Relationship Quality & Compulsive Internet use

Dept. of Communication Science

VU University Amsterdam

Relationship Quality and Compulsive

Internet Use Peter Kerkhof

Dept. Communication Science

Catrin Finkenauer

Dept. Social Psychology

ICA 2008

Relationships & Internet Use Department of Communication Science VU University Amsterdam

2

The majority of laptop users (57%) take their laptop to bed, according to research by telecom provider KPN among 500 users. Always being online is top priority for laptop users, mainly for reading the news and checking e-mail.

A recent press release:

ICA 2008


3

ICA 2008


4

Internet Use & Relationships

Main question: Does Internet use affect marital relationships (and vice versa)? The Netherlands: 14.544.400 Internet users

(88.4%)*, online av. 27 hrs. p. month, 3131 page visits**

Internet: closer ties to those not present, weaker ties to those present

Compulsive Internet Use (CIU): averse social effects ‘use of the Internet that creates psychological, social, school, and/or work

difficulties in a person’s life’ (Beard & Wolf, 2001, p. 378)

* http://www.internetworldstats.com/eu/nl.htm ** www.comscore.com

ICA 2008


5

Compulsive Internet use

Meerkerk (2007): Games, chatting, and sexual Internet use as determinants of CIU

Related to loneliness, social anxiety, preference for online (vs. real life) interactions, depression, neuroticism

Only self reported relationship effects, almost no actual relationships, almost no longitudinal studies

ICA 2008


6

CIU and Relationship Quality

Possible causal paths: CIU Relationship Quality

Time as a limited resource Running into relationship alternatives Unable to stop even when needed

Relationship Quality CIU Escapism, mood management Looking for relationship alternatives Lower effort for relationship maintenance

ICA 2008


7

Data VU Panel Marriage & Well-being 199 newlywed couples, first two waves,

both partners, visited at home by interviewers

Measures: Compulsive Internet Use (Meerkerk, 2007) Frequency of Internet Use (days per week,

hours per day for private use) Controls: neuroticism, depression

ICA 2008


8

Measures

Indicators Relationship Quality Marital Satisfaction (30-item

DAS) Relationship Commitment Relationship specific Loneliness Intimacy & Passion (PRQC, 6

items) Trust in Partner Closeness (Aron circles)

ICA 2008


9

Data

Communication within relationship Responsiveness Solicitation Smoothness

Analyses: Low vs. high Frequency of Internet Use Actor effects: within partner

correlations + beta’s (controlled for neuroticism & depression) Longitudinal effects (t1-t2)

Cross partner effects (APIM)

ICA 2008


10

Correlations /beta’s CIU – Relationship Quality (t1, high FIU)

ICA 2008


11

Correlations /beta’s CIU – Relationship Quality (t1, high FIU)

ICA 2008


Effects over time (beta’s, controlled for t1 DV) Husbands:

CIU Δ commitment (β=-.25) Δ loneliness (β=.17) Δ marital satisfaction (β=-.28) Δ smoothness (β=-.25) Δ closeness (β=-.24) Solicitation Δ CIU (β=-.20)

Wives: CIU Δ solicitation (β=-.27) Commitment Δ CIU (β=-.20) Passion Δ CIU (β=-.16)

12

ICA 2008


13

Partner effects (APIM analyses)

ICA 2008


14

Conclusions

Combining frequent & compulsive Internet use is associated with lower scores on several indicators of relationship quality Only actor effects More among men (CIU more prevalent among men) Different underlying mechanisms /causal path, but

more support for CIU causing lower relationship quality

Replicated among gay men

Next step: Different kinds of Internet use Social sharing of Internet experiences Direct measurement of underlying mechanisms

Health & Medicine

Relationship Quality & Compulsive Internet use