ÜNİVERSİTE ÖĞRENCİLERİ ARASINDA SOSYOTELİZM VE KİŞİLİK TİPLERİ ARASINDAKI İLİŞKİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Öz

Çalışma, üniversite öğrencileri arasında sosyotelizm sıklığının saptanması, ilişkili olduğu düşünülen bazı değişkenlerin incelenmesi ve kişilik tiplerinin belirlenmesi amacıyla yapılmıştır.Kesitsel tipte olan çalışma, 2020-2021 eğitim öğretim yılı bahar döneminde Ankara’daki bir üniversitede öğrenim görmekte olan tüm öğrenciler arasında gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veriler öğrencilerle çevirim içi (online) olarak toplanmıştır. Araştırmada örneklem hesabına gidilmemiş olup, evrene ulaşılması hedeflenmiştir. Çalışmaya katılmayı kabul eden 869 öğrenci çalışma grubunu oluşturmuştur. Çalışmamızda sosyotelizm düzeyinin değerlendirilmesi için Sosyotelizm Ölçeği, kişilik özelliklerinin belirlenmesinde ise On Maddeli Kişilik Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Analizler Ki-kare testi ve Lojistik Regresyon Analizi ile yapılmıştır. İstatistiksel anlamlılık değeri olarak p<0.05 kabul edilmiştir.Çalışma grubundakilerin 654’ü (%75.3) kadın, 215’i (%24.7) ise erkektir. Yaşları 18-44 arasında değişmekte olup, ortalama 21.37±2.97 yıl idi. Çalışmada sosyotelizm sıklığı %7.9 olarak bulunmuştur. Sosyotelizm için önemli risk faktörleri arasında kadın olmak, geniş aile yapısına sahip olmak, günlük ortalama akıllı telefon kullanma süresinin 6 saat ve üzerinde olması ve yumuşak başlı kişilik tipine sahip olma özelliği bulunmaktadır. Öğrencilerin en çok kullandıkları sosyal medya uygulamaları sırasıyla; %29.6 ile whatsapp, %25.9 ile instagram ve %23.6 ile youtube idi. Sonuç olarak, kişilik tipleri ile sosyotelizm arasında saptanan ilişkinin ortaya konabilmesi için daha kapsamlı çalışmalara ihtiyaç vardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyotelizm
• Kişilik Tipi
• Üniversite Öğrencisi

ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHUBBING AND PERSONALITY TYPES AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Öz

This study was conducted to determine the prevalence of phubbing among university students, review some variables that are believed to be associated and determine personality types. This cross-sectional study was conducted on all undergraduate students at a university in Ankara during the 2020-2021 spring semester. Data was collected online. It was targeted to reach the target population rather than calculating the sample. The study group consisted of 869 students who agreed to take part in the study. In this study, the Phubbing Scale was used to determine the level of phubbing and the 10-Item Personality Inventory was used to determine personality traits. Analyses were conducted with Chi-squared test and Logistic Regression Analysis. Statistical significance value was accepted as p < 0.05. The study group consisted of 654 (75.3%) female students and 215 (24.7%) male students. Their age ranged from 18 to 44 with a mean age of 21.37 ± 2.97 years. The prevalence of phubbing was found to be 7.9% in this study. Important risk factors for phubbing are being a woman, having an extended family, having an average duration of daily smartphone use of 6 hours and more and agreeableness personality trait. The most commonly used social media apps by the students were WhatsApp (29.6%), Instagram (25.9%) and YouTube (23.6%).In conclusion, more comprehensive studies are needed to reveal the relationship between personality types and sociotelism.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Phubbing
• Personality Type
• University Student

Kaynakça

1. Aktas, H.,& Yilmaz, N. (2017). Smartphone addiction in terms of the elements of loneliness and shyness of university youth. International Journal of Social Science and Education Research3, 85-100.
2. Atak, H. (2013). The Turkish Adaptation of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory. Archives of Neuropsychiatry 50, 312-319. doi: 10.4274/npa.y6128
3. Aygar, H., Tozun, M., Unsal, A., Arslantas, D., Oktar, D., & Dagtekin, G. (2021). Determination of the prevalence of phubbing and its possible relations with personality characteristics and with the other factors among the students of the faculty of medicine from western Turkey. International Research Journal of Social Sciences, 10, 20-27.
4. Bal, E.,& Balci, S. (2020). Smartphone Addiction: A study on efficacy of personality traits and usage patterns.Journal of Erciyes Communication, 7, 369-394. https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.654569
5. Balli, N. S.,& Dogan, T. (2020). Investigation of the Phubbing Among Undergraduate Students, Hacettepe University, Graduate School of Educational Sciences, Department of Educational Sciences, Psychological Counseling and Guidance, Postgraduate Thesis, Ankara.
6. Balta, S., Emirtekin, E., Kircaburun, K., & Griffiths, M. D. (2018). Neuroticism, trait fear of missing out, and phubbing: the mediating role of state fear of missing out and problematic instagram use. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1-12. doi:10.1007/s11469-018-9959-8
7. Chen, B., Liu, S., Ying, X., Wang, L., & Wen., Y. (2017). Gender differences in factors associated with smartphone addiction: a cross-sectional study among medical college students. BMC Psychiatry, 17, 1-9. doi:10.1186/s12888-017-1503-z
8. Chotpitayasunondh, V.,& Douglas, K. M. (2016). How “phubbing” becomes the norm: The antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone.Computers in Human Behavior,63, 9-18. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.018

9. Choi, K., Son, H., Park, M., Han, J., Kim, K., Lee B, et al. (2009). Internet overuse and excessive daytime sleepiness in adolescents. Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 63(4):455-462.
10. Demirci, K., Akgonul, M., & Akpinar, A. 2015. Relationship of smartphone use severity with sleep quality, depression, and anxiety in university students. J Behav Addict, 4,85–92. doi: 10.1556/2006.4.2015.010
11. Economides, A. A.,& Grousopoulou, A. (2008). Use of mobile phonesby male and female Greek students. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 6, 729-749. doi:10.1504/IJMC.2008.019822
12. Erzen, E., Odaci, H. & Yeniceri, I. (2019). Phubbing: Which personality traits are prone to phubbing?.Social Science Computer Review,20, 1-14. doi:10.1177/0894439319847415
13. Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J., & Swann, WB Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big Five personality domains. J Res in Pers, 37, 504-528. doi:10.1016/S00926566(03)00046-1
14. Isik, M. & Kaptangil, I. (2018). The Relation of smart phone addiction to social media usage and five factor personality trait: a research on university students. Journal of the Human and Social Science Researches, 7, 695-717.
15. Karadağ, E., Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Erzen, E., Duru, P., Bostan, N., Şahin, B. M., Çulha, İ. & Babadağ, B. (2015). Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: A structural equation model. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(2), 60–74.
16. Karadag, E., Tosuntas, S. B., Erzen, E., Duru, P., Bostan, N., Mizrak-Sahin, B., Çulha, İ. & Babadag, B. (2016). The virtual world’s current addiction: Phubbing.Addicta:The Turkish Journal on Addiction, 3, 223-269.
17. Karki, S., Singh, J. P., Paudel, G., Khatiwada, S., & Timilsina, S. (2020). How addicted are newly admitted undergraduate medical students to smartphones?: a cross-sectional study from Chitwan medical college, Nepal. BMC Psychiatry, 20, 95. doi: 10.1186/s12888-020-02507-1
18. Karaaslan, I. & Budak, L. (2012). Research on the Use of mobile phone features by university students and its impact on their communication practices in everyday life. Journal of Yasar University, 26, 4548-4571.
19. Karslı F, Açık Yavuz B. (2024). Relationship of phubbing with depression, anxiety, self esteem and other mental variables. Journal of Dependence, 25(2):122-132. doi:10.51982/bagimli.1332637
20. Kayri, M.,& Gunuc, S. (2016). Comparing internet addiction in students with high and low socioeconomic status levels. Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addiction, 3, 165-183. doi: 10.15805/addicta.2016.3.0110
21. Kumcagiz, H., Terzi, O., Koc, B., & Terzi, M. (2020). Smartphone addiction in university students. Journal of the Human and Social Science Researches, 9, 13-39. doi: 0.15869/itobiad.629737
22. Kuyucu, M. (2017). Use of smart phone and problematic of smart phone addiction in young people: "Smart Phone (Colic)" University Youth.,Global Media Journal TR Edition, 7, 328-359.
23. Lee, C.,& Lee, S. (2017). Prevalence and predictors of smartphone addiction proneness among Korean adolescents. Child Youth Serv Rev., 77, 10–17. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.04.002
24. Meral, D. (2017). Review of smartphone addiction in secondary school students with regard to loneliness, life satisfaction and some personal characteristics. Faculty of Social Sciences, Postgraduate Thesis, Erzincan University, Erzincan.
25. Minaz, A.,& Bozkurt Ö. Ç. (2017). Investigation of university students smartphone addiction levels and usage purposes in terms of different variables. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 268-286. doi: 10.20875/makusobed.306903
26. Noyan, C. O., Darcin, A. E., Nurmedov, S., Yilmaz, O., & Dilbaz, N. (2015). Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Smartphone Addiction Scale-Short Version among university students. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry, 16, 73 -81. doi: 10.5455/apd.176101
27. Goksun, D. O. (2019). Adaptation of General Scales of Phubbing and Being Phubbed into Turkish. Afyon KocatepeUniversity Journal of Social Sciences, 21, 657-671. doi: 10.32709/akusosbil.505642
28. Ozdemir, S. (2021). Does the fear of missing out affect social exclusion in social relations? The role of phubbing. Hacettepe University Journal of Social Sciences, 3, 64-77.
29. Ozguven, I. E. (2005). Family Communication and Life, 1st Edition, Ankara: PDREM Publications.
30. Parmaksiz, I. (2019). Relationship of phubbing, a behavioral problem, with assertiveness and passiveness: A study on adolescents. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 11, 34-45. doi:10.15345/iojes.2019.03.003
31. Pirincci, E., Karacorlu, F. N., & Kaya, M. O. (2019). Assessment of the relationship of phone addiction and phubbing among Firat University students. 3Rd International 21st National Public Health Congress Paper. 895-6.
32. Sözmez Sarı E. S., Kırbaş, Z. Ö., Güneş, H., Akeren, Z., ve Semerci, V. (2023). Üniversite öğrencilerinin sosyotelizme maruz kalma ve sosyotelist olma durumlarının incelenmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 16 (2), 209-218.
33. Sozbilir, F. (2018). Information technologies and potential human resources of organizations: An empirical study. The Journal of Business, Economic and Management Research 1, 31-48.
34. Tekin, C. (2014). Adaptation of problematic mobile phone use scale to Turkish: A validity and reliability study. Medicine Science, 3, 1361-1368. doi:10.5455/medscience.2014.03.8138
35. Topal, N., Odacı, H. ve Özer, Ş. (2023). İnternet bağımlılığı, akıllı telefon bağımlılığı ve psikolojik iyi oluş: Yalnızlığın aracı rolü. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 43(2), 601-639.
36. TUIK. (2021). Household use of information technologies research - rate of mobile phone use in individuals by age group, gender, education and workforce in last three months, 2018-2021. Turkish Statistical Institute, http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1028 ,(02.09.2021).
37. Unalan, D.,& Yildirim, O. (2020). The evaluation of digital native sociotelism (phubbing) trends. Gumushane University e-Journal of Faculty of Communication, 8, 276-297. doi: 10.19145/E-Gifder.644279
38. Unlu, F. (2018). Social media dependence and social insulation in above intermediate. PESA International Journal of Social Studies, 4, 161-172.
39. Uysal, T. & Kanbul, S. (2020). Investigation of phubber levels of students in terms of various variables, Postgraduate Thesis, Near East University, Educational Sciences Institute, Computer and Educational Instructional Technologies, Nicosia.
40. Uzdil, N. & Şimşek, N. (2023). Hemşirelik öğrencilerinde sosyotropi kişilik özelliği ile yalnızlık arasındaki ilişkide akıllı telefon bağımlılığı aracı etkisi, Bağımlılık Dergisi,24(2), 197-206. doi:10.51982/bagimli.1149089