Does Internet Usage Predict College Adjustment among First-Year Students? Kelvin Bentley Northwestern State University Kelvin Bentley Northwestern State

Does Internet Usage Predict College Adjustment among First-Year Students?

Does Internet Usage Predict College Adjustment among First-Year Students?

Kelvin BentleyNorthwestern State University

Kelvin BentleyNorthwestern State University

TopicsTopics

• Research Background• Hypotheses• Method• Results• Conclusions and Directions for

Future Research

• Research Background• Hypotheses• Method• Results• Conclusions and Directions for

Future Research

Research BackgroundResearch Background

• Research attempting to link Internet usage to loneliness and depression– Kraut and colleagues (1998)

• “Internet addiction” research with college students– Morahan-Martin and Schumacher (2000)– Davis and colleagues (1998)– Shrerer and colleagues(1997)

• Research attempting to link Internet usage to loneliness and depression– Kraut and colleagues (1998)

• “Internet addiction” research with college students– Morahan-Martin and Schumacher (2000)– Davis and colleagues (1998)– Shrerer and colleagues(1997)

Research BackgroundResearch Background

• Examination of coping styles and college adjustment– Aspinwall and Taylor (1992)– Leong, Bonz, & Zachar (1997)

• Examining relationships between computer self-efficacy, coping style, and computer hassles– Hudiburg and Necessary (1996)

• Examination of coping styles and college adjustment– Aspinwall and Taylor (1992)– Leong, Bonz, & Zachar (1997)

• Examining relationships between computer self-efficacy, coping style, and computer hassles– Hudiburg and Necessary (1996)

HypothesesHypotheses

• Students will have poor adjustment to college if the following are true:– They are women (mainly for personal-

emotional adjustment)– They are infrequent users of the

Internet– They have low levels of Internet self-

efficacy– They have experienced frequent

computer- and Internet-related hassles.

• Students will have poor adjustment to college if the following are true:– They are women (mainly for personal-

emotional adjustment)– They are infrequent users of the

Internet– They have low levels of Internet self-

efficacy– They have experienced frequent

computer- and Internet-related hassles.

Overview of ParticipantsOverview of Participants

• 244 Northwestern State University students enrolled in various psychology courses during the Fall 2001 semester– Average age: 21.7 years– Gender

• 65 Men• 175 Women• 4 students had data that was missing

• 244 Northwestern State University students enrolled in various psychology courses during the Fall 2001 semester– Average age: 21.7 years– Gender

• 65 Men• 175 Women• 4 students had data that was missing


• Classification of Participants– 70 Freshmen– 91 Sophomores– 30 Juniors– 52 Seniors

• Classification of Participants– 70 Freshmen– 91 Sophomores– 30 Juniors– 52 Seniors


• 133 European-Americans• 64 African-Americans• 2 Hispanic-Americans• 12 Native Americans• 22 students reported “Other”• 7 students had missing data

• 133 European-Americans• 64 African-Americans• 2 Hispanic-Americans• 12 Native Americans• 22 students reported “Other”• 7 students had missing data

Overview of MeasuresOverview of Measures

• Independent Variables– Computer usage

• Internet-based• Non-Internet based

– Internet self-efficacy– Computer- and Internet-related

hassles

• Independent Variables– Computer usage

• Internet-based• Non-Internet based

– Internet self-efficacy– Computer- and Internet-related

hassles

Overview of Study Variables


• Independent Variables– Coping Style

• Task-focused• Emotion-focused• Avoidant-focused

• Independent Variables– Coping Style

• Task-focused• Emotion-focused• Avoidant-focused



• Dependent Variables– College Adjustment

• Academic• Social • Personal-Emotional• Attachment to the Institution

• Dependent Variables– College Adjustment

• Academic• Social • Personal-Emotional• Attachment to the Institution

Sex by Grade ANOVA’sSex by Grade ANOVA’s

Descriptive Statistics

Dependent Variable: EMOTION

42.9167 10.6127 12

38.7609 10.6407 23

32.2308 9.0199 13

39.9375 10.6800 16

38.5078 10.6880 64

40.2857 11.5487 56

42.5788 12.0918 65

46.0000 11.6619 16

44.2500 14.1490 36

42.5007 12.3705 173

40.7500 11.3577 68

41.5810 11.7913 88

39.8276 12.5016 29

42.9231 13.2278 52

41.4225 12.0491 237

YEAR1

2

3

4

Total

1

2

3

4

Total

1

2

3

4

Total

GENDER0

1

Total

Mean Std. Deviation N

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: EMOTION

2105.704a 7 300.815 2.142 .040

274283.328 1 274283.328 1953.271 .000

952.613 1 952.613 6.784 .010

176.496 3 58.832 .419 .740

1120.153 3 373.384 2.659 .049

32156.762 229 140.423

440912.016 237

34262.466 236

SourceCorrected Model

Intercept

GENDER

YEAR

GENDER * YEAR

Error

Total

Corrected Total

Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

R Squared = .061 (Adjusted R Squared = .033)a.


Dependent Variable: ISE

32.5000 11.5168 12

33.4545 11.4340 22

31.9231 13.5429 13

30.6875 11.3591 16

32.2540 11.6494 63

28.3750 10.7307 56

28.9032 9.1950 62

25.9333 10.5659 15

29.2500 8.6367 36

28.5385 9.6960 169

29.1029 10.9000 68

30.0952 9.9633 84

28.7143 12.1925 28

29.6923 9.4652 52

29.5474 10.3701 232

YEAR1

2

3

4

Total

1

2

3

4

Total

1

2

3

4

Total

GENDER0

1

Total



Dependent Variable: ISE

836.436a 7 119.491 1.115 .354

146464.377 1 146464.377 1366.714 .000

653.801 1 653.801 6.101 .014

107.678 3 35.893 .335 .800

104.971 3 34.990 .327 .806

24005.043 224 107.165

227389.000 232

24841.478 231


Intercept

GENDER

YEAR

GENDER * YEAR

Error

Total

Corrected Total



Gender by Computer Hassle Group ANOVA’s

Gender by Computer Hassle Group ANOVA’s


Dependent Variable: PADJUST

106.7111 19.3772 12

91.8492 21.8858 42

95.1519 22.0763 54

87.0000 16.0208 16

81.4211 21.5628 38

83.0741 20.0959 54

95.4476 19.8554 28

86.8958 22.2219 80

89.1130 21.8689 108

GENDER0

1

Total

0

1

Total

0

1

Total

HASGRP1.00

2.00

Total



Dependent Variable: PADJUST

6350.515a 3 2116.838 4.912 .003

687264.014 1 687264.014 1594.650 .000

4635.546 1 4635.546 10.756 .001

2132.228 1 2132.228 4.947 .028

439.752 1 439.752 1.020 .315

44822.022 104 430.981

908813.516 108

51172.537 107


Intercept

HASGRP

GENDER

HASGRP * GENDER

Error

Total

Corrected Total



Gender by Internet Self-Efficacy Group ANOVA’sGender by Internet Self-Efficacy Group ANOVA’s


Dependent Variable: AADJUST

128.9911 20.7453 14

148.1603 26.3082 26

141.4510 25.9396 40

143.9583 28.9145 49

150.5910 29.8521 38

146.8554 29.3424 87

140.6323 27.8719 63

149.6035 28.2749 64

145.1532 28.3244 127

ISGRP1.00

2.00

Total

1.00

2.00

Total

1.00

2.00

Total

GENDER0

1

Total



Dependent Variable: AADJUST

5085.712a 3 1695.237 2.172 .095

2086924.064 1 2086924.064 2673.860 .000

1932.719 1 1932.719 2.476 .118

4250.806 1 4250.806 5.446 .021

1003.512 1 1003.512 1.286 .259

96000.416 123 780.491

2776907.026 127

101086.128 126


Intercept

GENDER

ISGRP

GENDER * ISGRP

Error

Total

Corrected Total



Regression AnalysesRegression Analyses

Model Summaryg,h

.362a .131 .117 26.5746 .131 9.507 1 63 .003

.516b .266 .242 24.6197 .135 11.402 1 62 .001

.597c .357 .325 23.2392 .091 8.585 1 61 .005

.616d .380 .339 23.0043 .023 2.252 1 60 .139

.651e .424 .375 22.3550 .044 4.536 1 59 .037

.655f .274 .429 .370 22.4498 .005 .503 1 58 .481

Model1

2

3

4

5

6

YEAR = 1(Selected)

YEAR ~= 1(Unselected)

R

R SquareAdjustedR Square

Std. Error ofthe Estimate

R SquareChange F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change

Change Statistics

Predictors: (Constant), HGPAa.

Predictors: (Constant), HGPA, EMOTIONb.

Predictors: (Constant), HGPA, EMOTION, TASKc.

Predictors: (Constant), HGPA, EMOTION, TASK, COMPHASSd.

Predictors: (Constant), HGPA, EMOTION, TASK, COMPHASS, EMOHASSe.

Predictors: (Constant), HGPA, EMOTION, TASK, COMPHASS, EMOHASS, TASKHASSf.

Unless noted otherwise, statistics are based only on cases for which YEAR = 1.g.

Dependent Variable: AADJUSTh.

DiscussionDiscussion

• Women used more emotion-focused coping strategies than men.– But men might be more at risk for

using these strategies in their first-year of college.

– Men have higher levels of Internet self-efficacy compared to women.

• Women used more emotion-focused coping strategies than men.– But men might be more at risk for

using these strategies in their first-year of college.

– Men have higher levels of Internet self-efficacy compared to women.


• The effects of emotion-focused coping on academic adjustment was influenced by the level of computer hassles experienced. This finding remained significant when only freshmen were examined.

• The effects of emotion-focused coping on academic adjustment was influenced by the level of computer hassles experienced. This finding remained significant when only freshmen were examined.


• Students in the high computer- and Internet hassles group were more likely to have lower levels of personal-emotional adjustment compared to students in the low-hassles group.– The women of this group had lower

personal-emotional adjustment scores compared to men.

• Students in the high computer- and Internet hassles group were more likely to have lower levels of personal-emotional adjustment compared to students in the low-hassles group.– The women of this group had lower

personal-emotional adjustment scores compared to men.

Future Research Includes…

Future Research Includes…

• Design a research model to examine the predictors of college adjustment among online college students compared to f2f learners.

• Design a research model to examine the predictors of college adjustment among online college students compared to f2f learners.

Documents

Does Internet Usage Predict College Adjustment among First-Year Students? Kelvin Bentley Northwestern State University Kelvin Bentley Northwestern State