Computer addiction? : a study of computer dependency

340 Pages·1989·2.31 MB·English

by  Shotton

Computer addiction?
‘Each man to what sport and revels his addiction leads him’
Othello, II ii 6
Computer addiction?
A study of computer dependency
Margaret A.Shotton
University of Nottingham
Taylor & Francis
London • New York • Philadelphia
1989
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of
thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”
UK Taylor & Francis Ltd, 4 John St, London WC1N 2ET
USA Taylor & Francis Inc., 1900 Frost Road, Suite 101, Bristol, PA
19007
Copyright © M.A.Shotton 1989
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored
in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the copyright owner and publisher.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Shotton, Margaret A.
Computer addiction? : a study of computer dependency.
1. Man. Interactions with computer systems
I. Title
004’.01’9
ISBN 0-203-21063-8 Master e-book ISBN
ISBN 0-203-26833-4 (Adobe eReader Format)
ISBN 0-85066-795-X Hbk
ISBN 0-85066-796-8 Pbk
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
is available
Cover design by Jordan and Jordan, Fareham, Hants.
Contents
Foreword viii
Preface ix
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Original motivations 1
Definitions used: computer addiction or dependency? 4
Chapter 2 Initial investigations: Does computer dependency 7
exist?
Do professionals believe in the existence of computer 7
dependency?
Do individuals believe they are personally dependent upon 14
computers?
Preliminary conclusion: Confirmation of the syndrome’s 20
existence
Chapter 3 An overview of the methods used 22
The survey and psychometric test methods employed 22
The need for and elicitation of control groups 27
The statistical methods used 29
Chapter 4 Analysis of the demographic data: Who is computer 31
dependent?
The demographic characteristics of the computer dependent 31
respondents
Demographic comparisons with the control groups 35
Chapter 5 Sex differences in computer use and dependency: 38
Why were there so few females in the sample?
vi
Introduction 38
The schools’ survey 39
Discussion 56
Chapter 6 Computing activities: The nature of the phenomenon 61
Introduction 61
Methods employed 61
Initial experiences with computers 62
Characteristics of the time spent computing 65
The hardware involved 68
Types of computing activities undertaken 71
Conclusions 80
Chapter 7 Computing and other leisure activities: Was 83
computing an isolated activity?
Introduction 83
A comparative investigation of leisure activities 84
Computing, hobbies and personality 107
Chapter 8 Social and psychological influences: What might 115
have led to the development of computer
dependency?
Introduction 115
Attitudes towards computers and people 116
Family life 121
Social experiences 128
Personality factors 139
Chapter 9 Different types of computer dependency 166
Introduction 166
Searching for subgroups 166
Differences between the subgroups 168
Discussion 170
vii
Summary—all things to all men? 199
Chapter 10 The effects of computer dependency: The advantages 203
and disadvantages to the individual and others
Introduction 203
Positive effects upon the dependent individuals 204
Positive effects upon others 208
Negative effects upon the dependent individuals 209
Negative effects upon others 214
Discussion 226
Chapter 11 Discussion of the findings: Should computer 234
dependency be considered a serious problem?
Introduction 234
Anxieties associated with new technology 235
Fear of technological innovation is not a new occurrence 240
The influence of computer dependency upon computer 243
systems
The influence of computer dependency upon children 245
Computers as dehumanizing agents 246
Computers as desocializing agents 252
Observations upon the reactions of others to computer 256
dependency
We should not be surprised that computer dependency occurs 259
Do computer dependents differ from other enthusiasts? 262
Conclusions 267
Appendix 1 Case studies 275
Appendix 2 Results from interviews with two sculptors 295
Bibliography 301
Author Index 313
Subject Index 317
Foreword
Since 1979, a mere ten years ago when the microcomputer first started coming to
Britain in quantity, there has been very extensive growth in two particular areas;
in the growth of computers and, sadly, of drugs. With the simultaneity of this
growth and the intensity with which some people became involved with
computers, it is perhaps not surprising that in the early 1980s we began to hear
some suggestions of the possibility of ‘computer addiction’. The word addiction
has been applied to the compulsion of drug-taking since the early 1900s, and
indeed it could be argued since 1779 whence the example ‘his addiction to
tobacco is mentioned by one of his biographers’ (quotation from the Oxford
English Dictionary about Johnson).
In a nutshell one might say that the most interesting and important outcome of
Margaret Shotton’s doctoral research is to show clearly that the word addiction
should not be used about the relatively small proportion of computer users who
become intensive computer devotees; or if used, then the term should be
interpreted not in the drug sense but more precisely in another version of the
definition in the OED as ‘the state of being given to a habit or pursuit’.
The computer dependent person, to use Shotton’s term, is clearly a hobbyist,
‘a person devoted to a hobby (sometimes used with a connotation of crankiness)’,
where hobby denotes ‘a favourite occupation pursued merely for amusement or
an individual pursuit to which a person is devoted (in the speaker’s opinion) out
of proportion to its real importance’. This excellent piece of research has shown
how the extensive use of a computer can be a most important hobby for some
people, not an addiction (in the usual sense of the word) but at one extreme of
the very wide range of intense concentration and involvement covered by
people’s hobby interests.
If the computer, one of the most powerful tools which mankind has so far
invented, is never used to cause greater potential distress or danger than as an
extreme hobby, we shall have no reason to fear the computer devotee or the
computer expert. But that begs a whole different range of research issues!
Professor Brian Shackel
Loughborough University of Technology
Preface
This research was initiated through my combined interests in new technology
and in people. As a lifelong observer of the human condition I have always been
fascinated in the activities of others, and in trying to determine what makes them
‘tick’ and brings them fulfilment in life. What is obvious to all is that what holds
the attention of one may provide boredom for another. Many in the population
feel that chasing a ball around a court or field is a worthwhile and meaningful
activity, while to others programming in machine code is infinitely more
exciting. Who is to say which is more acceptable?
During a period of four years I was immersed in the lives of people for whom
interaction with computers was considered infinitely preferable to the majority of
their interactions with people. This is not a belief I personally share, in spite of
the fact that I spend much of my life staring at a VDU screen, but one which I
came to understand and appreciate fully. People differ in their needs, aptitudes
and in their cognitive styles, and happy are they who are able to find an activity
which perfectly matches their personality.
The ‘computer dependents’, who shared their beliefs, their pains and their
happiness with me, have enriched my understanding of psychology as no
textbook ever could. Their honesty and their ability to lay bear their weaknesses
as well as their strengths have proven how dangerous it is to condemn what one
does not understand or to show prejudice against those who differ from
ourselves.
Early readings about ‘computer junkies’ and ‘hackers’ suggested that if I
pursued this research I might spend my time with people who were barely human
and who were unable to converse with others on any meaningful level. How
untrue this proved to be. I met some of the most fascinating people of my life.
They were intelligent, lively, amusing, original, inventive, and very hospitable.
True, they rarely spend much time communicating with people for reasons
explained within this book, but when interest was shown in them and their
activities it would be difficult to find more interesting conversationalists. True,
many of them were unconventional and unconstrained by society’s mores, but
who would not like the freedom and courage to act without recourse to others?