- Teks
- Sejarah
Mobile phones (a.k.a., cellular tel
Mobile phones (a.k.a., cellular telephones) have many perceived
benefits, including increased accessibility and social
connection, efficiency in the workplace, convenience, and
improved safety. However, in recent years, there has been
increasing public interest in the negative consequences of
mobile phone use. In one Saudi Arabian study, 44.4% of participants
related common health complaints such as headache,
trouble concentrating, memory loss, hearing loss, and
fatigue to their mobile phone use [1]. Another Saudi Arabian
study suggested that 3%-4% of mobile phone users exhibit
problems such as tension, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and
dizziness related to their mobile phone use, and over 20%
complain of headaches [2]. Accidents caused by distracted
driving [3, 4] have been highlighted as a public health concern.
In addition, anecdotal observation and media reports
suggest that the number of self-professed “cell phone addicts”
and compulsive users of “crack-berries” and other smartphones
has increased as mobile phones have become ubiquitous.
Public recognition of this phenomenon is reflected in
the many websites and blogs addressing the issue, as well as
numerous articles in the popular press describing cell phone
addiction. Though stories have appeared in publications such
as the New York Times [5], the Los Angeles Times [6], and
http://www.forbes.com/ [7] for many years, the academic literature
surrounding problematic mobile phone use remains
fairly limited, even when compared to other “behavioral
addictions” such as pathological gambling, problematic internet
use, and problem video gaming [8–10].
While “addiction” is a term commonly used and arguably
overused in society, the conceptualization of addiction
remains controversial even among researchers and clinicians
who specialize in substance use disorders and addictive
behaviors. Indeed, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition—Text Revision [DSM-IVTR]
[11] did not include a condition called “addiction.” Rather,
it described substance abuse and substance dependence as
distinct psychiatric disorders, and failed to include discussion
of addictive behaviors that do not involve substance use.
Furthermore, the recently released Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) describes
“substance use disorders” using the following 11 criteria: (1)
use in larger quantities or over longer amounts of time than
2 Journal of Addiction
initially intended, (2) a desire to cut down or control use, (3)
spending a great deal of time obtaining, using, or recovering
from the substance, (4) craving, (5) recurrent substance use
resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations, (6) continued
use despite social/interpersonal problems, (7) neglect
of other important activities because of substance use, (8) use
in situations in which it is physically hazardous, (9) continued
use of the substance despite adverse physical or psychological
consequences associated with use, (10) tolerance, and (11)
withdrawal symptoms [12].
Though the DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 do not include any
disorders related to the problematic use of technology, pathological
gambling is included in DSM-IV as a diagnosable
condition under the category of impulse control disorders not
elsewhere classified [11], and in DSM-5 as the first “behavioral
addiction.” Even though pathological gambling does not
involve the use of a chemical substance, the similarities between
the diagnostic criteria for substance use disorders and
pathological gambling are striking. In general terms, both
may be described as disorders involving loss of control over a
compulsive, time- and resource-consuming behavior, which
persists in the face of adverse consequences, with continued
escalation of the behavior and/or withdrawal symptoms from
reduction of the behavior.
Similarly, it was suggested as early as 1982 (i.e., well before
the widespread use of mobile phones) that pathological use
of technology may exist in the form of “technodependence”
[13]. The constructs of internet addiction and problem video
gaming are gaining both clinical and empirical support [10,
14]. In addition, though problematic mobile phone use has
not, to date, been recognized as a diagnosable condition,
experts in the field are debating its inclusion as one [15].While
evidence is scarce regarding a true “addiction” to mobile
phones, data from recent studies suggest that some mobile
phone users exhibit serious problematic behaviors analogous
to the diagnostic criteria for substance use disorders or
pathological gambling. These symptoms include preoccupation
with mobile phone-based communication, excessive
time or money spent on mobile telephones/communication
plans, use of cellular devices in socially inappropriate or even
physically dangerous situations (e.g., “texting” while driving
an automobile), adverse effects on relationships, increased
frequency or duration of mobile phone communication, and
anxiety when separated from one’s telephone or when without
an adequate cellular signal [16–19]. Given these findings,
it seems plausible that the consequences and psychological
dependence seen in problematic mobile phone use (like
pathological gambling and problematic internet and video
game use) seem to parallel substance use and dependence and
may be important to consider as a potential diagnostic entity
and target of intervention.
In order to evaluate the extent to which problematic
mobile phone use may be related to other addictive behaviors,
research is needed to clarify the construct. To date, research
on problematic mobile phone use has been limited by the lack
of validated diagnostic criteria or standardized assessment
measures. For this study, we operationally defined “problematic
mobile phone use” as any pattern of mobile phone use
resulting in subjective distress or impairment in important
areas of functioning. Given that some individuals have legitimate
reason to use their mobile phone very frequently (e.g.,
for work obligations) and are able to do so without negative
consequences, we believed it was important to distinguish
“problematic” use from “very frequent” use. We expected
rates of mobile phone use to be higher among individuals who
exhibited symptoms of problematic mobile phone use, just as
substance abusers generally tend to use substances in greater
quantities/frequencies than nonabusers. However, as with
substance use disorders, we did not feel that high frequency
use should be considered a symptom of the condition. For
this study, quantity of use was not included as a component of
“problematic mobile phone use,” except that individuals’ subjective
assessment of their use as excessive and troublesome
was considered.
The purpose of the present study was to develop an
English language measure of problematic mobile phone use
symptoms, based on adaptations of the DSM-5 substance use
disorder criteria. The study followed a similar methodology
to that utilized in previous studies regarding behavioral
addictions [10, 20]. Specifically, our overarching hypotheses
for this study included the following.
(1) Symptoms of problematic mobile phone use can be
measured reliably and validly using a self-report questionnaire.
(2) Scores on the preliminary measure of problematic
mobile phone use developed for this study will correlate
significantly with an existing measure of cellular
phone “dependency,” which was validated on Asian
samples.
(3) Symptoms of problematic mobile phone use will
correlate positively with frequency and intensity of
mobile telephone usage.
benefits, including increased accessibility and social
connection, efficiency in the workplace, convenience, and
improved safety. However, in recent years, there has been
increasing public interest in the negative consequences of
mobile phone use. In one Saudi Arabian study, 44.4% of participants
related common health complaints such as headache,
trouble concentrating, memory loss, hearing loss, and
fatigue to their mobile phone use [1]. Another Saudi Arabian
study suggested that 3%-4% of mobile phone users exhibit
problems such as tension, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and
dizziness related to their mobile phone use, and over 20%
complain of headaches [2]. Accidents caused by distracted
driving [3, 4] have been highlighted as a public health concern.
In addition, anecdotal observation and media reports
suggest that the number of self-professed “cell phone addicts”
and compulsive users of “crack-berries” and other smartphones
has increased as mobile phones have become ubiquitous.
Public recognition of this phenomenon is reflected in
the many websites and blogs addressing the issue, as well as
numerous articles in the popular press describing cell phone
addiction. Though stories have appeared in publications such
as the New York Times [5], the Los Angeles Times [6], and
http://www.forbes.com/ [7] for many years, the academic literature
surrounding problematic mobile phone use remains
fairly limited, even when compared to other “behavioral
addictions” such as pathological gambling, problematic internet
use, and problem video gaming [8–10].
While “addiction” is a term commonly used and arguably
overused in society, the conceptualization of addiction
remains controversial even among researchers and clinicians
who specialize in substance use disorders and addictive
behaviors. Indeed, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition—Text Revision [DSM-IVTR]
[11] did not include a condition called “addiction.” Rather,
it described substance abuse and substance dependence as
distinct psychiatric disorders, and failed to include discussion
of addictive behaviors that do not involve substance use.
Furthermore, the recently released Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) describes
“substance use disorders” using the following 11 criteria: (1)
use in larger quantities or over longer amounts of time than
2 Journal of Addiction
initially intended, (2) a desire to cut down or control use, (3)
spending a great deal of time obtaining, using, or recovering
from the substance, (4) craving, (5) recurrent substance use
resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations, (6) continued
use despite social/interpersonal problems, (7) neglect
of other important activities because of substance use, (8) use
in situations in which it is physically hazardous, (9) continued
use of the substance despite adverse physical or psychological
consequences associated with use, (10) tolerance, and (11)
withdrawal symptoms [12].
Though the DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 do not include any
disorders related to the problematic use of technology, pathological
gambling is included in DSM-IV as a diagnosable
condition under the category of impulse control disorders not
elsewhere classified [11], and in DSM-5 as the first “behavioral
addiction.” Even though pathological gambling does not
involve the use of a chemical substance, the similarities between
the diagnostic criteria for substance use disorders and
pathological gambling are striking. In general terms, both
may be described as disorders involving loss of control over a
compulsive, time- and resource-consuming behavior, which
persists in the face of adverse consequences, with continued
escalation of the behavior and/or withdrawal symptoms from
reduction of the behavior.
Similarly, it was suggested as early as 1982 (i.e., well before
the widespread use of mobile phones) that pathological use
of technology may exist in the form of “technodependence”
[13]. The constructs of internet addiction and problem video
gaming are gaining both clinical and empirical support [10,
14]. In addition, though problematic mobile phone use has
not, to date, been recognized as a diagnosable condition,
experts in the field are debating its inclusion as one [15].While
evidence is scarce regarding a true “addiction” to mobile
phones, data from recent studies suggest that some mobile
phone users exhibit serious problematic behaviors analogous
to the diagnostic criteria for substance use disorders or
pathological gambling. These symptoms include preoccupation
with mobile phone-based communication, excessive
time or money spent on mobile telephones/communication
plans, use of cellular devices in socially inappropriate or even
physically dangerous situations (e.g., “texting” while driving
an automobile), adverse effects on relationships, increased
frequency or duration of mobile phone communication, and
anxiety when separated from one’s telephone or when without
an adequate cellular signal [16–19]. Given these findings,
it seems plausible that the consequences and psychological
dependence seen in problematic mobile phone use (like
pathological gambling and problematic internet and video
game use) seem to parallel substance use and dependence and
may be important to consider as a potential diagnostic entity
and target of intervention.
In order to evaluate the extent to which problematic
mobile phone use may be related to other addictive behaviors,
research is needed to clarify the construct. To date, research
on problematic mobile phone use has been limited by the lack
of validated diagnostic criteria or standardized assessment
measures. For this study, we operationally defined “problematic
mobile phone use” as any pattern of mobile phone use
resulting in subjective distress or impairment in important
areas of functioning. Given that some individuals have legitimate
reason to use their mobile phone very frequently (e.g.,
for work obligations) and are able to do so without negative
consequences, we believed it was important to distinguish
“problematic” use from “very frequent” use. We expected
rates of mobile phone use to be higher among individuals who
exhibited symptoms of problematic mobile phone use, just as
substance abusers generally tend to use substances in greater
quantities/frequencies than nonabusers. However, as with
substance use disorders, we did not feel that high frequency
use should be considered a symptom of the condition. For
this study, quantity of use was not included as a component of
“problematic mobile phone use,” except that individuals’ subjective
assessment of their use as excessive and troublesome
was considered.
The purpose of the present study was to develop an
English language measure of problematic mobile phone use
symptoms, based on adaptations of the DSM-5 substance use
disorder criteria. The study followed a similar methodology
to that utilized in previous studies regarding behavioral
addictions [10, 20]. Specifically, our overarching hypotheses
for this study included the following.
(1) Symptoms of problematic mobile phone use can be
measured reliably and validly using a self-report questionnaire.
(2) Scores on the preliminary measure of problematic
mobile phone use developed for this study will correlate
significantly with an existing measure of cellular
phone “dependency,” which was validated on Asian
samples.
(3) Symptoms of problematic mobile phone use will
correlate positively with frequency and intensity of
mobile telephone usage.
0/5000
Mobile phones (a.k.a., cellular telephones) have many perceivedbenefits, including increased accessibility and socialconnection, efficiency in the workplace, convenience, andimproved safety. However, in recent years, there has beenincreasing public interest in the negative consequences ofmobile phone use. In one Saudi Arabian study, 44.4% of participantsrelated common health complaints such as headache,trouble concentrating, memory loss, hearing loss, andfatigue to their mobile phone use [1]. Another Saudi Arabianstudy suggested that 3%-4% of mobile phone users exhibitproblems such as tension, fatigue, sleep disturbance, anddizziness related to their mobile phone use, and over 20%complain of headaches [2]. Accidents caused by distracteddriving [3, 4] have been highlighted as a public health concern.In addition, anecdotal observation and media reportssuggest that the number of self-professed “cell phone addicts”and compulsive users of “crack-berries” and other smartphoneshas increased as mobile phones have become ubiquitous.Public recognition of this phenomenon is reflected inthe many websites and blogs addressing the issue, as well asnumerous articles in the popular press describing cell phoneaddiction. Though stories have appeared in publications suchas the New York Times [5], the Los Angeles Times [6], andhttp://www.forbes.com/ [7] for many years, the academic literaturesurrounding problematic mobile phone use remainsfairly limited, even when compared to other “behavioraladdictions” such as pathological gambling, problematic internetuse, and problem video gaming [8–10].While “addiction” is a term commonly used and arguablyoverused in society, the conceptualization of addictionremains controversial even among researchers and clinicianswho specialize in substance use disorders and addictivebehaviors. Indeed, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ofMental Disorders, Fourth Edition—Text Revision [DSM-IVTR][11] did not include a condition called “addiction.” Rather,it described substance abuse and substance dependence asdistinct psychiatric disorders, and failed to include discussionof addictive behaviors that do not involve substance use.Furthermore, the recently released Diagnostic and StatisticalManual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) describes“substance use disorders” using the following 11 criteria: (1)use in larger quantities or over longer amounts of time than2 Journal of Addictioninitially intended, (2) a desire to cut down or control use, (3)spending a great deal of time obtaining, using, or recoveringfrom the substance, (4) craving, (5) recurrent substance useresulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations, (6) continueduse despite social/interpersonal problems, (7) neglectof other important activities because of substance use, (8) usein situations in which it is physically hazardous, (9) continueduse of the substance despite adverse physical or psychologicalconsequences associated with use, (10) tolerance, and (11)withdrawal symptoms [12].Though the DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 do not include anydisorders related to the problematic use of technology, pathologicalgambling is included in DSM-IV as a diagnosablecondition under the category of impulse control disorders notelsewhere classified [11], and in DSM-5 as the first “behavioraladdiction.” Even though pathological gambling does notinvolve the use of a chemical substance, the similarities betweenthe diagnostic criteria for substance use disorders andpathological gambling are striking. In general terms, bothmay be described as disorders involving loss of control over acompulsive, time- and resource-consuming behavior, whichpersists in the face of adverse consequences, with continuedescalation of the behavior and/or withdrawal symptoms fromreduction of the behavior.Similarly, it was suggested as early as 1982 (i.e., well beforethe widespread use of mobile phones) that pathological useof technology may exist in the form of “technodependence”[13]. The constructs of internet addiction and problem videogaming are gaining both clinical and empirical support [10,14]. In addition, though problematic mobile phone use hasnot, to date, been recognized as a diagnosable condition,experts in the field are debating its inclusion as one [15].Whileevidence is scarce regarding a true “addiction” to mobilephones, data from recent studies suggest that some mobilephone users exhibit serious problematic behaviors analogousto the diagnostic criteria for substance use disorders orpathological gambling. These symptoms include preoccupationwith mobile phone-based communication, excessivetime or money spent on mobile telephones/communicationplans, use of cellular devices in socially inappropriate or evenphysically dangerous situations (e.g., “texting” while drivingan automobile), adverse effects on relationships, increasedfrequency or duration of mobile phone communication, andanxiety when separated from one’s telephone or when withoutan adequate cellular signal [16–19]. Given these findings,it seems plausible that the consequences and psychologicaldependence seen in problematic mobile phone use (likepathological gambling and problematic internet and videogame use) seem to parallel substance use and dependence andmay be important to consider as a potential diagnostic entityand target of intervention.In order to evaluate the extent to which problematicmobile phone use may be related to other addictive behaviors,research is needed to clarify the construct. To date, researchon problematic mobile phone use has been limited by the lackof validated diagnostic criteria or standardized assessmentmeasures. For this study, we operationally defined “problematicmobile phone use” as any pattern of mobile phone useresulting in subjective distress or impairment in importantareas of functioning. Given that some individuals have legitimatereason to use their mobile phone very frequently (e.g.,for work obligations) and are able to do so without negativeconsequences, we believed it was important to distinguish“problematic” use from “very frequent” use. We expectedrates of mobile phone use to be higher among individuals whoexhibited symptoms of problematic mobile phone use, just assubstance abusers generally tend to use substances in greaterquantities/frequencies than nonabusers. However, as withsubstance use disorders, we did not feel that high frequencyuse should be considered a symptom of the condition. Forthis study, quantity of use was not included as a component of“problematic mobile phone use,” except that individuals’ subjectiveassessment of their use as excessive and troublesomewas considered.The purpose of the present study was to develop anEnglish language measure of problematic mobile phone usesymptoms, based on adaptations of the DSM-5 substance usedisorder criteria. The study followed a similar methodologyto that utilized in previous studies regarding behavioraladdictions [10, 20]. Specifically, our overarching hypothesesfor this study included the following.(1) Symptoms of problematic mobile phone use can be
measured reliably and validly using a self-report questionnaire.
(2) Scores on the preliminary measure of problematic
mobile phone use developed for this study will correlate
significantly with an existing measure of cellular
phone “dependency,” which was validated on Asian
samples.
(3) Symptoms of problematic mobile phone use will
correlate positively with frequency and intensity of
mobile telephone usage.
measured reliably and validly using a self-report questionnaire.
(2) Scores on the preliminary measure of problematic
mobile phone use developed for this study will correlate
significantly with an existing measure of cellular
phone “dependency,” which was validated on Asian
samples.
(3) Symptoms of problematic mobile phone use will
correlate positively with frequency and intensity of
mobile telephone usage.
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Ponsel (alias, telepon seluler) memiliki banyak dirasakan
manfaat, termasuk peningkatan aksesibilitas dan sosial
koneksi, efisiensi di tempat kerja, kenyamanan, dan
meningkatkan keamanan. Namun, dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, ada telah
meningkatkan minat masyarakat dalam konsekuensi negatif dari
penggunaan ponsel. Dalam satu studi Arab Saudi, 44,4% dari peserta
terkait keluhan kesehatan umum seperti sakit kepala,
sulit berkonsentrasi, kehilangan memori, gangguan pendengaran, dan
kelelahan dengan penggunaan ponsel mereka [1]. Lain Arab Saudi
studi menunjukkan bahwa 3% -4% dari pengguna telepon seluler pameran
masalah seperti ketegangan, kelelahan, gangguan tidur, dan
pusing terkait dengan penggunaan ponsel mereka, dan lebih dari 20%
mengeluh sakit kepala [2]. Kecelakaan yang disebabkan oleh terganggu
mengemudi [3, 4] telah disorot sebagai masalah kesehatan masyarakat.
Selain itu, observasi dan media laporan anekdotal
menunjukkan bahwa jumlah self-mengaku "pecandu ponsel"
dan pengguna kompulsif "retak-berry" dan smartphone lainnya
telah meningkat ponsel telah menjadi mana-mana.
Pengakuan publik dari fenomena ini tercermin dalam
banyak situs dan blog mengatasi masalah, serta
berbagai artikel dalam pers populer menggambarkan ponsel
kecanduan. Meskipun cerita telah muncul dalam publikasi seperti
sebagai New York Times [5], Los Angeles Times [6], dan
http://www.forbes.com/ [7] selama bertahun-tahun, literatur akademik
sekitarnya penggunaan ponsel bermasalah tetap
cukup terbatas, bahkan jika dibandingkan dengan lainnya "perilaku
kecanduan" seperti judi patologis, internet bermasalah
penggunaan, dan masalah game video [10/08].
Sementara "kecanduan" adalah istilah yang umum digunakan dan bisa dibilang
berlebihan dalam masyarakat, konseptualisasi kecanduan
masih kontroversial bahkan di kalangan peneliti dan dokter
yang mengkhususkan diri dalam penggunaan gangguan zat adiktif dan
perilaku. Memang, Diagnostik dan Statistik Manual of
Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition-Text Revision [DSM-IVTR]
[11] tidak termasuk kondisi yang disebut "kecanduan." Sebaliknya,
itu dijelaskan penyalahgunaan zat dan ketergantungan zat sebagai
gangguan kejiwaan yang berbeda, dan gagal untuk memasukkan diskusi
perilaku adiktif yang tidak melibatkan penggunaan zat.
Selanjutnya, Diagnostik baru ini dirilis dan statistik
Manual Gangguan Mental, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) menjelaskan
"substansi penggunaan gangguan" menggunakan 11 kriteria sebagai berikut: (1)
digunakan dalam jumlah yang lebih besar atau lebih jumlah yang lebih lama dari
2 Journal of Addiction
awalnya dimaksudkan, (2) keinginan untuk mengurangi atau menggunakan kontrol, (3)
menghabiskan banyak waktu mendapatkan, menggunakan, atau pulih
dari substansi, (4) keinginan, (5) penggunaan zat berulang
mengakibatkan kegagalan untuk memenuhi kewajiban peran utama, (6) terus
digunakan meskipun masalah sosial / interpersonal, (7) mengabaikan
kegiatan penting lainnya karena penggunaan zat, (8) menggunakan
dalam situasi di mana itu berbahaya secara fisik, (9) terus
menggunakan zat meskipun fisik atau psikologis yang merugikan
konsekuensi yang terkait dengan penggunaan, (10) toleransi, dan (11)
gejala penarikan [12].
Meskipun DSM-IV-TR dan DSM-5 melakukan tidak termasuk
gangguan yang berkaitan dengan penggunaan bermasalah teknologi, patologis
perjudian termasuk dalam DSM-IV sebagai didiagnosis
kondisi di bawah kategori gangguan kontrol impuls tidak
diklasifikasikan di tempat lain [11], dan dalam DSM-5 sebagai yang pertama "perilaku
kecanduan. "Meskipun judi patologis tidak
melibatkan penggunaan zat kimia, kesamaan antara
kriteria diagnostik untuk digunakan gangguan substansi dan
judi patologis yang mencolok. Secara umum, baik
dapat digambarkan sebagai gangguan yang melibatkan hilangnya kontrol atas
kompulsif, waktu dan perilaku sumber daya memakan, yang
tetap dalam menghadapi konsekuensi yang merugikan, dengan terus
meningkatnya perilaku dan / atau penarikan gejala dari
pengurangan perilaku.
Demikian pula, ia menyarankan pada awal 1982 (yaitu, baik sebelum
meluasnya penggunaan ponsel) bahwa penggunaan patologis
teknologi mungkin ada dalam bentuk "technodependence"
[13]. Konstruksi kecanduan internet dan masalah video yang
game yang mendapatkan baik klinis dan empiris dukungan [10,
14]. Selain itu, meskipun penggunaan ponsel bermasalah memiliki
tidak, sampai saat ini, telah diakui sebagai kondisi didiagnosis,
para ahli di lapangan memperdebatkan inklusi sebagai salah satu [15] .Sementara
bukti langka mengenai benar "kecanduan" untuk ponsel
ponsel, data dari studi terbaru menunjukkan bahwa beberapa ponsel
pengguna ponsel menunjukkan perilaku bermasalah serius analog
dengan kriteria diagnostik untuk penggunaan gangguan bahan atau
judi patologis. Gejala-gejala ini termasuk keasyikan
dengan komunikasi mobile berbasis telepon, berlebihan
waktu atau uang yang dihabiskan untuk telepon seluler / komunikasi
rencana, penggunaan perangkat seluler di sosial yang tidak pantas atau bahkan
situasi berbahaya secara fisik (misalnya, "texting" saat mengemudi
mobil), efek buruk pada hubungan, peningkatan
frekuensi atau durasi komunikasi ponsel, dan
kecemasan ketika dipisahkan dari telepon seseorang atau ketika tanpa
sinyal seluler yang memadai [16-19]. Mengingat temuan ini,
tampaknya masuk akal bahwa konsekuensi dan psikologis
ketergantungan terlihat pada penggunaan ponsel bermasalah (seperti
judi patologis dan internet bermasalah dan video yang
digunakan game) tampaknya paralel penggunaan narkoba dan ketergantungan dan
mungkin penting untuk mempertimbangkan sebagai entitas diagnostik potensial
dan Target intervensi.
Dalam rangka untuk mengevaluasi sejauh mana bermasalah
penggunaan ponsel mungkin berhubungan dengan perilaku adiktif lainnya,
penelitian diperlukan untuk mengklarifikasi konstruk. Sampai saat ini, penelitian
tentang penggunaan ponsel bermasalah telah dibatasi oleh kurangnya
kriteria diagnostik divalidasi atau penilaian standar
ukuran. Untuk studi ini, kami secara operasional didefinisikan "bermasalah
penggunaan ponsel" karena setiap pola penggunaan ponsel
mengakibatkan kesusahan subjektif atau penurunan penting
bidang fungsi. Mengingat bahwa beberapa individu memiliki sah
alasan untuk menggunakan ponsel mereka sangat sering (misalnya,
untuk kewajiban kerja) dan mampu melakukannya tanpa negatif
konsekuensi, kami percaya itu penting untuk membedakan
"bermasalah" digunakan dari "sangat sering" digunakan. Kami diharapkan
tingkat penggunaan ponsel menjadi lebih tinggi di antara individu-individu yang
menunjukkan gejala dari penggunaan ponsel bermasalah, seperti
penyalahguna zat umumnya cenderung menggunakan zat secara lebih
jumlah / frekuensi dari nonabusers. Namun, seperti dengan
gangguan penggunaan zat, kita tidak merasa bahwa frekuensi tinggi
digunakan harus dianggap sebagai gejala dari kondisi tersebut. Untuk
penelitian ini, kuantitas penggunaan tidak dimasukkan sebagai komponen dari
"penggunaan ponsel bermasalah," kecuali bahwa subjektif individu
penilaian penggunaannya sebagai berlebihan dan merepotkan
dianggap.
Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengembangkan
ukuran bahasa Inggris penggunaan ponsel bermasalah
gejala, berdasarkan adaptasi dari penggunaan DSM-5 zat
kriteria gangguan. Studi ini diikuti metodologi yang sama
dengan yang digunakan dalam penelitian sebelumnya tentang perilaku
kecanduan [10, 20]. Secara khusus, hipotesis menyeluruh kami
untuk studi ini termasuk berikut.
(1) Gejala penggunaan ponsel bermasalah dapat
diukur dengan andal dan secara sah menggunakan kuesioner laporan diri.
(2) Skor pada langkah awal dari masalah
penggunaan ponsel yang dikembangkan untuk ini Penelitian akan berkorelasi
secara signifikan dengan ukuran yang ada seluler
telepon "ketergantungan", yang disahkan pada Asian
sampel.
(3) Gejala penggunaan ponsel bermasalah akan
berkorelasi positif dengan frekuensi dan intensitas
penggunaan telepon seluler.
manfaat, termasuk peningkatan aksesibilitas dan sosial
koneksi, efisiensi di tempat kerja, kenyamanan, dan
meningkatkan keamanan. Namun, dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, ada telah
meningkatkan minat masyarakat dalam konsekuensi negatif dari
penggunaan ponsel. Dalam satu studi Arab Saudi, 44,4% dari peserta
terkait keluhan kesehatan umum seperti sakit kepala,
sulit berkonsentrasi, kehilangan memori, gangguan pendengaran, dan
kelelahan dengan penggunaan ponsel mereka [1]. Lain Arab Saudi
studi menunjukkan bahwa 3% -4% dari pengguna telepon seluler pameran
masalah seperti ketegangan, kelelahan, gangguan tidur, dan
pusing terkait dengan penggunaan ponsel mereka, dan lebih dari 20%
mengeluh sakit kepala [2]. Kecelakaan yang disebabkan oleh terganggu
mengemudi [3, 4] telah disorot sebagai masalah kesehatan masyarakat.
Selain itu, observasi dan media laporan anekdotal
menunjukkan bahwa jumlah self-mengaku "pecandu ponsel"
dan pengguna kompulsif "retak-berry" dan smartphone lainnya
telah meningkat ponsel telah menjadi mana-mana.
Pengakuan publik dari fenomena ini tercermin dalam
banyak situs dan blog mengatasi masalah, serta
berbagai artikel dalam pers populer menggambarkan ponsel
kecanduan. Meskipun cerita telah muncul dalam publikasi seperti
sebagai New York Times [5], Los Angeles Times [6], dan
http://www.forbes.com/ [7] selama bertahun-tahun, literatur akademik
sekitarnya penggunaan ponsel bermasalah tetap
cukup terbatas, bahkan jika dibandingkan dengan lainnya "perilaku
kecanduan" seperti judi patologis, internet bermasalah
penggunaan, dan masalah game video [10/08].
Sementara "kecanduan" adalah istilah yang umum digunakan dan bisa dibilang
berlebihan dalam masyarakat, konseptualisasi kecanduan
masih kontroversial bahkan di kalangan peneliti dan dokter
yang mengkhususkan diri dalam penggunaan gangguan zat adiktif dan
perilaku. Memang, Diagnostik dan Statistik Manual of
Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition-Text Revision [DSM-IVTR]
[11] tidak termasuk kondisi yang disebut "kecanduan." Sebaliknya,
itu dijelaskan penyalahgunaan zat dan ketergantungan zat sebagai
gangguan kejiwaan yang berbeda, dan gagal untuk memasukkan diskusi
perilaku adiktif yang tidak melibatkan penggunaan zat.
Selanjutnya, Diagnostik baru ini dirilis dan statistik
Manual Gangguan Mental, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) menjelaskan
"substansi penggunaan gangguan" menggunakan 11 kriteria sebagai berikut: (1)
digunakan dalam jumlah yang lebih besar atau lebih jumlah yang lebih lama dari
2 Journal of Addiction
awalnya dimaksudkan, (2) keinginan untuk mengurangi atau menggunakan kontrol, (3)
menghabiskan banyak waktu mendapatkan, menggunakan, atau pulih
dari substansi, (4) keinginan, (5) penggunaan zat berulang
mengakibatkan kegagalan untuk memenuhi kewajiban peran utama, (6) terus
digunakan meskipun masalah sosial / interpersonal, (7) mengabaikan
kegiatan penting lainnya karena penggunaan zat, (8) menggunakan
dalam situasi di mana itu berbahaya secara fisik, (9) terus
menggunakan zat meskipun fisik atau psikologis yang merugikan
konsekuensi yang terkait dengan penggunaan, (10) toleransi, dan (11)
gejala penarikan [12].
Meskipun DSM-IV-TR dan DSM-5 melakukan tidak termasuk
gangguan yang berkaitan dengan penggunaan bermasalah teknologi, patologis
perjudian termasuk dalam DSM-IV sebagai didiagnosis
kondisi di bawah kategori gangguan kontrol impuls tidak
diklasifikasikan di tempat lain [11], dan dalam DSM-5 sebagai yang pertama "perilaku
kecanduan. "Meskipun judi patologis tidak
melibatkan penggunaan zat kimia, kesamaan antara
kriteria diagnostik untuk digunakan gangguan substansi dan
judi patologis yang mencolok. Secara umum, baik
dapat digambarkan sebagai gangguan yang melibatkan hilangnya kontrol atas
kompulsif, waktu dan perilaku sumber daya memakan, yang
tetap dalam menghadapi konsekuensi yang merugikan, dengan terus
meningkatnya perilaku dan / atau penarikan gejala dari
pengurangan perilaku.
Demikian pula, ia menyarankan pada awal 1982 (yaitu, baik sebelum
meluasnya penggunaan ponsel) bahwa penggunaan patologis
teknologi mungkin ada dalam bentuk "technodependence"
[13]. Konstruksi kecanduan internet dan masalah video yang
game yang mendapatkan baik klinis dan empiris dukungan [10,
14]. Selain itu, meskipun penggunaan ponsel bermasalah memiliki
tidak, sampai saat ini, telah diakui sebagai kondisi didiagnosis,
para ahli di lapangan memperdebatkan inklusi sebagai salah satu [15] .Sementara
bukti langka mengenai benar "kecanduan" untuk ponsel
ponsel, data dari studi terbaru menunjukkan bahwa beberapa ponsel
pengguna ponsel menunjukkan perilaku bermasalah serius analog
dengan kriteria diagnostik untuk penggunaan gangguan bahan atau
judi patologis. Gejala-gejala ini termasuk keasyikan
dengan komunikasi mobile berbasis telepon, berlebihan
waktu atau uang yang dihabiskan untuk telepon seluler / komunikasi
rencana, penggunaan perangkat seluler di sosial yang tidak pantas atau bahkan
situasi berbahaya secara fisik (misalnya, "texting" saat mengemudi
mobil), efek buruk pada hubungan, peningkatan
frekuensi atau durasi komunikasi ponsel, dan
kecemasan ketika dipisahkan dari telepon seseorang atau ketika tanpa
sinyal seluler yang memadai [16-19]. Mengingat temuan ini,
tampaknya masuk akal bahwa konsekuensi dan psikologis
ketergantungan terlihat pada penggunaan ponsel bermasalah (seperti
judi patologis dan internet bermasalah dan video yang
digunakan game) tampaknya paralel penggunaan narkoba dan ketergantungan dan
mungkin penting untuk mempertimbangkan sebagai entitas diagnostik potensial
dan Target intervensi.
Dalam rangka untuk mengevaluasi sejauh mana bermasalah
penggunaan ponsel mungkin berhubungan dengan perilaku adiktif lainnya,
penelitian diperlukan untuk mengklarifikasi konstruk. Sampai saat ini, penelitian
tentang penggunaan ponsel bermasalah telah dibatasi oleh kurangnya
kriteria diagnostik divalidasi atau penilaian standar
ukuran. Untuk studi ini, kami secara operasional didefinisikan "bermasalah
penggunaan ponsel" karena setiap pola penggunaan ponsel
mengakibatkan kesusahan subjektif atau penurunan penting
bidang fungsi. Mengingat bahwa beberapa individu memiliki sah
alasan untuk menggunakan ponsel mereka sangat sering (misalnya,
untuk kewajiban kerja) dan mampu melakukannya tanpa negatif
konsekuensi, kami percaya itu penting untuk membedakan
"bermasalah" digunakan dari "sangat sering" digunakan. Kami diharapkan
tingkat penggunaan ponsel menjadi lebih tinggi di antara individu-individu yang
menunjukkan gejala dari penggunaan ponsel bermasalah, seperti
penyalahguna zat umumnya cenderung menggunakan zat secara lebih
jumlah / frekuensi dari nonabusers. Namun, seperti dengan
gangguan penggunaan zat, kita tidak merasa bahwa frekuensi tinggi
digunakan harus dianggap sebagai gejala dari kondisi tersebut. Untuk
penelitian ini, kuantitas penggunaan tidak dimasukkan sebagai komponen dari
"penggunaan ponsel bermasalah," kecuali bahwa subjektif individu
penilaian penggunaannya sebagai berlebihan dan merepotkan
dianggap.
Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengembangkan
ukuran bahasa Inggris penggunaan ponsel bermasalah
gejala, berdasarkan adaptasi dari penggunaan DSM-5 zat
kriteria gangguan. Studi ini diikuti metodologi yang sama
dengan yang digunakan dalam penelitian sebelumnya tentang perilaku
kecanduan [10, 20]. Secara khusus, hipotesis menyeluruh kami
untuk studi ini termasuk berikut.
(1) Gejala penggunaan ponsel bermasalah dapat
diukur dengan andal dan secara sah menggunakan kuesioner laporan diri.
(2) Skor pada langkah awal dari masalah
penggunaan ponsel yang dikembangkan untuk ini Penelitian akan berkorelasi
secara signifikan dengan ukuran yang ada seluler
telepon "ketergantungan", yang disahkan pada Asian
sampel.
(3) Gejala penggunaan ponsel bermasalah akan
berkorelasi positif dengan frekuensi dan intensitas
penggunaan telepon seluler.
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Bahasa lainnya
Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.
- And the rain will kill us all...We throw
- Don't trust everything you seeEven salt
- And the rain will kill us all...We throw
- My trip
- Kembali empat
- My trip
- Letter to GODRancho's house – the lone h
- Kenangan kamu tidak pernah pudar
- Keep moving on
- Aku bertahan karena aku sayang kamu..aku
- Letter to GODRancho's house – the lone h
- Aku kangen sama kamu yang dulu
- perjalanan saya banyak cerita
- Seriously, it's been a long timeSince I'
- Merci de nous avoir contactes et de joue
- Aku kangen sama kamu yang dulu
- Seriously, it's been a long timeSince I'
- Kamu bohong
- Aku cinta sama kamu......selamat malam t
- Don't get u
- how can rose apple be atrouble
- هل ذهبتي لتدرسي
- Letter to GODRancho's house – the lone h
- Don't trust everything you seeEven salt
