Addiction to mass media

7/30/2019 Addiction to mass media

1/23


2/23

Horvath/MEASURINC ADDICTION 379

Addiction Defined

The e addiction can be applied to all types of excessive behavior, such as

o n on drugs (e.g., alcohol, narcot ics, caffeine), food, exercise,

gambling, and television viewing (Peele, 1985). Newer types of addictions that have

been studied include Internet addiction (Kubey, Lavin, & Barrows, 2001), online

sexual addiction (Bingham & Piotrowski, 1996), and addictive consumer behavior

(Elliott, Eccles, & Cournay, 1996; Faber, O'Cuinn, & Krych, 1987). According to

Peele (1985), the r motives for addictive behavior are: reduction of pain,

s and awareness (i.e., escape); enhanced sense of control, power, and

self-esteem (i.e., compensation); and the simplification, predictability, and immedi-

acy of experience (i.e., ritual). Interestingly, comhiunication research on television

use has uncovered similar motives for watching television (Rubin, 1981).

Researchers have had great difficulty in reaching agreement in defining addiction.

This is f a c t by th a t addiction can be defined by contributing factors,

symptoms, and consequences. The history of alcoholism is a good example of this

struggle. According to Keller and Doria (1991), alcoholism has over the years been"applied to getting drunk, to heavy drinking, excessive drinking, deviant drinking,

and unpopular " (p. 253). Most researchers now agree that heavy d rinking

does not constitute alcoholism unless other symptoms are manifested. For example,

Beresford (1991t said th e concept of alcoholism has changed over time to merge

psychological and social symptoms with physical ones.

According to Akers (1991), the traditional concept of addiction included toler-

ance, dependence, and withdrawal, and applied to the physiological demand for a

drug. However, the termpsychological dependence replaced addiction in the 1960s

to r to the a for a drug without physical dependence; the term is now used

to describe habitual behavior in the absence of proof for physical addiction.

Although popular no w favors the traditional conceptual izat ion of addiction,

the term dependence remains in its place (Akers, 1991).

Criteria for dependence (i.e., addiction) are outlined in the American Psychiatric

Association's (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-

IV), which lists seven symptoms: (1) tolerance (a need for more of the substance to

achieve the same effect, or a diminished effect with the same amount of substance);

(2) withdrawal(a substance-specific syndrome that results if the substance use is

reduced or stopped that is unrelated to another physical illness, or use of the

substance o n et o to reduce withdrawal symptoms); (3) the substance is

taken in larger amounts over longer time than is intended; (4) persistent desire and/or

cu efforts t cut down are experienced; (5) a great deal of time is spent in

obtaining, using, and recovering from the substance; (6) important activities such as

school, work, or time with friends are given up or reduced; and (7) the individual

continues use of the substance despite physical or psychological problems (p. 181).


3/23

380 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/September 2004

An individual o has to respond affirmatively to three or more symptoms during

any b e to be classified as substance dependent.

Substance abuse is characterized by severe impairment or distress, such as loss of

employment, child neglect, or putting one's life at risk due to the behavior. th

e

on the above cri teria, a person could be diagnosed as substancedependent based o n psychological factors. Although the American Psychiatric

Association (1994) typology includes physical withdrawal, the argument has been

made that people could experience psychological withdrawal, consisting of irrita-

bility, anxiety, and fear when the substance is reduced or stopped (Beresford, 1991).

So, can people be "addicted" to television in the true sense of the word?

Television Addiction

In 1977, in argued in The Plug-in Drug that television has properties of

addiction. Researchers have been intrigued by this idea, but few have tried to study

it systematically. Anecdotal accounts and speculation comprise most of the research

on television addiction. Furthermore, similar to the alcohol and drug abuse literature,

a conceptual haze between the concepts of heavy exposure, reliance, dependence,and addiction to television remains problematic. A clear distinction needs to be

made between these concepts to determine the difference between normal and

problem viewing.

Foss and Alexander (1996) compared self-defined heavy viewers (6 hours per day)

with nonviewers and found that many nonviewers called television a drug or a

re li gi on a nd i t it caused less interaction with friends and family, less time

spent doing more productive or healthier things, and less critical thought. Nonview

ers reported that television was simply too seductive to have around. Heavy viewers

saw addiction to television as a likely outcome, but not for themselves. For them, it

was simply a means for escape and relaxation. People who avoid television tend to

cite its addictive properties as the reason. Nonviewers in Australia wouldn't watch

because they couldn't "resist its power" (Edgar, 1977, p. 74). They regarded it as a

depressant drug that dulls the senses. Mander (1978) collected around 2,000anecdotal responses to television that made it sound like "a machine that invades,

controls and deadens the people who view it" (p. 158). Common statements resulted,

such as "I feel hypnotized" and "I just can't keep my eyes off it" (p.158). In talking

about their television behavior, people compared themselves to mesmerized,

drugged-out, and spaced-out vegetables. Similarly, Singer (1980) asked, "why do we

turn the set on almost automatically on awakening in the morning or on returning

home from school or work?" (p. 31). Singer, though, said that addiction to television

is a extreme n d speculated that television's magnetism can be explained

by a human "orienting reflex." That is, we are programmed to respond to new or d

stimuli, and because novel and sudden images are key features of

television, it draws our attention. Singer said that the addictive power of television is

probably to minimize problems by putting other thoughts in your mind (i.e., escape).


4/23

Horvath/MEASURING ADDICTION 381

In an empirical search for this seemingly pervasive psychological phenomenon.

Smith (1986) used popular literature to generate items for a measure of television

addiction. Although e resultant scale was not directly based on the DSM-IV

(American Psychiatric Association, 1994), it included some of the concepts such as

loss of control, time spent using, withdrawal, attempts to quit, and guilt. Her studyvia mail of 491 adults found that very few of the participants identified with the

concepts in her measure; only 11 out of 491 respondents admitted television

addiction, o 64% f the respondents reported that television was addictive

(consistent with the third-person effect literature; e.g., Davison, 1983). Smith

found a strong relationship between the amount of time spent viewing and the

tendency to call oneself an addict.

Noting that there have been almost no empirical studies of television addiction,

Mcllwraith, Jacobvitz, Kubey, and Alexander (1991) cited an earlier version of the

DSM-IV t DSM-III-R) o discuss a possible relationship to television viewing.

Using Smith's (1986) measure, they found that only 17 out of 136 college students

were self-designated addicts. They reported twice as much television viewing as

non-addicts, more mind wandering, distractibility, boredom, and unfocused day

dreaming, and tended to score higher on scales measuring introversion and neurot-

icism. They also d signifi cantly more dysphoric mood watch ing, and watch-

ing to fill time.

Also using Smith's (1986) measure of television addiction, Anderson, Collins,

Schmitt, and Jacobvitz (1996) found that, for women, stressful life events predicted

television addiction-like behavior and guilt about television watching. The authors

d that women used television in a way that was "analogous to alcohol" (p.

255), and wondered f television watching served to delay more healthy and

appropriate coping strategies. Also using Smith's measure, Mcllwraith (1998) found

only 10% of the 237 participants sampled while visiting a museum identified

themselves as television addicts. Mcllwraith found that those who admitted addic-

tion to television watched significantly more hours of television than others, and

watched e to escape unpleasant moods and to fill time. Mcllwraith's sampleechoed Smith's (1986), who found that participants most often responded neveron

all the items about television addiction. According to Smith, the phenomenon of

television addiction is unsubstantiated in empirical research, but is robust in anec-

dotal evidence.

For example, like other addictions, television watching is thought to contribute to

s i a nd n in family relat ionships. One woman explained how her

husband's addiction to television contributed to their separation (Edgar, 1977):

" T h e r e n o no way of spending an evening alone with my husband

without television. He was most resentful if I stuck out for my choice of program and

most re sen tfu l i I t it off while he slept in front of it" (pp. 75-76). There are

worse stories. Fowles (1982) related tragic newspaper accounts due to quarrels about

television: "Charles Green of East Palo Alto, California stabbed his sister to death


5/23


w i t h s h knife e she took out the electrical fuses so he would stop viewing.

In Latwell, Louisiana, John Gallien shot his sister-in-law because she kept turning

down the volume" (p. 30). Studies of television deprivation (e.g.. Tan, 1977; Winick,

1988) also indicate profound and real withdrawal-like symptoms, supporting the

notion of addiction.A h a v e have attempted to study other types of media addiction

directly using APA criteria. For example. Fisher (1994) found that children could be

vi as de o video games (based on a specific APA model of gambling

addiction). The children's pathological video game playing was based on model

criteria such a n d duration of play, supernormal expenditures, borrow-

ing and selling of possessions to play, and self-awareness of a problem. Phillips,

Rolls, Rouse, and Griffiths (1995) studied the video game habits of 868 children,

aged 11 to 16. They found that 50 could be classified as addicts. The addicted

children e v e r y every day, for longer time periods than intended, often to the

neglect of homework. They reported feeling better after play, and using play to avoid

other things (escape). Also based on APA criteria, a case study in the United Kingdom

effectively diagnosed a young man as addicted to pinball machines (Griffiths, 1992).

Consistent with third-person effect literature (e.g., Davison, 1983), the young man

thought t he o o much, but that he was not "addicted."

Therefore, a n d and inferential evidence suggests that television can be

extremely compelling and important in people's lives, even beyond dependence or

habit. Whether n viewing can truly be addicti ve is still unclear. Although

many have made the comparison and some have even studied addiction based on

concepts drawn from popular literature, no researchers have studied and measured

television addiction based purely on DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association,

1994) criteria. Recently, Kubey (1996) argued that at least 5 of the 7 DSM-IV criteria

a r e t o applicable to television viewing, but this remains to be tested. Although

he did not believe th e addiction criteria of tolerance and continued use despite

e (symptoms one and seven) seemed likely for television use, he did believe

that all the others could clearly apply. According to Kubey, although we don'tthink

of television as a substance, we do take it into our minds. Although this is a fruitful

a r e a of t o to diagnose television dependence have not been estab-

se (p. 233).e

rn s that television use may be addictive for some people,

but addiction has not been effectively conceptualized in the communication litera-

ture (Kubey, 1996). Psychiatry has provided criteria for dependence/addiction that

have taken decades to develop, but communication scholars have yet to attempt to

use them fully.

In that effort, this research involved two separate studies. The first used conve-

nience sampling to pilot and test the validity of a new measure of television

addiction. The second employed purposive sampling, replicated parts of the first

study, and added a measure of social desirability. Reliable multidimensional and

unidimensional scales f television addiction result from the research.


6/23


Study One

Voluntary participation was solicited from a convenience sample of adults of

various ages to test a proposed Television Addiction Measure. Participants were

personally contacted at four locations in a suburb of a small Midwestern city: a fleamarket, a restaurant, and two fire stations. These locations were chosen due to ease

of access, and to maximize a diverse sample and the likelihood of heavy television

users. This research k place over the December holiday season, during which

busy public places provide an unusual opportunity to reach people of mixed

demographics.

Participants

A diverse sample was obtained (N = 300). Participants' reported ages as of their

l a s t 1 8 t o 8 t o 2 y e a r s (N = 298 , M = 34 . 52 , SD = 15 . 20 ) . O f

those who r their gender, 135 were male (45.3%, coded 0) and 163 were

female (54.7%, coded 1). Results also varied among those who reported their

education level (N = 297), with 7 participants achieving some high school (2.3%,coded 1), 56 graduating from high school (18.9%), 33 graduating from trade school

(11.1%), 152 attaining some college (51.2%), 35 graduating from college (11.8%),

and 14 achieving a graduate-level education (4.7%, coded 6). On this 6-point rating

scale, the mean r for education was 3.65 (SD = 1.12).

Participants were also asked to report the number of hours they watched television

yesterday morning (M= 0.36, SD = 0.80), afternoon {M= 0.40, SD = 0.87), and

evening (M= 1.75, SD = 1.56), as well as how many hours they usually watch in

the morning (M= 0.45, SD = 0.81), afternoon (M= 0.61, SD = 0.99), and evening

{M = . SD = 1.44). Television exposure was measured this way in order to

achieve accuracy of recall. From these numbers, overall television exposure was

indexed by adding the three numbers describing television watched yesterday to the

three numbers g tele vision watche d tod ay, and divid ing h y 2 {M = 2.90

hours, SD = 2.25). This enabled an average of concrete memory about yesterdaywith the more abstract memory about usual behavior. Average exposure ranged from

0 to 15 hours per day.

The questionnaire contained a cover page describing the purpose of the study and

participants' rights, a w measure of television addiction, a measure of alcohol

addiction adapted for television, and some demographic questions to describe the

sample.

Television Addiction Scale

A new scale measured symptoms of television addiction based wholly on the

DSM-IV criteria for psychological addiction (American Psychological Association,

1994). Although Smith's (1986) scale measured television addiction, it was based on


7/23


content gleaned from popular literature, not psychiatry. Here, five statements were

created o represent each f the seven criteria of addiction/dependence: tolerance

(e.g., "I feel like I watch more TV than I used to in order to feel the same");

withdrawal(e.g., "when I am unable to watch television, I miss it so much that you

could call it 'withdrawal'"); unintended use (e.g., "I often watch TV for a longer timethan I intended"); cutting down (e.g., "I often think that I should cut down on the

amount of television that I watch"); time spent(e.g., "compared to most people, I

spend a great deal of time watching television"); displacement of other activities

(e.g., "I often watch television rather than spending time with friends and family");

and continued use (e.g., "I keep watching TV even though it is causing serious

problems in my life"). Response options were strongly agree (5), agree (4), agree

some and disagree some (3), disagree (2), and strongly disagree (1). The 35-item

measure appeared to have face validity, as assessed by the researcher and a

colleague in communication studies (see Appendix A for the measure).

Principal components factor analysis with iterations and varimax rotation deter

mined the factor structure for the addiction measure. (Oblimin rotation yielded no

improvement from the resultant varimax structure.) A factor needed a minimum

eigenvalue of 1.0 and t least three loadings meeting a 50/40 rule (in which an itemlo ad s on o r at .50 or more, and less than .40 on other factors) to be retained.

A liberal 50/40 rule was applied because the resultant factors approximated DSM-IV

(American Psychiatric Association, 1994) criteria, and to retain as many of the

original items as possible. The analysis initially identified six factors that explained

62.59% of the total variance. However, only four factors explaining 55.45% of the

variance were retained for analysis. Retained factor items were summed and aver-

aged to create factor indices. The primary loadings in the factor solutions are

summarized in Table 1.

Factor 1, Problem Viewing, accounted for 22.1% of the total variance after

rotation (eigenvalue = 7.75). Its 11 loadings described television viewing that is

problematic (e.g., has created real problems for me, family members get angry; M

= 1.64, SO = 0.58, Cronbach a = .93). Of the seven DSM-IV criteria for

psychological addiction (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) all five of theitems designed to represent "continued television use despite problems" loaded

on this factor. Two items from each of the following criteria also loaded on this

factor: time spent, cutting down, and displacement of other activities.

Factor 2, Heavy Viewing, accounted for 14.9% of the total variance after rotation

(eigenvalue = 5.20). Unlike Factor 1, these 10 items represented heavy viewing, but

not necessarily m viewing (e.g., tim e real ly gets away fr om me, wind up

spending hours; M = 2.41, SD = 0.78, a = .89). The APA criteria were

represented in this factor by three displacement items, three unintended use items,

two time spent items, and two cutting down items.

Factor 3, Craving for Viewing, accounted for 7.8% of the total variance after

rotation (eigenvalue = 2.74). The six items that loaded on this factor suggested a

craving to watch more television (e.g., I've tried to reduce, I watch more and more


8/23


Table 1 Factor Structure of

Television Addiction Scale

Factors

Item Number 1 2 3 4

Factor 1: Problem Viewing

33 alienating my loved ones .87 .12 .15 .07

35 loved ones can't stand it .84 .07 .16 -.06

31 causing serious problems .84 .06 .20 -.03

20 embarrassed to tell people .81 .18 .12 -.03

28 my whole life .80 .11 .16 .14

19 feel bad but can't stop .80 .10 .14 .08

26 rather than time with family .76 .22 .03 .13

34 caused real problems .72 .23 .32 .01

22 much of my time .70 .35 .04 .30

32 family members angry .55 .34 .27 .03

23 all my leisure time .44 .37 .11 .37

Factor 2: Heavy Viewing11 longer time than intended .16 .78 .17 .18

29 productive if watched less .18 .73 .04 .05

13 hours rather than minutes .20 .71 .26 .22

30 hobbies if watched less .09 .71 .07 .04

12 time gets away from me .03 .68 .17 -.04

16 think I should cut down .20 .65 .35 -.01

18 guilt about watching so much .40 .56 .27 -.05

21 much time compared to others .43 .53 .06 .34

27 should be working or at school .23 .51 .23 .25

25 more time than anything else .44 .50 .07 .25

Factor 3: Craving for Viewing

03 more shows for same enjoyment .21 .31 .61 .04

01 watch more to feel the same .28 .13 .60 .11

1 7 can't reduce amount .20 .22 .58 .08

07 watch because 1 missed it .29 .20 .56 .19

04 same amount, less satisfaction .11 .18 .45 -.17

03 more TV for same enjoyment .52 .21 .43 .15

Factor 4: Withdrawal

10 could easily go without it .04 -.03 .04 .82

24 don't spend that much time .17 .14 .06 ' .

09 can't imagine going without .10 .23 .14 .58

06 withdrawal when unable .34 .20 .39 .49


9/23


shows lately; M = 2.00, SD = 0.60, a = .75). The APA criteria for this factor

included four tolerance items (one tolerance item was inadvertently repeated in the

measure), one cutting down item, and one withdrawal item.

Factor 4, Withdrawal, accounted for 7.3% of the total variance after rotation

(eigenvalue = 2.57). The four items loading on this factor denoted feelings ofwithdrawal when without television (e.g., I miss it so much, can't imagine going

without TV; M= 2.36, SD = 0.81, a = .65). The APA criteria items loading on this

factor were three withdrawal items and one time spent item.

Factor 5 was not retained due to its low reliability (a = .53). Also, a one-item

Factor 6 was not d because it failed to meet the specified criteria .

Item analysis was used o improve upon the reliability of factor structures. A few

changes were made to the initial structure. For example, statement 1 ("I feel like 1

watch more TV than I used to in order to feel the same enjoyment"), which loaded

on Factors 1 and 3, was placed in Factor 3 (see Table 1 for the factor structure and

Appendix A for I t s Its removal from Factor 1 reduced the reliability coefficient

from .95 to .94, but its addition to Factor 3 increased the reliability coefficient from

.70 to .75. Also, the 50/40 rule was relaxed to include items that made conceptual

sense. For m item 6, "When I am unable to watch TV, I miss it so much thatyou could call it 'withdrawal,'" did not reach the .50 mark but most clearly loaded

on Factor 4 with other withdrawal items. Similarly, items 21 and 25 loaded on

Factors 1 and 2, but because they were time spent items that positively contributed

to reliability, they were retained on Factor 2.

As a result of the pilot study, a few items that failed to fit the factor structure were

reworded for clarity, as suggested by Kerlinger (1986). Item 2, "\ watch about the

same amount of TV as I used to" was changed to "I've watched the same amount of

TV as I always have." Item 8, "If I have to miss my shows for some reason, it makes

me very upset" became "If I have to miss a favorite show I feel upset," and item 15,

"I usually a TV for s long as I planned" was extended to "I usually watch TV

for t o as I planned to watch." In addition, a few of the items that loaded on

Factor 1 were altered to include the word "sometimes," with the hope of increasing

the factor variance. Appendix A reflects these revisions.

Adapted Addiction Scale

The questionnaire also included an adapted version of the CAGE questionnaire

(Ewing & , 1970), an alcoholism screening device, to establish construct

validity for the new Television Addiction Scale. The acronym CAGE represents four

questions used by physicians to alert them to patients' potentials for alcoholism,

adapted for the present study to reflect television, not alcohol use: Cutting down

(Have ou gh t you t o cut down on the amount of television you wafc/i?);

Annoyance by criticism (Have people annoyed you by criticizing your television

watching?); Guilty feeling (Have you ever felt bad or guilty about your television

watching?); and Eye openers (Do you usually turn on the television first thing in the


10/23

Horvath/MEASURING ADDICTION 387

morning?). Two or three affirmative responses to the measure indicates high suspi-

cion of alcoholism. According to Ewing (1984), "even one positive reply calls for

further inquiry" (p. 1907). Responses were coded 1 = no and 2 = yes.

h a s has been widely used because of its ease of

administra-tion and effectiveness (see Ewing, 1984) and has been validated by others (e.g.,

Mayfield, McLeod, & Hall, 1974). The measure has been found to be more sensitive

than other screening devices, with accuracy ratings in predicting alcoholism of over

90% (Ewing, 1984). In s study, 28% of the participants answered "yes" to

question 1, % to to 2, 11 % to question 3, and 28% to question 4. Because

high scores on CAGE and high scores on the Television Addiction Measure

suggest television addiction, they should be positively correlated.

Results

After e analysis of the Television Addiction Scale, two-tailed Pearson correla

tions revealed relationships between study variables that tended to support the

construct validity of the Television Addiction Scale. The Television Addiction Scale

factors were a s well. For example. Problem Viewing was positively

related to Craving for Viewing (r = .65, p < .001), Heavy Viewing (r = .62, p

Addiction to mass media

Documents

Transcript of Addiction to mass media