, H, J. ( 1985 ).A revised version of psychoticism. Personality and individual difference, 16, Furnham, A.(1992).Personality at work. London: Routledge. Freud, J.E. & Simon, G. A Modern elementary statistics. New York: Prentice-Hall. Goldberg, I. (1996). Internet addiction disorder. [On-line].Available internet_addiction_criteria.htm Goldberg, L. R Language and individual difference : The search in universals in personality lexicons. In L.Wheeler (Ed.) Review of personality and social psychology (pp ). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Goldberg, L. R The development of five-factor domain scale from the IPIP Item Pool. In P. E. Shrout & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Personality research, methods, and theory: A Festschrift honoring Donald W. Fiske (pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 139

164 Greenfield, D. N Virtual addiction. New York: New Harbinger Publication. Greenfield, D. N The Net effect: Internet Addiction and Compulsive Internet Use. On-line Available: _addictin. com Griffiths, M. (1998). Internet addiction: Does it really exist? In J. Gackenbach (ed.), Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal implications, pp New York: Academic Press. Grohol, J. M Internet addiction guide. On-line. Available: Hann, D., Winter, K., & Jacobsen, P Measurement of depressive symptoms in cancer patient. Journal of Psychosomatic Research,46, Jaffe, J.H. (1980). Drug addiction and drug abuse. In Goodman and Gilman's (Eds). The pharmacological basis of therapeutics,. New York: Macmillan Jerabek, I Anxiety Inventory. On-line. Available: Johnson, R.A. & Wichern, D.W. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics analysis. NEW YORK: Prentice Hall. Jöreskong, K.G.& Sörborm, D. (1989). LISERAL 7: Analysis of linear structural Relationships by maximum likelihood and least square methods. 140

165 Jöreskong, K.G.& Sörborm, D. (1993). LISERAL VI: Analysis of linear structural Relationships by maximum likelihood and least square methods. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software,Inc. Kandell, J. J. (1998). Internet addiction on campus: The vulnerability of college students. CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol 1(1), Kelloway, E.K.(1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling. NEW YORK: Sage. King, A. S. (1996). Is the Internet Addictive, or Are Addicts Using the Internet? [On-line]. Available /~astorm /iad.html Kraut, R., Lundmark, V., Patterson, M., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W Internet Paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychology well-being. American Psychologist, 53(9), Lang, A.R. (1983). Addictive personality: A viable construct? In P.K. Levison, D.R. Gerstein, and D.R. Maloff. Lexington( Eds). Commonalities in substance abuse and habitual behavior, MA: Lexington. Larsen, R.J. & Ketelaar, T.(1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional state. Journal of personality and social psychology, 61, Leary, M. R. & Kowalski, R.M. (1995). Social anxiety. New York: Guilford Press. Leary, M. R.,(1991).Social anxiety, shyness, and related constructs. In 141

166 Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. Eds., Measurement of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes pp ca: Academic Press. Lobo, A. & Campos, R Managing the psychiatry primary care interface. In Robertson, M. M. & Katona, C. L. E. Eds., Depression and physical illness pp new York: John Wiley & sons. Loytsker, J., & Aiello, J.R. (1997). Internet addiction and its personality correlates. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, DC, April 11, 1997 Maloney, M. & Kranz, R. (1991). Straight talk about anxiety and depression. New York: Oxford. Marsh, H.W., Balla, J. R., & MacDonald, R. P.(1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 107, Matthews, G. & Deary, I, J.( 1998). Personality traits. London: Cambridge University Press. Mcauliffe,W.E.& Gorden, R.A.(1980). Reinforcement and the combination of effect. DHHS Publication No. ADM Mohamed, A.A.R.(1996). Stress press in British and overseas students. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, University of Dandee. Morahan-Martin, J.M. & Schumacher, P.(1997). Incidence and correlations of pathological internet use. Poster presented at the 105th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association 142

167 August 15, Chicago, IL Mueller, R. O Basic principles of structural equation modeling: An intorductin to LISREL and EQS. New York: Springer. NetValue(2001). Asia streaming report. [On-line]. Available O Brien, J.A Management information system. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill. Olson, M. V. (2001). How Internet impacts the lives and users. On-line. Available: survey/impacts.htm Peele, S. (1998). The meaning of addiction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pedhazur, E. J.(1982). Multiple Regression in behavior research: Explanation and prediction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Pervin, L. A.(1993). Personality : Theory and research.. New York : Wiley. Piedmont, R. L The revised NEO personality inventory. New York: Plenum Press. Potera, C.(1998). Trapped in the web. Psychology today, 31, Radloff, L. S The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological measurement,1, Rheingold, H. (1996). A Slice of Life in My Virtual Community. [On-line]. Available: ind ex.html. Sharer, P. R., & Brennan, K. A Measure of Depression and 143

168 Loneliness. In Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. Eds., Measurement of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes pp ca: Academic Press. Similarities & Differences between Compulsive & Substance Abuse On-line. Available: gambling/sim_and_dif.htm SIQSS Internet and society. On-line Available: m Spotts, J.V., and Shontz, E.C.( 1982). Ego development, dragon fights, and chronic drug abusers. International Journal of the Addictions 17: Suler, J Why is this thing eating my life? On-line. Available: Suler, J Adolescents in Cyberspace. On-line. Available: Suler, J. (1999). To get what you need: healthy and pathological Internet use. [On-line].Available ~suler/ psycyber/internetuse.html Turkle, S. (1995). Life behind the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster. Wagner, J. O Using the internet in vocational education. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED

169 Waldorf, D Natural recovery from opiate addiction: Some social-psychological processes of untreated recovery. Journal of Drug Issues 13, Watson, D. & Clark, L. A. ( 1992). On traits and temperament. Journal of personality, 60, White, H.R., Bates, M.E.& Johnson, V.(1990). Social reinforcement and alcohol comsumption. New York: Gardner Press. Widiger, T. A., Trull, T. J., Clarkin, J. F., Sanderson, C., & Costa, Jr. P. T A description of the DSM-III-R and DSM- IV Personality Disorder with the Five-Factor Model of personality. In Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. Eds., Personality Disorders and the Five-Factor Model of Personality pp washington: American Psychological Association. Wiebe, D. J. & Smith, T. W.(1997). Personality and health. New York: Academic Press. Worhke, W Nonpositive definite matrices in structural modeling. In K, A. Bollen & J. Scott Long Eds. Testing structural equation models. California: Sage. Wurmser, L.(1974). Psychoanalytic consideration of the etiology of compulsive drug use. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 22, Yang, & Dori, J. (2000). Craving your next Web fix. U.S. News & World Report,128 (2), p.41. York, A., & Hill, P Depression and physical illness in children 145

170 and adolescence. In Robertson, M. M. & Katona, C. L. E. Eds., Depression and physical illness pp new York: John Wiley & sons. Young, K. S. (1996). Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder. Paper presented at the 104th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, August 11, Toronto, Canada. Young, K. S. (1997). What makes the Internet addictive: Potential explanations for pathological Internet use. [On-line] Av ailable netaddiction.com/ addictive.html. Young, K. S. (1998). Internet addiction: Personality Traits associated with its development. [On-line]. Available netaddiction.com/personality_correlates.htm Young, K. S., Pistner, M., O Mara, J., & Buchanan, J.(1999) Cyber-Disorders: The Mental Health Concern for the New Millennium. [On-line] Available article\cyberdisorders.htm Young, K. S. & Rodgers, R. (1997). The relationship between depression using the BDI and pathological Internet use. Poster presented at the 105th annual meeting of t C o m p u l s i v e I n t e r n e t U s e. 0 n - l i n IL. Young, K. S. & Rodgers, R. C.(1998). The Relationship Between Depression and Internet Addiction. [On-line] Available 146