Journal: Computers in Human Behavior
Impact Factor: 2.694
This journal mainly focuses on the use of computers from a psychological perspective. On the one hand the actual use of computers is of interest, on the other hand also the impact of this use on individuals, groups and society is researched and published in this journal. This includes psychological effects on human development, learning, cognition and social interactions. The computer itself isn't being researched, but rather the computer as a medium through which behaviors are expressed.
The current edition included topics like the impact of
media use before sleeping, the role of SNS within adult romantic
relationships and computer game misuse and addiction.
I selected Alt's paper on "College students’ academic
motivation, media engagement and fear of missing out", which was published
on the 12th of March 2015 in the high quality journal Computers in Human
Behavior.
___________________________________________________________
College students’ academic motivation, media engagement and
fear of missing out
Alt, D. (2015)
In the ages of social media, people spend more and more time
online. That can also have a negative effect on those, who might be offline for
awhile and experience a fear, that they might miss out on something happening
in the online world while they're offline. In this paper Alt uses the new
phenomenon named Fear of Missing Out (FoMo) to investigate possible links
between FoMo, social media engagement and three motivational constructs:
Intrinsic, extrinsic and amotivation for learning (amotivation means absence of
motivation). While it already has been researched (to some extent) how
FoMO is related to Social Media usage, it hasn't been researched in the
academic arena. The present study focuses on the social media usage in the
classroom. Results showed that students would be more likely to use social
media tools in the classroom if they were extrinsically or amotivated students.
FoMo was indeed a mediator variable.
Critical examination
While the study addresses one of the most current topics in
the age of new media, it also has some flaws. First of all the hypotheses
aren't well formulated (see example H2):
H2. Based on the assumption that psychological need deficits can lead some toward a general sensitivity to FoMO, it is hypothesized that FoMO would serve as a mediator linking motivational deficits to social media engagement. Furthermore, background variables, such as gender, age, and socio-economic status, will also be addressed in this research in order to assess how these variables intersect and may contribute to the measured variables. Fig. 1 demonstrates the theoretical structure of the proposed framework.
The data was gathered by 296 undergraduate Social-Science students - but over 85% of them were female, which
under-represents the male students a lot. I think especially when it comes to
media use, gender differences can be found. Also, they only surveyed
one college, which makes it hard to generalize the results on other
students from other regions/countries.
Furthermore, self-report scales were used. There
will always be problems regarding social desirability. Some
students might have felt uncomfortable to admit how much they use social media
during class and thus adjusted their answers towards a slightly less extreme
use in the survey.
Another flaw is the use of an "unvalidated" new
scale of Social Media Engagement (SME). Of course, it is sometimes
necessary to develop new scales, but then you have the problem, that you don't
really know for sure how reliable the scale is.
1) Briefly explain to a first year university student what
theory is, and what theory is not.
Theories answer the questions of why. They are
used to find causal relationships among phenomena, or as Sutton and
Staw (1995) say, " to understand the systematic reasons for a
particular occurrence or nonoccurence" . A good theory explains,
predicts, and delights (Weick, 1995).
A theory is not the references used to
develop the work, or the data which serves as a basis for the study.
It is also not the constructs or variables defined in a paper. Nor is
it the diagrams used to illustrate the idea, or the hypotheses, which
are the conceptual arguments of the work.
2) Describe the major theory or theories that are used in
your selected paper. Which theory type (see Table 2 in Gregor) can the theory
or theories be characterized as?
Alt uses the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as basis. This
theory has initially been developed by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. From
the SDT Alt explores FoMO, because SDT is a particularly useful perspective
regarding learning motivation. Regarding Gregor's theory types I
might say it's the II type, called explanation. SDT provides more
background on why people do what they do through analyzing the
motivation. This could represent the causality and methods for
argumentation. The SDT determines if people are motivated because of intrinsic or extrinsic
reasons. Internal factors can be enthusiasm and pleasure. These people are
motivated, because they love what they do. External factors are incentives,
such as passing an exam or getting rewarded differently. As Gregor says, this
provides us with more insight on why we do what we do.
3) Which are the benefits and limitations of using the
selected theory or theories?
The benefit of this theory is, that is has been
used and shaped over the past years, so that it's up to date and useful. There
is a lot of research backing it up. There are even six Mini-SDT theories
that explain other motivationally based phenomena, that have emerged over
the years through field research.
Limitations would be that Deci and Ryan only propose three
psychological needs (autonomy, competence and relatedness). Shouldn't
humans have more needs than that?
Sources
Alt, D. (2015). College students' academic motivation, media
engagement and fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior. 49, 111-119. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.057
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic
motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York:
Plenum.
Sutton, R., Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative
Science Quartely. 40 (3). 371-384.
Weick, E. K. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative
Science Quartely. 40 (3). 385-390.
Hi! I think you've done a great job with this post. You've showed that you understand the paper you've chosen to read and I think that it seems you've highlighted what were most important in the paper (even though I myself haven't read it). You show in your text that you've understood the concept of theory well and I also think that you explain what theory is not in a good way. If I were to critique something in your text, it would be that you might have been able to write some kind of conclusion at the end of your text, as it is now, it kind of just ends a bit abruptly. But that's a minor thing, I really think you did a great job this week!
SvaraRadera