TRINITY UNIVERSITY OF ASIA (formerly Trinity College of Quezon City)

Cathedral Heights, 275 E. Rodriquez, Sr. Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines 1102

MOBILE PHONE ADDICTION, LONELINESS AND SOCIAL

INTERACTION AMONG TEENAGERS FROM PRIVATE SCHOOL AND
PUBLIC SCHOOL

A Degree Paper Presented to the

Faculty of Psychology Department, College of Arts and Sciences

Trinity University of Asia, Quezon City

In Partial Fulfilment

for the Degree

Bachelor of Science in Psychology

by

Alysha Thalia M. Bernardino

Daniel O. Delgado

Almira S. Javier

Maryjoy S. Merilles

Krishia Marielle R. Samaniego

i
 April 2017

APPROVAL SHEET

The degree paper of Maryjoy Merilles, Alysha Bernardino, Daniel

Delgado, Almira Javier and Krishia Samaniego entitled MOBILE PHONE

ADDICTION, LONELINESS AND SOCIAL INTERACTION AMONG

TEENAGERS FROM PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL submitted in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in

Psychology of the College of Arts and Sciences in Trinity University of Asia

has been approved by the panel of examiners.

________________________

Dr. Helen C. Baguno

Faculty Adviser

2
___________________________
________________________

Mr. Pedrito A. Aton, RPm, M.S. Dr. Giselie Aurora

E. Mina

Head Psychology Department Dean of Arts & Sciences

3
 Acknowledgements

The researchers would like to express their deepest gratitude to the

following people who gave their utmost support and help in accomplishing this

study:

To our dear adviser, Dr. Helen C. Baguno for her guidance and

support, giving all the possible help that she could give, and motivating and

encouraging the researchers in completing this study. This would not have

been possible without her.

To our RD Professor and Head of the Psychology Department, Prof.

Pedrito Aton, for equipping the researchers the proper knowledge in the

conduct of the study, lending a hand, guidance, enlightenments and

motivation that the researchers needed the most in completing this study.

To the Faculty of the Psychology Department, for the inspiration

and endless support.

To the Principals of the Senior High School of Trinity University of

Asia and Technological University of the Philippines for allowing the

researcher to conduct the study to their students.

4
 Lastly, to their families for all the encouragement, inspiration, moral,

and financial support in the whole process of the study. Without them, the

researchers would never be able to accomplish this degree paper.

And most of all, the researchers would like to thank the highest One,

the Almighty God for giving them strength, wisdom, and guidance to

complete the task.

The Researchers

Dedication

This degree paper is dedicated to the researchers families,

To our fellow researchers,

To those who believe in the richness of learning,

Especially, to Almighty God.

A.T.M.B

5
 D.O.D

A.S.J

M.S.M

K.M.R.S

Abstract

This study focused on finding the relationship between the Mobile Phone

Addiction, Loneliness, and Social Interaction amongst the teenagers from

Private and Public School. A total of 80 Grade 11 students were selected

from Trinity University of Asia and Technological University of the

Philippines using cluster sampling. The scales used to measure the

respondent's mobile phone addiction, loneliness and social interaction was

Smartphone Addiction Scale, UCLA Loneliness Scale, Big Five Inventory

respectively.

6
This study used Descriptive Statistics to Mean and Standard Deviation,

Inferential Statistics for T-test, and Pearson Product-Moment Correlation

Coefficient. The finding of this study revealed that the level of the mobile

phone addiction obtained low level, while loneliness and social among

teenagers from both school belongs to average range. Between the public

and the private schools, only on mobile phone addiction specifically positive

anticipation was found to have a significant difference while no significant

difference were found on loneliness and social interaction. Further results

shows that mobile phone addiction and loneliness has a significant

relationship among teenager from private and public school. Relationship

between mobile phone addiction specifically the overuse factor and social

interaction among teenagers from private school has a significant

relationship. Lastly, the relationship between participants loneliness and

social interaction in both public and private school resulted having a

significant relationship.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7
 page

Title Page.....i

Approval Sheet...ii

Acknowldegments.....iii

Dedication..iv

Abstract..v

Table of Contents.vi

List of Figures and Tablesviii

CHAPTER I

Problem and Its

Background....................................................................................1

Theoretical
Framework............................................................................................3

Conceptual
Framework........................................................................................6

Statement of the
Problem.........................................................................................7

Hypotheses..............................................................................................................
.8

Definition of
Terms..................................................................................................9

Scope Delimitation and

Limitation..........................................................................9

8
 Significance of the
Study.......................................................................................10

CHAPTER II

Review of Related
Literature ................................................................................11

Review of Related
Studies ....................................................................................19

Synthesis ...............................................................................................................
33

CHAPTER III

Research
Method ..................................................................................................38

Sample and Sampling

Technique..........................................................................38

Research
Locale.....................................................................................................39

Instrumentation..............................................................................................
41

Data Gathering
Pocedure.......................................................................................44

Statistical
Treatment .............................................................................................45

CHAPTER IV..49

9
CHAPTER V

Summary of Findings.64

Conclusions69

Recommendations..71

REFERENCES....................................................................
.............................................73

APPENDICES ...................................................................
..............................................80

Appendix A Confirmation to Adviser..............................81

Appendix B Smartphone Addiction

Scale......................................................82

Appendix C UCLA Loneliness Scale Version

...............................................85

Appendix D- Big Five Inventory...86

Appendix E- Letter of Approval89

Appendix F- Letter to the Principal ..90

Appendix G- Letter to the Principal...91

CRONBACH
ALPHA.....................................92

BIOPROFILE..96

LIST OF FIGURES

10
Figure 1. Conceptual
Framework....................................................................................6

Figure 2: Location map of Trinity University of Asia...40

Figure 3:Location map of Technological University of the

Philippines41

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Level of Mobile Phone Addiction of among Teenagers from Private

School

and Public School..49

Table 2: Level of Loneliness among Teenagers from Private School and

Public School.52

Table 3: Level of Social Interaction among Teenagers from Private School

and

Public School.53

Table 4: Summary of Significant Difference on mobile phone addiction

among

Teenagers from Private School and Public School54

Table 5: Summary of Significant Difference on Loneliness among Teenagers

from Private School and Public School.55

Table 6: Summary of Significant Difference on Social Interaction among

Teenagers

from Private School and Public School.56

Table 7: Summary of Significant Relationship between Mobile Phone

Addiction

11
and Loneliness among Teenagers from Private School and Public
School...57

Table 8: Summary of Significant Relationship between Mobile Phone

Addiction

and Social Interaction among Teenagers from Private School and Public
School60

Table 9: Summary of Significant Relationship between Loneliness and

Social Interaction among Teenagers from Private School and Public

School...62

12
 TRINITY UNIVERSITY OF ASIA (formerly Trinity College of Quezon City)
Cathedral Heights, 275 E. Rodriquez, Sr. Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines 1102

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Technology is an ever-changing aspect of this day and plays a major

role in every persons life (Goswami & Singh, 2016). These modern-day

gadgets enable individuals to communicate effectively even if they are not

physically present. In todays style of communicating, people more commonly

uses mobile calls or text messages to reach out with others. Mobile phone,

or also known as cell phones, plays an essential role in communications

throughout the world and it enables people to communicate when, where, and

with whom they wish (Jones, 2015).

Social interaction is basically a need for each person. It could help a

person to grow and have development in our life, according to the Social

Psychological Paradigm of Alfred Adler. Having social interaction means that

a face-to-face communication is required. However, there are statistics that

it has been apparent that the statistics of active mobile social users active

users of social media via mobile phone - are on 36 million based on the

survey, which was why the country was dubbed as the Social Media Capital

of the World (Igna, 2015).

1
 Although there are huge number of advantages having a mobile phone

and it has been a breakthrough for technology, a huge impact it created in

our lives excessive use of it can cause impaired social being (Bhardwaj &

Ashok, 2015). The use of mobile phone in class can sometimes disrupt the on-

going session inside the classroom, and it has been apparent that it was

causing a problem. Teenagers who are excessively exposed to these kind of

distraction experiences impaired sleeping habit, the feeling of restlessness

and stress. Todays generation are too comfortable with using the gadget

that being addicted has been escalated at a greater pace (Goswami & Singh,

2016).Loneliness appears when an individual does not have the satisfaction of

having an intimate or platonic relationship. Although loneliness is correlated

to being alone, it is actually deemed as a state of mind. It can make a person

feel empty, alone and not wanted. Loneliness distressing experience that

occurs when a persons social relationships are perceived by that person to

be less in quantity, and much lesser in quality, than desired (Hawkley, 2016).

The multiplicity of social relations does not matter but the quality of them is

important. However, having more social relations may not always derive

individuals a profit in social life. According to Takao, et al. (2009) it is

conceivable that lonely people are eager to maintain contact with their peers

2
through frequent calls so as to fulfill their loneliness but without face to

face communication the loneliness will never truly go away and if low self-

esteem persists, they continue to use their cell phones as way of

communication it could lead to cell phone addiction (Hong, 2012). It was also

supported by Jin and Park (2012) as cited by Bhardwaj and Ashok (2015)

found that more face-to-face interactions were associated with lower levels

of loneliness. However, more cell phone calling was associated with greater

loneliness. Researchers therefore would expect that higher or problematic

phone use is predicted to the level of loneliness.

This study focused on the relationship of mobile phone addiction,

loneliness and social interaction of students in public school and private

school and it prove that mobile phone addiction plays a significant role in

youths feeling of loneliness and its influence on their social interaction.

Moreover, the researchers would like to know the level of mobile phone

addiction, loneliness and social interaction of student in public and private

school by conducting a study.

Theoretical Framework

3
 This study was supported by the following theories: the first one was

the Uses and Gratification Theory it was first introduced by Elihu Katz

(1959) when he came up with the notion that people use the media to their

benefit. It placed more focus on the consumer, or audience, instead of the

actual message itself by asking what people do with media rather than

what media does to people.

The Uses and Gratifications Theory viewed the members of the

audience are not passive but active, it means that they actively seek out

specific media and content to achieve certain results or fulfil specific

gratifications that will satisfy their personal needs or certain needs such as

entertainment, relaxation, or socializing as well as take an active role in

interpreting and integrating media into their own lives. This theory also held

that audiences were responsible for choosing media to meet their needs.

UGT explains that it was a tool for understanding how individuals connect

with the technologies that surround them. These technologies span

everything from the Internet to video gaming to mobile phones. UGT

research into mobile phone usage has found that people seek a number of

gratifications from their phones, including affection, sociability,

entertainment, and mobility, among others. As another example of a

4
contemporary technology, users can be motivated by factors like a need to

vent negative feelings, recognition, and cognitive needs using social media.

The second theory was the Social development theory which stated

that social interaction plays a fundamental role in the process of cognitive

development. According to Vygotsky, childrens thinking was affected by

their knowledge of the social community. He also suggested that language is

the most important tool for gaining this social knowledge. It explained the

qualitative changes of societys structure and framework, which can help the

society to realize its aims quickly. Frank (2013) stated that social

interaction was in advance of development and both the socialization and

social behavior will lead to peoples consciousness and cognition.

Finally, the Theory of loneliness was developed by Robert S. Weiss.

Based on the theory there are six social needs; attachment, social

integration, nurturance, reassurance of worth, sense of reliable alliance, and

guidance in stressful situations. Robert S. Weiss stated that if the six social

need are unmet the feeling of loneliness occurred. One of the foundations of

this theory was attachment theory by John Bowlby in 1980. This explained

the nature of attachment by the quality of an infants interaction with their

parents. Infants who have needs which werent met consistently and were

5
unavailable develop anxious attachment. Loneliness occurs when children with

insecure attachment patterns behave in ways that result in their being

rejected by their peers. Those rejections hinder their development of social

skills and increase their distrust of other people, thereby fostering ongoing

loneliness (Hawkley, 2016).

This study was anchored on the theory of Elihu Katz (1959) known as

Uses and Gratification Theory. This viewed the members engaged in use of

specific media and content actively seek out certain results according to

fulfill specific gratification which will satisfy their personal needs like,

socialization, relaxation, and entertainment. In accordance to this, Reid and

Reid as cited by Al-Barashdi, Bouazza, Jabur & Al Zubaidi (2015) had stated

that different kinds of gratification anxious and lonely people received from

using the Internet and mobile phones. Lonely people preferred to

communicate with others over the phone, while anxious people preferred a

more text-based Internet when interacting. which said that teenagers were

more likely to engaged in the use of mobile phone to satisfy their personal

needs specifically sociability. Anxious users said that they would rather send

a text message than talking to them in person. They were more socially

anxious or felt less valued in face-to-face communication. It was also found

6
in the study that using such gadget may contribute to the level of loneliness

because of perceived deficiency in ones relationship.

A study supported by Walsh, White and Young as cited by Al-Barashdi

et al (2015), that there are factors underlying mobile phone use applying

UGT as a framework. Three gratifications such as self, social, and security

were revealed. Social and self-gratification exhibiting the greatest

predicted the level of use and addictive tendency, and the latter exhibiting

the greatest impact on the three addiction indicators. These theories

presented were considered as framework to help in developing the study.

These would help the possible relationship of the variables which the mobile

phone addiction considered as the dependent variable, while the loneliness

and social interaction were considered as independent variables.

The study currently presented by the researchers seeks to determine

the prevalence of mobile phone addiction and its influence towards young

individuals today, as it encourages the teenagers to also experience

loneliness within their social interactions.

Conceptual Framework

Teenagers

7
 Social Interaction
Loneliness Mobile Phone Addiction

Figure 1.0 Conceptual Framework Of Mobile Phone Addiction, Loneliness

And Social Interaction Among Selected Teenagers From Public And

Private School.

This conceptual framework presents the relationship of mobile phone

addiction, loneliness and social interaction among selected teenagers from

public and private school. This illustration shows how loneliness and social

Interaction among selected teenagers respondents were determined the

Mobile Phone Addiction. It emphasized the mobile phone addiction as

dependent, loneliness and social interaction as independent variables. The

participants of this study may establish high or low level of mobile phone

addiction base on the level of loneliness and social interaction.

8
Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to determine the relationship between mobile phone

addiction, loneliness and social interaction among selected teenagers from

public and private school.

Specifically, it sought to answer the following:

1. What is the level of mobile phone addiction of the student

respondents in private school and public school as measured by

Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS)?

2. What is the level of loneliness of the student respondents in private

school and public school as measured by UCLA Loneliness Scale?

3. What is the level of social interaction of the respondents in private

school and public school as measured by Big Five Inventory?

4. Is there a significant difference on the level of mobile phone

addiction among the student respondents between private school and

public school?

9
 5. Is there a significant difference on the level of loneliness among the

student respondents between private school and public school?

6. Is there significant difference on the level of social interaction

among the student respondents between private school and public

school?
7. Is there a significant relationship between mobile phone addiction and

loneliness among selected teenagers in private school and public

school?
8. Is there a significant relationship between mobile phone addiction and

social interaction among selected teenagers in private school and

public school?
9. Is there a significant relationship between loneliness and social

interaction among selected teenagers in private school and public

school?

Hypotheses

1. There is a significant difference on the level of mobile phone

addiction among the student respondents in private and public school.

2. There is a significant difference on the level of loneliness among the

student respondents in private and public school.

3. There is a significant difference on the level of social interaction

among the student respondents in private and public school.

10
 4. There is a significant relationship between mobile phone addiction and

loneliness among student respondents in private and public school.

5. There is a significant relationship between mobile phone addiction and

social interaction among student respondents in private and public

school.
6. There is a significant relationship between Loneliness and Social

Interaction among student respondents in private and public school.

Definition of Terms

The terms that are used and to be measured in this study were stated

as what their definitions is and how it will be measure.

Mobile phone addiction is the excessive use of technological device, leading

to severe impairment or distress in life. It was measured through the use of

Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS).

Loneliness is a negative emotion or distress experience that occurs when

there is a perceived discrepancy in ones ongoing relationships. It was

measured through the use of UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3).

11
Social interaction is the manner in which people talk to and interact with

one another. The Big Five Inventory (BFI) was used to measure the social

interaction of the participants.

Scope, Delimitation and Limitation

This study was focused on the relationship between mobile phone

addiction, loneliness, and social interaction among Grade 11 students of

Trinity University of Asia and Technological University of the Philippines

enrolled in school year School Year 2016-2017.

The study was limited only to the responses made by 80 students

from Trinity University of Asia and Technological University of the

Philippines, on the scales used to measure the participants mobile phone

addiction which was the Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS), UCLA

Loneliness Scale to measure their loneliness, Big Five Inventory or the BFI

for their social interaction.

Significance of the Study

12
The researchers believe that this study will be beneficial to the

following:

Student Respondents would be aware on their level of loneliness,

social interaction and mobile phone addiction which will help them realize

how they influence their behavior.

Students will understand that the excessive use of phone may lead to

mobile phone addiction.

Teachers/Professors would have insights on students level of mobile

phone addiction, loneliness and social interaction and their relationship.

So, they could guide their students on the proper use of mobile phone to

avoid excessive use.

Parents This study would help them to understand and encourage

their children to have better communication and interaction so that they

will not feel lonely and do not use their phone excessively.

Future Researchers this study will be served as a reference for

those who will be interested in conducting a similar study.

13
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

The researchers have reviewed literatures and studies that are

relevant to the present study.

Related Literature

Mobile Phone Addiction

Goswami & Singh (2016), stated that everyone uses cell phone in their

everyday lives but the use of mobile phone usage is so strongly integrated

into young people's behavior that symptoms of behavioral addiction, such as

cell phone usage interrupting their day-to-day activities and more. The main

focus of this literature is to focus on the impact of mobile phone on

adolescent's life. There are some reviews regarding about the definition,

Mobile Phone Addition Symptoms, Negative Impact of Mobile Phone, Effect

of Mobile Phone on Adolescents Mental and Physical Health and Gender

differences and Mobile Phone Addiction. In an article, it explains the reason

why we should or we shouldnt call cell phones as addictive because they had

a study where in the result is that cell phones were considered to be used in

an abusive manner it was not considered addictive. It also says that Internet

14
is the one that is addictive but not cell phones because their use does not

promote rapid emotional changes (Bianchi et. al. 2005). excessively use

mobile phones are more prone to disrupted sleep, restlessness, stress and

fatigue.

Despite its advantages, Billieux (2012) stated that cellular phone uses

has been associated with harmful or potentially disturbing behaviors.

Problematic use of the mobile phone is considered as an inability to regulate

ones use of the mobile phone, which eventually involves negative

consequences in daily life (e.g., financial problems). This article describes

what can be considered dysfunctional use of the mobile phone and

emphasizes its multi factorial nature. Validated assessment instruments to

measure problematic use of the mobile phone are described. The available

literature on risk factors for dysfunctional mobile phone use is then

reviewed, and a pathways model that integrates the existing literature is

proposed. Finally, the assumption is made that dysfunctional use of the

mobile phone is part of a spectrum of cyber addictions that encompasses a

15
variety of dysfunctional behaviors and implies involvement in specific online

activities such as video games, gambling, social networks, etc.

Furthermore, in an article, they examine the potential psychosocial

risks associated with this type of addiction. The first one is how cell phones

related to personal stress. It says that using cell phones may increase

personal stress through compulsively checking text messages, alerts, social

media, and updates. It may also blur the boundaries between work and home

in an unsatisfactory manner; precipitate stress in adolescents and be

associated with less emotionally satisfying. The second is how cell phones

related to sleep disturbance, it says that using cell phones maybe the reason

why people have shorter sleep duration, poorer subjective sleep quality,

insomnia and excessive daytime sleepiness. The third is how cell phones

related to cyber bullying. It says that using cell phones in taking pictures or

taking videos to the victim are the main cause of cyber bullying. Lastly, how

cell phones related to dependency or addiction. In this case, they found out

that excessive use of cell phones was more depressed, exhibited more

anxiety, and had lower self-esteem (Sansone, 2013). In addition, Choliz

(2010) stated that when it comes to technology addiction, mobile phone is

the most attractive especially to teenagers. Mobile phones have a lot of

16
characteristics that makes it attractive, like for entertainment, for

personal use, for social media and many more.

Mobile Phone on Teenagers

The use of mobile phone by youths has been a global phenomenon in

recent years. It is now an integral part of adolescents' daily lives and is for

the majority, the most popular form of electronic communication and the

mobile phone has turned from technological tool to a social tool. Young

people use the mobile phone in some positive ways like organizing and

maintaining their social networks. However, there are also negative impacts

on young peoples' peer relationships, one example is cyber bullying. The

impact of the mobile phone on the school as an institution has not however,

received as much research. Disruptions to lessons, incidences of cheating

and bullying are some of the negative impacts, while texting parents of

truants seems to be the only positive for the school. Further research is

needed into the consequences of mobile phone use in schools (Campbell,

2005).

17
 It was stated that there is an increase in subscriptions of mobile

phones and most potential customers of mobile services was teenagers which

was found in a study who was cited by Isiklar, Sar, & Durmuscelebi (2013)

that there are 91.7% of teenagers have their own mobile phones. They have

also stated that mobile phones increase in its problematic use because there

was excessive use of cell phones which was called technological addiction.

Technological addiction narrows people close environment and thus prevent

them from having new and different social environment. In a study it

excludes oneself from social surrounding or unwillingness to be included in it

is one of the signs of addictive behaviour and a study that was conducted in

Korean college students it was reported that they tend to be anxious if they

do not use mobile phones in a day which can be considered as the initial point

of technological addiction.

Campbell (2005) explain that the impact of mobile phones to young

peoples social life (peer group, family and school). In peer group, adolescent

used their mobile phone to talk and text their friends. It is their easy way

to communicate with each and every one. But adolescent also used mobile

phone to hide their self behind technologist from emotional distressing

event, such as ending relationships, ostracism of those who do not have

18
mobile phone and cyber bullying. In family, mobile phones are parents way on

communicating their children. It is easy for them to monitor; where their

children are? What their children are doing? Lastly, the impact of mobile

phones on the school, professor says that having mobile phone inside the

class can disturbed student in listening and learn. However, this mobile

phone can help them to communicate with the parents of the children.

The article entitled "Mobile communication and teen emancipation" by

Ling (2008) tackled about adolescence and mobile phone in relation to

emancipation of teens as a critical social juncture and teens adoption of

mobile phones and mobile phone as a tool in the emancipation of teens. They

stated that the mobile phone plays a role for the interaction of a parent and

their child and how teenagers interact with themselves. It was concluded

that mobile phone helps with the teens to maintain their relationship with

their peers and it makes them control their own communication channel.

Cell phones or Mobiles phones have been preferred to be the basic

communication between teens and their friends. Finding says that some teen

texters like texting their friends than calling them by phone. It shows that

15% of teen who are texters send more than 200 messages a day or 6000

text a month. According to them, teens used mobile phone in calling their

19
parents and texting their friends. They used calling someone if it is crucially

important. Cell phones are not just for texting and calling. It is also used in

taking picture, play music, play games, assessing their social network sites

and more (Lenhart, Ling, Campbell & Purcell, 2010). In addition, Matic,

Osmani & Ibarra (2012) stated an analysis of social interaction through

mobile phones concluded that social interaction is important for a number of

disciplines but it hard to predict on how mobile phone sensing to monitor

social interactions. It is either includes audio analysis which often raises

privacy concern and ethical issue or it focuses on qualifying dynamic of social

activity over time while being limited in analyzing social interaction which

occur spatial scales of meter and time scales of minutes.

Additionally, Tavakolizadeh et. al. (2014) concluded in an article about

prevalence of mobile phone use and its effect on mental health status, that

instead of having prevalence, students should improve their mental health

status and social relationship rather than depending on mobile phone. It was

measured through the use of demographic questionnaire, and Mobile Phone

Addiction Scale. Additionally, Parashkouh et. al. (2016) states that the rate

of mobile phone and internet addiction of Iranian students were high in a

paper that was focusing on the addiction of mobile phone and internet to the

20
high school students of Iran. It was measured through the use of

demographic questionnaires, cellphone overuse scale, and internet addiction

test. The Impact of the mobile phone on young peoples social life. According

to Goswami and Singh (2016) mobile phone addiction has symptoms among

teenagers. People who are addictive to mobile phone always keep their phone

on, they tend to use mobile phones even when they have a landline at home

and they normally confronted with financial and social difficulties because of

the over use of the mobile phone. It has also a negative impact, it is found

out that mobile phones are a disturbing element in schools. It affects

educational activities.

Mobile phones have become an essential part of the daily lives of

teenagers in recent times. There are growing concerns among any Japanese

people, including policy makers and the press, about the adverse effects of

mobile phone use on adolescents. For example, the National Policy Agency

(NPA) indicated the association between mobile phone use and juvenile

delinquency. This study focuses on how use patterns and motivations are

associated with the negative effects of mobile phones on the basis of a

survey junior high school students aged 14 years in Tokyo (N = 311). The

factor analysis of motivations yields two factors, namely, emotionally and

21
instrumentality. The first factor, emotionality, is significantly correlated

with the frequency of mobile e-mailing and delinquency score. However,

despite the significant and positive correlation between the delinquency

score and frequency of mobile e-mailing, the effect of mobile e-mailing on

delinquency and school grades is not significant when controlling for the

motivation factors. These results show that the adverse effects of mobile

phones are not supported (Ishii, 2011).

Mobile Phone on Loneliness

Darcin et al (2015), said that individuals who declared that they use

mobile phone to access social media are more likely to develop smartphone

addiction compared to those who uses their phone for merely Internet

browsing and making phone calls. However, Bhardwaj & Ashok (2015),

concluded that although gender do not significantly play a role in the

variable. Furthermore, there were high level of addiction and loneliness in

smartphone for college students, as it was found that there was a significant

correlation between the two variables, mobile phone addiction and loneliness

to college students.

Mobile Phone on everyday life

22
 Cell phone plays an essential role in communications throughout the

world. This technological revolution has drastically change the way humans

interact and communicate with one another. The author conducted field

observations to examine Elon students' behavior while walking around

campus, along with an online survey. Findings suggest that students seem to

be addicted to their cell phones, with 64 percent of student observed on

campus interacting with their device one way or another. Nevertheless, a

survey of students found that they believe that the need for self-

gratification achieved through excessive cell phone use has negative

psychological effect on them (Jones, 2014). In addition, it also develops

addiction to the mobile phones because of the social media influences

according to Hong (2012) and excessive using of phone because of texting

and calling. It stated that poor social skills, loneliness and addiction in mobile

phone are all directly in relationship with one another and even it made

peoples live easier it may cause negative impact on how they interact with

one another.

As stated by Jabur (2014) says that there are also symptoms in using

a mobile phone like some use mobile phones to avoid uncomfortable mood

states and they felt bad if they could not use their phones. They also had

23
greater economic and family problems as a result of costs associated with

mobile phone use. It also says that mobile phones may also have a positive

role in students especially in academic performance. It can help the students

to search easily and of course to contact their teachers and classmates to

discuss matters related to their study. Students also use mobile phones to

consult a dictionary for educational purposes but it has also negative effects

like over use of mobile phones for recreational purposes.

In a related literature from Banjo, et al (2015) entitled, Cell Phone

Usage and Social Interaction with Proximate Others: Ringing in a

Theoretical Model, they asked 30 students to sign up for half an hour

individual session regarding a seminar. From there, they were given informed

consent and asked to answer two questionnaires. After that a confederate

will be going inside the to see if the participant will help her before or

during the 2-minute mark then she will leave, the experimenter will then

reappear and administer a personality and cell phone use habit questionnaire.

The results were that the individuals who has used their phones during the

experiment is less likely to help the confederate and/or smile than those

who didnt.

24
 Chatterjee (2014) also stated that mobile phone is one of the most

important and integral part of todays life style. It is convenient for

everyone to have phone in hands to solve many issues and know the most

information in a world. Having a phone can have used as an effective leisure

time. He stated some mobile phones uses like as an object of communication,

as an object of identity and self-esteem symbol, mobile phone as memory

storage. Mobile phone can affect emotions and as a tools for social changes;

how a person can be call mobile phone addict and the effect of that addition

like on personal time and academics. At the end, he concluded that mobile

phones can affect individual function in society. Rettie (2009) states that

face-to-face interaction has been recognized as an important area for

sociological analysis, but less attention has been paid to mediated

interaction. She stated that costumer interaction in telephone calls centres

is experienced as a socially relevant activity that is structured by values,

norms, moral disposition and the interconnectedness of social ties. Lastly,

she concluded that mobile phones calls as encounter in which they were

together. While, mobile text messages are usually constructed and

interpreted individually.

Related Studies

25
 Choliz (2012) stated that mobile phone has the greatest presence in

the market nowadays. It is also a device most used by adolescents. The

physical characteristics of mobile phone as well as the psychological

processes involved in its use explain both the fascination it elicits and the

abuse or dependence it can come to encourage in adolescents. Aged 12-18

years of age, and factor analyses were performed. The main objective of the

study was to develop a questionnaire to evaluate mobile-phone dependence in

adolescents based on the DSM-IV-TR criteria for dependence and similar to

the approaches used to evaluate other behavioural addictions such as

addiction to gambling or to the internet. The questionnaire is characterized

by good psychometric properties as well as by the ability to discriminate

between sexes and among aged groups in an adolescent sample. The process

by which this questionnaire was developed is described and the final version

is presented. The items included in this instrument were developed based on

the criteria contained in DSM-IV-TR for dependence disorder. The

questionnaires were administered to a total of 2,486 adolescents. The study

concluded that the adolescents dependence on mobile phone is a problem

that is already prevalent but also on the rise. It is necessary to conduct a

study the conditions that cater this dependence, for it to develop prevention

26
and treatment programs, and to make available assessment and diagnostic

instruments that enable effective intervention.

Kahyaoglu Sut H et al. (2016) conducted a study entitled Effects of

Smartphone Addiction Level on Social and Educational Life in Health

Sciences Students. This study investigates the level of effect of

smartphone addiction and educational life amongst the health sciences

students. With the use of cross- sectional design, 785 students filled out

questionnaires that includes demographic characteristics and smartphone

use behavior.

In the smartphone addiction scale, total scores for daily-life

disturbance and cyber-oriented relationship resulted in the 20 age group

were found to be significantly higher than in the >20 age group. All subscale

and total scores of students who thought smartphone use made education

more difficult were significantly higher. Positive anticipation and

cyberspace-oriented relationship subscale scores of students who thought

smartphone use affected their social life was significantly higher. Daily-life

disturbance and tolerance subscale scores in students who thought that

smartphone use negatively affected their verbal communication was

significantly higher. However, their positive anticipation score was

27
significantly lower. The prevalence of smartphone use among students was

quite high. The smartphone addiction level was higher in students who were

20 or less years old. The higher addiction scores negatively affected social

life, verbal communication, and presented difficulties to education compared

to the prevalence of smartphone addiction among Indian adolescents was

reported to range from 39% to 44%. The overall prevalence of smartphone

ownership among Asian adolescents from China, Hong Kong, Japan, South

Korea, Malaysia, and the Philippines was reported at 62% (Kahyaoglu Sut H

et al., 2016).

According to Lutze (2014) from the experimental study conducted in

Virginia Tech the quality of conversation may affect by the mere presence

of smartphone it may be less fulfilling or better rating without including the

age, gender, ethnicity and mood of the person but when two people in the

discussion already knew each other it made difference in conversation which

may receive negative rating regarding empathy or interpersonal relatedness.

It states also by just mere presence of smartphone may affect the social

interaction which could be seen as an evidence of addiction because of the

urge to check it at all times.

28
 Goscicki (2011) stated that there is a study that frequency and

methods of cell phone use affect how users interact with people around

them. It shows that people who use cell phones to coordinate plans are more

likely to participate in public conversations and cell phone users seeking news

on their mobile devises were more likely to engage with people around them

than people talking on cell phones. In addition, people who talk on cell phones

frequently are less likely to communicate in public yet cell phone can spark

conversations with strangers and can strengthen familial bonds and

encourage interpersonal relationship. He also cited Campbell who conducted

the study states that cell phone facilitates that social contagion effect and

which contribute so much to social change.

Moreover, Abu-jedy (2008) conducted a study to investigate addiction

to mobile phone and its relationship with self-discloser among sample of

students selected from the university of Jordan and Amman Al-Ahliyya

University from Jordan. It also looks at the characteristics of addicted

persons highlighting the main aspects of their addiction for what purposes

mobile phones are used and the time spent in using mobile phones. He

developed mobile phone scale which had an appropriate validity and reliability

29
indexes, with a total sample of 480 students for both private and public

University. And based on the results, Al-Ahliyya University, a private

university there are 16.7 % of student respondents being addicted to mobile

phone while those in university of Jordan, a public university there 9.2% of

student respondents who are addicted to mobile phone. He stated that

There is a higher level of addiction amongst private university students than

public university students.

In the study of Dr. Bhardwaj & Ashok (2015), it aims to analyse mobile

phone addiction and loneliness among teenagers. Survey research is used for

this study. To collect data; personal information form, mobile phone

addiction scale, and loneliness scale was applied for 40 students who are

from different colleges in Mumbai city. To analyse these data; correlation, t

test was calculated. Results revealed that mobile phone addiction was

significantly associated with loneliness (r=.456) Furthermore, no significant

gender differences were found in terms of loneliness and mobile phone

addiction.

Linking Psychological Attributes to Smart Phone Addiction, Face-to-

Face Communication, Present Absence and Social Capital conducted by Park

cited by Casey (2012) loneliness is positively correlated with mobile phone

30
addiction among college students in Korea. Lonely students are inclined to

use a mobile phone to turn away from current situations or settings in which

they are involved. Furthermore, this study expects that lonely people would

be more likely to be addicted and a heavy user of smart phone since they are

not willing to talk to others in face-to-face communication, and would prefer

sending a text or other social networking applications on smartphones.

Ahmed et. (2011) conducted a study entitled Mobile phone to

youngsters: Necessity or addiction he explored about the pattern of mobile

phone usage among youngsters in Pakistan to delineate the extent of

addictive behavior towards its usage. University students were selected as

population and simple random sampling technique was used. Sample was 410

students it was found that there was 4.8% to 18.5% that displayed addictive

usage patterns and behavior, which is said to be a very few number of

students. Findings of this study revealed that majority respondents are able

to have definite priorities between their responsibilities and commitments

and their cell phone usage. Very few are those who always exhibit the

extreme addictive behaviors and rest is the majority who are not frequently

involved in addictive usage patterns. Thus, youngsters use their cell phones

31
under reasonable limits and do not tend towards extreme behaviors leading

towards addictive cell phone usage.

In the study entitled Aged Peoples Tolerance Level and Loneliness

by Sultana, et,al (2016) reveals that there is a moderately significant

negative relationship between tolerance level and loneliness among Aged

people. That means the increase of tolerance level, loneliness decrease.

When people have high tolerance level, they can easily interact with other

people. They can talk, share their interest, being part of social work and

more importantly take others views even if they dont agree with it. Other

people can also take them cordially. As a result a social bond is being made

between them and they dont feel lonely. In this way high tolerance level play

partial part to reduce loneliness. On the other hand when people have low

tolerance level they gradually become reactive, interact with other people

decrease. They often found themselves arguing with others, sometimes

misbehaving. As a result distance between them increase and they started

to became lonelier.

Moreover, in a study entitled, Personality Correlates of Loneliness,

by Nayyar & Singh (2011) which talks about some important personality

dimensions and its relationship with loneliness. A sample of 100 respondents,

32
50 males and 50 females, in the age group of 22-24 years participated in the

study. The sample was randomly selected from the different departments of

Panjab University Chandigarh. Results shows that there is a significant

negative correlation between measures of extraversion and loneliness. They

concluded that lonely people may have less rewarding interpersonal and

contacts with other, and may have less extensive social networks that they

can gain support. As an outcome, extraversion may influence loneliness

negatively by allowing more effective use of social support as a coping

strategy.

Kalogeraki and Papadaki (2010) indicated that mobile phones have

been spreading in the world faster than prior communication technologies.

Adoption of the mobile device has been popular among teenagers and it is

used as a mean of accessibility, micro-coordination, security and

emancipation. Mobile phones provide a direct communicative channel between

teenagers and peer groups, parents and children which enhances social

interactions and bonding with peers and family. In order to explore the

impact of mobile adoption on teenagers social relationships, a random sample

of students aged 12-18 years old has been drawn from a semi-urban area of

Greece. The results from Pearson correlation and multiple regression

33
analyses highlight the significant impact of mobile phones on teenagers

socialization processes.

Groarke (2014) stated that from previous research suggests that

people use phones mostly as a means to enhance interpersonal closeness and

current study examined the impact of smartphones on social behaviour and

relationships, investigating smartphone use, present absence, phone

etiquette, face-to-face communication and computer-mediated

communication. The study used internet testing with a quasi-experimental

and correlational design. A snowball sample of 279 participants aged

between 18 and 77 years completed self-report questionnaires: Smartphone

Problematic Use Questionnaire, Face-to-face or Computer-mediated

communication Questionnaire, Present Absence Scale and Cellular Phone

Etiquette Questionnaire. Results showed that smartphone use and

preference for computer-mediated communication were predictors of

present absence. Additionally, age was positively related to phone etiquette

and preference for face-to-face communication and negatively related to

smartphone use, present absence, and computer-mediated communication.

Differences highlighted, included higher levels of phone use and present

absence, and lower levels of phone etiquette among smartphone users,

34
compared to standard mobile phone users. In conclusion, smartphones

undoubtedly have both pervasive and negative influences over users and it

would be valuable if future research focussed on the possible reasons for

this.

Ashiq, Mahmood & Siraj (2013) stated that mobile phones are a

pervasive new communication technology, especially among college students

and became more popular in recent years and social capital is about the value

of social networks, bonding similar people and bridging between diverse

people. The study tried to find out how mobile changed behaviour of

teenagers and it was test in Pakistani Setting. It was conducted with the

self-developed questionnaire on 5-point Likert Scale. Sample participants

composed of 100 boys and girls of 1st and 2nd year students of Government

Colleges. The results of the study showed that a majority of the

respondents used mobile phone for communication with friends and family

members. Both boy and girl students agreed that mobile phone impacts their

peer relations, social norms, customs, traditions, esteems and also impact

their fact-to-face communication. On the basis of results of the study the

researcher proposed that teenager may reduce their time which they earlier

spend on mobile phone for texting or voice calling. Mobile phone usage

35
engages students in extra curriculum activities that affect their educational

results so they may restrict themselves.

Roberts. et. al. (2014) aim was to investigate which personality traits

are associated with cell phone addiction to understand the role ofpersonality

in cell phone use or cell phone addiction. It explains the extraversion and

emotional instability. Extraversion is related to an individuals propensity to

be outgoing in social situation. Extraverts are often self-centered and are

open to sharing and leading conversations in social interactions. While,

emotional instability is entails moody and temperamental behavior. The

respondents, college undergraduates from university in Texas and an average

age of 21, participated in a self-report questionnaires using Qualtric survey

software. Participants completed the questionnaire as part of their class

requirements. The questionnaire took 10 and 15 minutes to complete and

contained a measure of cell phone addiction and questions that asked how

much time participants spent daily on 24 cell phone activities. The results

shows that the personality trait of emotional instability had a direct and

positive relationship with cell phone addiction. A person who is moody and

temperamental may be more likely to be addicted to their cell phone than

more stable individuals. Cell phone addiction may be an attempt at mood

36
repair. Introversion was the next personality trait found to have a direct

and negative relationship with cell phone addiction. Those who express

feelings of shyness and bashfulness may be less likely to become dependent

on their cell phones than their more extraverted counterparts.

Chad Tossell et all (2015) states that as a result from over a yearlong

study, a self-proclaimed addict and non addicts both used their phones

frequently however the self-proclaimed used their devices twice as much as

the non addicts. This study was conducted giving an iPhone to the

participants to which has an application that can measure the amount of

usage in a day.

Tossell, et al. (2015) conducted a study which examines smartphone

users behaviors and their relation to self-reported smartphone addiction.

To users who did not own a smartphone were given instrumented iPhone that

logged all phone use over the course of the year-long study. At the

conclusion of the study, the users were asked to rate their level of addiction

to the device. Sixty-two percent of the users agreed or strongly agreed

that they were addicted to their iPhones. The addicted users spent twice as

much time on their phone and launched applications much more frequently as

compared to the non-addicted users. Mail, Messaging, Facebook, the Web

37
and other social networking application drove this use. Surprisingly, Games

did not show any difference between addicted and non-addicted users.

Addicted users showed significantly lower time-per-interaction than did non-

addicted users for Mail, Facebook and Messaging applications. One addicted

user reported that his addiction was problematic, and his use data was

beyond three standard deviations from the upper hinge. The implications of

the relationship between the logged and self-report data are discussed.

According to the study of Baron (2011), mobile phones allow people to

communicate when, where, and with whom they wish. However, some people

find themselves always unavailable to others. In order to measure attitudes

towards mobile phones, we asked students from universities in five countries

what they liked most and what they liked the least about having a mobile

phone. Responses across all countries indicated that communication was both

what subjects liked most and least enjoying the ability to contact others but

feeling trapped by other peoples ability to always contact them. Concerns

about dependency on mobile phones corresponded to intensity of usage.

Some distinctions between countries reflect variation in available

technology, while others may result from cultural factors.

38
 The study entitled Exploring Addictive Consumption of Mobile Phone

Technology by James (2005) explores what characteristics addictive users

of mobile phone technology, factors that increase their usage, and adverse

consequences from addiction. Data collection involved eight-in-depth

interviews with mobile phone users and one focus group containing six self-

identified addictive users. Findings show a range of characteristics that

comprise possible antecedents to addictive use, and factors effecting

excessive use include special events, alcohol use, and depressive

circumstances. Two studies undertaken in Brisbane are the basis for a larger

project now in progress. Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted last

March 2005, followed by a focus group containing six participants. A

judgement sample of eight consumers of mobile phone technology was used

in this study. These subjects represented a broad spectrum of the

population in terms of usage levels, occupation and age. Interviews lasted

about an hour. The interviews were recorded on audiocassettes and

transcribed. The focus group was a convenience sample of six young people,

aged 18-22, enrolled full-time at university. They self identified as

problematic users of mobile technology. The discussion lasted 87 minutes.

39
 Billieux (2012) states that some research studies believe that mobile

phone allow people to communicate with being constrained by physical

proximity and spatial immobility. However, despite its many help, it has

numerous ideas that can cause serious problems. Nevertheless, one of the

most concerns is that it may be become excessive. It can cause sleep

disturbance. It is believed that mobile phones are no longer used just for

texting and voice calling. There is numerous test that can measure ones

dependency and experiences regarding mobile phones. It is believed that

mobile phones also can lead to impulsivity that has positive (euphoria, joy)

and negative effect (depression, anxiety) which is why it is believed that

mobile phone addiction should be conceptualized as cyber addictions that

pertains to wide range of behavior that circles around the online activities

and such. However, the risk factors are that users are vulnerable to shared

risk factors which is self-esteem, depressive symptoms, and distorted

cognitions.

According to Taneia (2014), the Telecommunication Union said that 7

billion people are expected to be subscribed by 2014, it is the approximate

number of people on Earth. However, despite bringing greeting and

pleasantries for the users, cellular phone has repercussion when projected

40
to excessive use that may lead to psychological illnesses. It is believed that

cellular phone gives a plethora of psychological benefits to the user, or the

feeling of independence and autonomy in respect to the owner and how

they keep up with each other by texting and voice calling. However, it was its

own drawback. It can lead to psychosocial and physical health which includes

namely, stress, insecurity, low self-confidence and frequent mood changes.

It also may lead to social isolation, insomnia, neck pain, dry eyes, computer

vision syndrome and many more. Excessive text messaging can also lead to

psychosocial detriments to the user. It can cause addiction and dependency

disorder. It is found that mobile users develop anxiety, stress and insecurity

when they are not around their mobile devices. Walsh, et al. found out that

not receiving enough or frequently text message and voice call can be

perceived as not being loved enough. Despite Mobile Phone addiction not

being in DSM-5, it meets the criteria of substance use and dependency

disorder. There are much more reason why studies of the same kind have to

be produced because it may lead to serious psychological damage or create a

new one.

Furthermore, Griffiths (2013), when a story appeared in The Sun

newspaper claiming that a college student admit that he/she is addicted to

41
his/her mobile phone (Hope, 2013). To understand what were the underlying

cost of the so-called addiction, Griffiths surveyed 1, 577 secondary school

pupils and 332 students from Catalonian educational institutions. Using a 10-

item questionnaire on Cell Phone related experiences that examines 2

communicative/emotional use. The results finding was that the problem was

present in the youngest age group, in contrast with the finding in Spain.

Females also have difficulty in using mobile phone and also shows that

females use mobile phone frequently rather than man or boys. The study also

pin points that not because you cant leave the house without your mobile

phone, means you are an addict. There is much worse situation where in it

affects your relationship with the family, friends, and loved one. Griffiths

also stated that, just remember that excessive use does not necessarily

mean addiction, and the difference between a healthy enthusiasm and

addiction is that healthy enthusiasms add to life, and addictions take away

from them.

Accorinding to Banjo et. al. (2008) stated that the social impact of

cell phone usage in public places concluded that accessibility and usage of

the cell phones also has potential to inhibit non-verbal social cues such as

smiling that are useful in social interaction. Those who used their cell phones

42
were less likely than those who did not used their cell phones to smile at the

confederate. Also cell phones may cause cell phone user to exhibit non-

friendly behavior towards strangers without being aware of their rudeness.

Corcoran (2012) explains the relationship between new media

technologies within the household and social interaction between individuals.

It tackles how new media technologies such as video games, computer games,

the internet and e-mail as well as television, mobile phones and other types

of modern technology are playing as major role in everyday life in modern

society. It shows that new media technologies are negatively impacting on

social interaction of individual. The main findings are that new media

technologies within home are leading to increased social isolation and a

privatization of peoples lives.

It was according to Haydar (2013), who have designed a research

using convenience sampling method with over 481 students from different

universities in Turkey that stated, males may experience higher level of

excessive mobile phone use more than females. However, females has higher

loneliness level than males. However, Tan et al. (2013) stated the conclusion

that males were higher in terms of loneliness and females in mobile phone

addiction.

43
 Iqbal & Nurdiani (2016) stated that there is no relationship between

loneliness and smartphone addiction. However, it was found that there is a

relationship between social interaction to shyness and loneliness. It also

indicated that people with social anxiety or loneliness receives less incoming

call and used different applications frequently. To classify, people with

social anxiety receives less incoming calls and lonely individuals used

applications more frequently (Gao, Li, Zhu, Liu & Liu 2016).

The study of Parija and Shukla (2014) aim to proves that extraversion

and loneliness are important variables predicting depression, subjective

happiness, satisfaction with life and online flow experience. In the study,

they used one hundred and eighty-four males and one hundred and fifty-

eight females as participant. Data was collected through both online and

offline method of data collection using a questionnaire that comprises

questions seeking information about demographics of the respondents. Then

it included questions on independent variables (extraversion and loneliness)

and the dependent variables (depression, subjective happiness, satisfaction

with life and online flow experience) of the study. In the end, they

concluded that extraversion and loneliness was also evident in the results

which imply that when the extroverted nature of a person will increase and

44
his/her loneliness will gradually decrease, then his/her level of depression

will reduce further and subjective happiness and satisfaction with life will

be enhanced.

In a study conducted by Bian & Leung (2014) entitled, loneliness,

shyness, smartphone addiction symptoms, and patterns of smartphone use to

social capital, they targeted Chinese students through an online survey with

their sample size as 414. They have also used various scale to measure the

variables. The researchers concluded that the higher the score in shyness

and loneliness, the higher the tendency to be addicted to smartphones.

Synthesis

The use of mobile phone can cause less physical and facial expression

to the youths, according to the study of Banjo, et al (2015). However, the

use of mobile gadgets not only can cause failed interaction, but also could

cause psychological damage such as social isolation, insomnia and many more

illnesses, stated by Taniea (2014). It was also found by Billieux (2012) that

being addicted to mobile phone are prone to depressive symptoms and

distorted cognitions. Griffiths (2013) concluded that not because one cannot

leave their home without their mobile gadget means they are addicted,

45
there are more factors that affects the relationship about an individual to

their society. He stated that the difference between a healthy enthusiasm

and addiction is that enthusiasm leads to more interaction or life, and

addiction takes them away. Ahmed et al (2011) however concluded that the

majority of the youth in Pakistans usage of mobile phone does not deter

their relationship to others although some did admit that they manifest the

symptoms of an addict. Tossell (2015) stated in a study that although the

self-proclaimed and non-addicts have the same frequency in the usage of

mobile phone, self-proclaimed addicts were higher on a day-to-day basis. In

conclusion, Tavakolizadeh et al (2014) and Parashkouh, et al (2016) both

stated that beside the fact that their study has the same result, they

recommended that prevalence and awareness of mental health status and

issue are a way to prevent mobile phone addiction.

Cell phones or Mobiles phones have been preferred to be the basic

communication between teens and their friends. It is also one of the most

important and integral part of todays life style. It is their easy way to

communicate with each and every one (Lenhart et al, 2010). Cell phones are

not just for texting and calling. It is also used in taking picture, play music,

play games, assessing their social network sites and more (Campbell, 2005).

46
And Chatterjee (2014) stated that mobile phones can affect individual

function in society. In the study of Ictech (2014), he used millennial as a

participant. He concluded that smart phones can disrupt the social rule of

focus attention associated with encounters, but smart phones can also add

information to the conversation and entertainment for enjoyment. Smart

phones also have significant role as a prop in face-work to create positive

outcomes. Just like Corcoran (2012) who explain how new media technologies

such as video games, computer games, the internet and e-mail as well as

television, mobile phones and other types of modern technology are playing

as major role in everyday life in modern society.

According to Banjo, et al, (2008) cell phones may cause cell phone user

to exhibit non-friendly behavior towards strangers without being aware of

their rudeness. Adolescent also used mobile phone to hide their self behind

technologist from emotional distressing event, such as ending relationships,

ostracism of those who do not have mobile phone and cyber bullying

(Campbell, 2005). In addition to that, Corcoran (2012) find outs that new

media technologies within home are leading to increased social isolation and a

privatization of peoples lives. According to Rettie (2009) She stated that

costumer interaction in telephone calls centres is experienced as a socially

47
relevant activity that is structured by values, norms, moral disposition and

the interconnectedness of social ties.

According to Isiklar et al. (2013) mobile phones increase in its

problematic use because there was excessive use of cell phones which was

called technological addiction and it excludes oneself from social surrounding

or unwillingness to be included in it is one of the signs of addictive

behaviour. In addition, it also develops addiction to the mobile phones

because of the social media influences according to Hong (2012) and

excessive using of phone because of texting and calling. It stated that poor

social skills, loneliness and addiction in mobile phone are all directly in

relationship with one another and even it made peoples live easier it may

cause negative impact on how they interact with one another. It explains in

this studies that there is problem in mobile addiction which is mostly in

teenagers and because of this technological addiction it may affect their

interaction to the people that is around them and this study it helped to

correlate the variables which was the same as what we wanted to find out

about the addiction in mobile phones with its relationship in social

interaction.

48
 Mobile phone usage is so strongly integrated into young people s

behavior that symptoms of behavioral addiction, such as cell phone usage

interrupting their day to-day activities (Goswami & Singh, 2016) thus why

continuous use of mobile phone or mobile phone addiction the behavior of the

people change so as their social interaction with one another. A study

conducted by Dr. Mrunal Bhardwaj, Miss. Sode Jaimala Ashok (2015) to

analyze mobile phone addiction & loneliness among teenagers and they

applied a mobile phone addiction scale, and loneliness scale which were given

to 40 students who are from different colleges in Mumbai city. As a results

revealed that mobile phone addiction was significantly associated with

loneliness.

According to Griffiths (2000), The current day fascination with the

mobile phones highlights the latest technology that, for better or worse,

appears to be encouraging people to spend relatively more time with

technology and less with fellow human. Mobile phones have many effects in

our daily life. In positive side, it can help us to communicate easily in so many

people around us. It can also help us in school stuffs. But it has a negative

side as well. Mobile phones force us to be anti-social, lose patience easily,

use incorrect spelling and grammar and it limits our social interaction with

49
one another. Many of the teenagers today become addicted in using mobile

phones. But through communicating with people over mobile phones, we lose

social skills. This studies supports the idea of mobile phone addiction could

possibly relate to the degree of social interaction.

According Haydar (2013) drew a conclusion that mobile phone

addiction was more evident on male, and loneliness was more evident on

female. However, Tan et al. (2013) had a different result. People who uses

mobile phone for social media are more prone to addiction (Darcin et al,

2016). Gender does not play a role on addiction (Bhardwaj & Ashok, 2015).

Iqbal and Nurdiani (2016) states that loneliness and smartphone

addiction are not correlated. However, there is a relationship between the

two as stated by Gao et al (2016). In addition, Bian & Leung (2014) concluded

that the higher the score in shyness and loneliness, the higher the tendency

to be addicted to smartphones.

This study is about the effect of mobile phone addiction on youths

loneliness and how it affects their social interaction. Most of the study, it

focuses on just two variables between mobile phone addiction and social

interaction or mobile phone addiction and loneliness, the researcher came up

to a new idea of a study which is the focus is on the relationship between

50
mobile phone addiction, loneliness and social interaction. Whats new about

this study is that our country needs to have a reminder that they should not

be ahead of themselves. In a sense that, they do not have to buy a new

smartphone just because it is trendy and that they should not relay on their

gadgets to communicate with others. The essence of the study is for

awareness that the excessive use of mobile phone can lead to psychological

disorder or addiction and that it can interfere with the individuals social

interaction and that it somehow manifests loneliness.

51
 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter provides information on the research method. It includes

sample and sampling techniques, the research locale, and the

instrumentations used in this study. It also presents the data gathering

procedure and the statistical tools applied in understanding and analyzing

this study.

Research Method

The researchers made use of descriptive correlational method of

research to determined the relationship of mobile phone addiction,

loneliness and social interaction. Descriptive correlational is a type of study

in which information is collected without making any changes to the research

subject. Descriptive studies generally use surveys or other methods of data

collection that rely on existing records (Bradbury, 2016). While correlational

research is used to determine the relations among two or more variables.

52
Data gathered from multiple variables and correlational statistical

techniques are then applied to the data ( Lomax & Li, 2013)

Sample and Sampling Technique

The sample respondents were selected using cluster technique. A

cluster sample where the cluster of the participants represents the

population of their school (Jackson, 2011). The researchers chose this

sampling due to the fact that it represents the population of their school, in

which it can increase the probability of the study.

The researchers selected forty grade 11 respondents from Trinity

University of Asia and forty from Technological University of the

Philippines. The total respondents was eighty. It was supported by Bhardwaj

& Ashok (2015) in a study regarding mobile phone addiction and loneliness

among teenagers from Mumbai City. They have also used the same

significant quantity of forty respondents to participant in the said study. In

a study conducted by Choliz (2012) and Kalogeraki and Papadaki (2010) about

mobile phone addiction, both have used ages 12 to 18 years old as their

participants.

Research Locale

53
 The study was conducted in two school settings; Trinity University of

Asia (also known as TUA) to represent private school setting and,

Technological University of the Philippines (also known as TUP) to represent

public school setting. TUA is located at 275 Cathedral Heights E. Rodriguez

Sr. Ave, Quezon City. TUP resides at cor., Ayala Blvd, Ermita, Manila, Metro

Manila.

Figure 1: Location map of Trinity University of Asia

Trinity University of Asia is a premier Christian University in Asia

and the Pacific transforming a community of learners as leaders towards a

humane society. Its mission is to promote the formation of integrally-

developed, competent, productive and socially responsible citizens by:

Instilling Christian values in all its academic programs, co-curricular and

extra-curricular activities; Providing excellent services for a quality learning

environment; Extending our ideals of service learning for our partners by

empowering communities to be self-reliant and by collaborating with other

institutions; Encouraging self-improvement among employees to gain higher

54
competence and better skills towards service excellence; and Exercising

sound management of our resources.

Figure 2: Location map of Technological University of the Philippines

The Technological University of the Philippines shall be the premier

university of technology and the model of excellence in technology education

in the country and in a knowledge-based economy of the 21st century.

The mission of TUP is stated in Section 2 of P.D. No. 1518 as follows:

The University shall provide higher and advanced vocational, technical,

industrial, technological and professional education and training in industries

and technology, and in practical arts leading to certificates, diplomas and

degrees. It shall provide progressive leadership in applied research,

developmental studies in technical, industrial, and technological fields and

production using indigenous materials; effect technology transfer in the

55
countryside; and assist in the development of small-and-medium scale

industries in identified growth centers.

Instrumentation

The main instruments that were used in this study were Smartphone

Addiction Scale (SAS), UCLA Loneliness Scale Version 3 and Big Five

Inventory (BFI).

The Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS) is a scale for smartphone

addiction that consisted of 6 factors and 33 items with a six-point Likert

scale (1: strongly disagree and 6: strongly agree) based on self-reporting.

There are six factors of smartphone addiction. First, Daily-life Disturbance

(item 1-5), describes as missing planned work, having a hard time

concentrating in class and suffering from disturbances such as

lightheadedness or blurred vision, pain on the wrists or neck and sleep.

Second, Positive Anticipation (item 6-13) describes as feeling excited about

and getting rid of stress with smartphone use and feeling empty without a

smartphone. Third, Withdrawal (item 14-19), which involves being impatient,

fretful, and intolerable without a smartphone. Fourth, Cyberspace-oriented

56
Relationship (item 20-26), describes as feeling that ones relationships with

his/her friends obtained through smartphone are more intimate than

his/her real-life friends. Fifth, Overuse (item 27-30), which refers to the

uncontrollable use of ones smartphone. Lastly, Tolerance (item 31-33), it was

defined as always trying to control onessmartphone use but always failing to

do so.

During its development stages, the internal-consistency test result

(Cronbachs alpha) was 0.967. In this study, the internalconsistency test

result (Cronbachs alpha) of SAS was 0.966 (Kwon, et al., 2013). First, the

researchers encoded all the data that was gathered per item. Then, they

added all the results to get the total response.

A low score indicates that the respondent has low or not at all

addicted to their mobile phone and a high score indicates that they are

addicted to their mobile phone.

Arbitrary range for description:

40-48 very high

31-39 high

22-30 average

13-21 low

57
 3-12 very low

The UCLA Loneliness Scale Version 3 a 20-item scale designed to

measure ones subjective feelings of loneliness as well as feelings of social

isolation. Participants rate each item on a scale from 1 (Never) to 4 (Often).

The development of the UCLA Loneliness Scale, a short, 20-item general

measure of loneliness is reported. The measure has high internal consistency

(coefficient alpha = .96) and a test-retest correlation over a two-month

period of .73. Concurrent and preliminary construct validity are indicated by

correlations with self-reports of current loneliness and related emotional

states, and by volunteering for a loneliness clinic (Russell, D. 1996). First,

the researchers reversed the scores of the numbers 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 16, 19,

and 20 before encoding the data that was gathered from the respondents.

Then, they summed up all the results to get the total number.

A low score indicates that the person is less or not at all lonely, and a

high score indicates that the respondents is lonely .

Arbitrary range for description:

66-80 very high

51-65 high

58
 36-50 average

20-35 low

This scale was also used in the study of Loneliness and Mobile Phone

by etin TAN, Mustafa PAMUK, Ay enur Dnder (2013).

The Big Five Inventory is a self-report inventory designed to measure

the big five dimensions. The big five dimensions are (1) extraversion, the

broad dimension of this encompasses such more specific traits as talkative,

energetic and assertive, (2) agreeableness, includes traits like sympathetic,

kind and affectionate, (3) openness, includes traits like having wide

interests, and being imaginative and insightful, (4) conscientiousness,

includes traits like organized thorough and planful, and (5) neuroticism,

includes traits like tense, moody and anxious. It is quite brief for a

multidimensional personality inventory (44 items total), and consists of short

phrases with relatively accessible vocabulary. The BFI items were rated on a

5-point scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). The

alpha reliabilities of the BFI scales typically range from .75 to .90 and

average above .80; three-month test-retest reliabilities range from .80 to .

90, with a mean of .85. Validity evidence includes substantial convergent

(John, O. P., & Srivastava, S., 1999). First, the researchers reversed the

59
scores for the extraversion, items are 6R, 21R, and 31R before encoding all

the scores from the number indicated above in addition to 1, 11, 16, 26, 36.

Second, they summed up all the scores and converted the results to T-

Scores. After getting the total score per respondents, it was divided to

8=(X), then (X) minus 3.2=(Y), then Y divided by 0.8=(Z), then lastly, Z was

multiplied to 10 then added to 50 to get the total t-score of the

participants.

A low score indicates that the respondent is introverted and a high

score specifies that they or extroverted.

Arbitrary range for description:

68.6-80 very high

58-68.5 high

45.6-57 average;

35-45.5 low

22.5-34 very low.

Data Gathering Procedure

To gather data for the study, following procedure was followed:

60
 This study was conducted through a survey. First and foremost, the

researchers asked permission and approval from the Principal of Senior High

and to the teachers of Grade 11 students of Trinity University of Asia as

well as researchers secured the permission of the Principal of Senior High

of Technological University of the Philippines and also to the teachers in

order to conduct a study for grade 11 students about the relationship of

mobile phone addiction, loneliness and social interaction among teenagers in

public public and private schools. Upon the approval, the researchers

conducted a survey to grade 11 students of TUA and TUP. The researchers

should at least get a minimum of 30 students and a maximum of 40 students

per school to reach the target number of participant in the study.

The participants were excused from their classes and gathered in a

room where the questionnaires were distributed to the respondents. Each

respondent was asked to answer the following scale: (1) Smartphone

Addiction Scale (SAS), (2) UCLA Loneliness Scale Version 3 and (3) Big Five

Inventory (BFI) . The activity consumed an approximate of 25 minutes

including the debriefing of the respondents.

61
 The researchers waited for the respondent's to finish all the

questionnaires. The data and information were gathered, and tallied and the

statistical treatment and analysis was done.

Statistical Treatment

This study used the Descriptive Statistics such as Mean and Standard

Deviation and also, Inferential Statistics such as T-test and the Pearson

Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient. These tools were used in analyzing

the data gathered.

1. Mean was used to determine the level of mobile phone addiction,

loneliness and social interaction among teenagers from private and

public school (Broto, 2006).

xx =
x
n

Where:

62
 x = sample mean

x= sum of all data values

N = number of data items in population

n = number of data items in sample

2. Standard Deviation was used to measure the amount of dispersion and

variability of the scores obtained by the respondents in Mobile Phone

Addiction, Loneliness and Social interaction among teenagers from

private and public school (Broto, 2006).

x
x

2




SD=

Where:

SD=Standard Deviation

N= sample size of the group

(x - x )2 = sum of squares of X minus the mean, x

63
3. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient. This formula will be

used to determine the significant relationship of Mobile Phone

Addiction, Loneliness and Social interaction among teenagers from

private and public school (Broto, 2006).

x 2
n x 2 [ n y 2( y ) ]
2

n xy x y
r=

Where:

r = the Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation

n = sample size

xy = the sum of the product of x and y

x y = the product of the sum of x and the sum of y

x2 = sum of the squares of x

y2 = sum of squares of y

64
 4. T-test. This formula will be used to determine significant difference

between mobile phone addiction, loneliness and social interaction among

teenagers from private and public school (Broto, 2006).

X 1 X 2
t=

( SS 1+ SS 2 1 1
+ )(
n1 +n2 2 n1 n2 )

Where,

t = The t-test

X 1 = Mean of first set of values

X 2 = Mean of second set of values

SS1 = Standard deviation of first set of values

SS2 = Standard deviation of second set of values

n1 = Total number of values in first set

n2 = Total number of values in second set.

65
 CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the findings, analysis and interpretation of

data gathered through instruments. The data are presented in textual and

tabular form which shows the specific problems that were on the first

chapter.

Problem 1: What is the level of mobile phone addiction among the

student respondents in public school and private school as measured by

Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS)?

Table 1

Level of Mobile Phone Addiction among Teenagers from Private School

and Public School

Public Private
FACTORS School LEVEL School LEVEL
Mean SD Mean SD
Daily-Life 19.8
4.24 Low 18.03 5.75 Low
Disturbance 8

Positive 26.6 5.97 Average 29.6 7.09 Average

Anticipation

Withdrawal 15.7 5.70 Low 16.6 4.96 Low

18.9 6.33 Low 20.6 7.22 Low
Cyberspace- 8
oriented

66
 relationship

14.8 4.83 Low 15.55 3.53 Low

Overuse
10.6
Tolerance 8 3.63 Very Low 10.95 3.27 Very Low
17.7
Total 7 5.12 Low 18.56 5.30 Low
Note: Arbitrary range for description: 40-48 very high; 31-39 high; 22-30
average;
13-21 low; 3-12 very low

Table 1 shows the level of mobile phone addiction of the among

teenagers from private and public school.

In Positive Anticipation, the students respondents from public school

obtained a mean score of 26.6 and standard deviation of 5.97 while in

private school the mean score is 29.6 with a standard deviation of of 7.09.

The respondents in both public and private school, the level of positive

anticipation is average.

In Daily-Life Disturbance, in private they attained a mean score of

18.03 with standard deviation of 5.75 while in public school has a mean score

of 19.88 with standard deviation of 4.24; In Withdrawal, respondents from

private school obtained mean score of 16.6 with a standard deviation of

4.96, while in public school has a mean score of 15.7 with standard deviation

of 5.70; In Cyberspace Oriented Relationship, respondents from private

67
school attained a mean score of 20.6 and 7.22, whereas in public school the

mean score is 18.98 with standard deviation of 6.33; In Overuse, private

school respondents obtained a mean score of 15.55 with a standard

deviation of 3.53 while in public school the mean score is 14.8 with standard

deviation of 4.83. The level for all of these four factors of smartphone

addiction for the respondents of private and public school is low.

And in Tolerance which the students from private school obtained the

lowest mean score of 10.95 with a standard deviation of 3.27, while the

public school attained a lowest mean score of 10.68 with standard deviation

of 3.63. Both private and public school has a very low level in tolerance.

In that note, this may imply that using the mobile phone moderately it

helps them get rid of their stress, relieves them from exhaustion and

anxieties, making them feel safe. With the low level of daily life

disturbance, withdrawal, cyberspace-oriented relationship and overuse

shows that majority of the students are those who do not suffer in sleep

loss, decline their productivity due to mobile phone usage, being impatient

without mobile phone, has a closer relationship with real-life friends than in

social networking services and those students who can control their

smartphone use. On the other hand, very low level of tolerance indicates

68
that others can always still manage and lessen their mobile phone usage for

both private and public school.

These findings was supported by Ahmed et al. (2011) explored the

pattern of their mobile usage and describes their mobile phone usage of

university students in Pakistan. It was revealed that most of the

respondents set definite priorities for their responsibilities, commitments,

and mobile phone usage. It was found that there was 4.8% to 18.5% that

displayed addictive usage patterns and behavior, said to be a very few

number of students out of 410 respondents which is the majority of the

students who are not frequently involved in addictive usage patterns.

Therefore, the findings of the study revealed that university students can

control their mobile phone usage within reasonable limits, which is may

conclude that they are not moving towards extreme addictive behavior in

mobile phone use.

69
Problem 2: What is the level of loneliness of the student respondents in

public school and private school ?

Table 2

Level of Loneliness among Teenagers from Private School and Public

School

SCHOOL MEAN SD LEVEL

Public 46.58 8.62 Average

Private 46.83 7.34 Average

Note: Arbitrary range for description: 66-80 very high; 51-65 high; 36-
50 average; 20-35 low

Table 2 shows the level of loneliness among teenagers from private

and public school.

The data revealed that the student respondents from the public

school obtained a mean score 46.58 with a standard deviation of 8.62. While

the private school respondents attained a mean score of 46.83 with a the

standard deviation of 7.34. It was then showed that the respondents from

public and private school reached an average level of loneliness.

This result was supported by Masi et al. as cited by Tan et al. (2013)

in a study he stated that an individual may feel lonely in a crowded place and

or can be contented alone. Wherein getting more social relations does not

always mean social profit.

70
 It was revealed that the students from both public and private school

had moderate feeling of loneliness. It implied that the students can still

manage the feeling of loneliness and they can successfully meet their own

criteria of wants and needs with or without social contact.

Problem 3: What is level of social interaction of the student respondents

in public school and private school as measured by Big Five Inventory

(BFI) specifically the extraversion dimension?

Table 3

Level of Social Interaction Teenagers from Private School and Public

School

T-
SCHOOL SD LEVEL
SCORE

Public 49.46 7.33 Average

Private 48.13 6.89 Average
Note: Arbitrary range for description: 68.6-80 very high; 58-68.5 high;
45.6-57 average; 35-45.5 low; 22.5-34 very low.

Table 3 shows the level of social interaction among teenagers in

private and public school.

The data revealed that the student respondents from the public

school obtained a mean score 49.46 with a standard deviation of 7.33. While

the private school respondents got a mean score of 48.13 with a standard

71
deviation of 6.89. Both respondents from private and public school falls in

an average level of social interaction in terms of extraversion.

According to Watson and Clark as cited by Lane and Manner (2011),

that a highly extraverted person is more social, active, outgoing, and place a

high value on close and warm interpersonal relationships. Also, a statement

from Devaraj et al. that an extraverted are naturally inclined to care about

self-image and other social consequences of behaviors.

This means that both private and public school have a moderate social

interaction in regards to extraversion. It means that they are be able to

balance their relationship between having time for themselves and

socializing with other people.

Problem 4: Is there significant difference on the level of mobile phone

addiction among the student respondents between public school and

private school?

Table 4

Summary of the Significant Difference on the level of Mobile Phone

Addiction among Teenagers between Private School and Public School

72
 Compute Degree Critica Level of Verbal
d t of l t significan Decisio Interpretati
FACTORS
Value freedo value ce n on
m
Daily-Life
Accept Not
Disturbanc 1.64 78 1.9909 0.05
H0 Significant
e

Positive Reject
-2.05* 78 1.9909 0.05 Significant
Anticipatio H0
n

Accept Not
Withdrawa -0.75 78 1.9909 0.05
H0 Significant
l

Cyberspac
Accept Not
e-oriented -1.07 78 1.9909 0.05
H0 Significant
relationshi
p
Accept Not
-0.79 78 1.9909 0.05
Overuse H0 Significant

Accept Not
-0.35 78 1.9909 0.05
Tolerance H0 Significant

Note: *Critical value used 1.9909 is taken from the Critical values of t table
following two-tailed/non-directional level of significance 0.05. *H 0 means null
hypothesis.

Table 4 shows the summary of difference on the level of mobile phone

addiction among teenagers between private and public school.

The computed t value is -2.05 while the critical value of 1.9909 at

0.05 level of significance with 78 degrees of freedom. Since the computed t

value is higher than the critical value, the null hypothesis is rejected. It

73
implies that there is significant difference on the level of mobile phone

addiction among teenagers between public and private school. This indicates

that positive anticipation level differ between public and private school.

Private school students compared with public school students constanly use

mobile phone in order to get rid or reduces their stress, relieves their

exhaustion as well as anxiety.

According to Abu-Jedy (2008), he stated that there is a higher level

of addiction among private university students than in public university

students.

Problem 5: Is there significant difference on the level of loneliness

among the student respondents between public school and private school?

Table 5

Summary of the Significant Difference on the level of Loneliness among

Teenagers between Private School and Public School

Degree Critica Level of Verbal

Compute Decisio
Lonelines of l t Significan Interpretati
d t value n
s freedom value ce on
0.89 78 1.9909 0.05 Accept Not
H0 Significant
Note: *Critical value used 1.9909 is taken from the Critical values of t table
following two-tailed/non-directional level of significance 0.05. * H 0 means null
hypothesis.

74
 Table 5 shows the summary of difference on the level of loneliness

among teenagers between private and public school.

The computed t value is 0.89 while the critical value of 1.9909 at 0.05

level of significance with 78 degrees of freedom. Since the computed value

is lower than critical value, the null hypothesis is accepted. This implies that

there is no significant difference on loneliness among teenagers from public

and private school. It shows that the school setting does not have

connection with their level of loneliness.

Problem 6: Is there significant difference on the level of social

interaction among the student respondents between public school and

private school?

Table 6

Summary of the Significant Difference on the level Social Interaction

among Teenagers between Private School and Public School

Social Degree
Level of
Interactio Computed of Critical Decisio Interpretatio
Significanc
n t value freedo t value n n
e
m
0.41 78 1.9909 0.05 Accept Not

75
 H0 Significant
Note: *Critical value used 1.9909 is taken from the Critical values of t table
following two-tailed/non-directional level of significance 0.05. * H 0 means null
hypothesis.

Table 6 shows the summary of difference on the level of social

interaction among teenagers between private and public school.

The computed t value is 0.41 while the critical value is 1.9909 at 0.05

level of significance with 78 degrees of freedom. Since the computed t value

is lower than the critical value, the null hypothesis is accepted. It illustrates

that there is no significant difference on social interaction among teenagers

from public and private school. Due to the fact that there was no significant

difference in their scores, it means that both of the schools are both

average in terms of their social interaction.

Problem 7: Is there a significant relationship between mobile phone

addiction and loneliness among teenagers from public school and private

school?

Table 7

Summary of Significant Relationship between Mobile Phone Addiction and

Loneliness among Teenagers from Private School and Public School

76
 Public School Private School

FACTORS Compute Verbal Compute Verbal

Decisio Decisio
dr Interpreta dr Interpretati
n n
Value tion Value on
Daily-Life
Accept Not Accept Not
Disturbanc 0.29 -0.03
H0 Significant H0 Significant
e

Positive Reject Accept Not

0.39* Significant -0.02
Anticipatio H0 H0 Significant
n

Not Accept Not

Withdrawa 0.26 Accept 0.09
Significant H0 Significant
l H0

Cyberspac
Accept Not Accept Not
e-oriented 0.28 0.14
H0 Significant H0 Significant
relationshi
p
Accept Not Accept Not
-0.03 -0.30
Overuse H0 Significant H0 Significant

Accept Not Reject

0.30 -0.45* Significant
Tolerance H0 Significant H0

Critical value: 0.3120 df:38 Level of Significance: 0.05

Note: *Critical value used 0.3120 is taken from Pearson r distribution table
following two-tailed/non-directional level of significance 0.05. * H0 means null
hypothesis.

Table 7 shows the summary of significant relationship between mobile

phone addiction and loneliness among teenagers from private and public

school.

77
 The computed r value in positive anticipation and loneliness is 0.39,

while the critical value is 0.3120 at 0.05 level of significance with 38

degrees of freedom. Since the computed value is greater than the critical

value, the null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, there is a significant

relationship between positive anticipation and loneliness. However in factor,

daily-life disturbance the computed r value is 0.29, withdrawal 0.26,

cyberspace oriented relationship 0.28, overuse -0.03 and tolerance 0.30

which are lower than the critical value of 0.3120 at 0.05 level of significance

with 38 degrees of freedom indicates that these five factors have no

significant relationship with loneliness.

Based on the results positive anticipation is related to loneliness which

implies that the respondents use their mobile to help them get rid or reduce

their stress, relieves them from exhaustion and anxieties, making them feel

safe. According to Darcin et, al (2016), people who experience the feeling of

loneliness while coping with bothersome feeling, excessive use of smartphone

might be a self-treatment as well can provide them a different form of

socialization.

To further discuss the results for public school, it was supported by

Bhardwaj & Ashok (2015), as it was indicated that the correlation between

78
mobile phone addiction and loneliness is positive. It was further explained by

Park (2005) as cited by Casey (2012), that lonely people tend to use mobile

phone more, and loneliness is positively correlated with smart phone

addiction. Also, feeling of loneliness might be a consequence of using a

mobile phone excessively instead of having personal communication.

In tolerance and loneliness among teenagers from private school with

a computed r value of -0.45 while the critical value of 0.3120 at 0.05 level of

significance with 38 degrees of freedom. Since, the computed value is

greater than the critical value, the null hypothesis is rejcted. Therefore,

there is significant relationship between the tolerance and loneliness among

teenagers. But the results of the remaining factors show that, first daily

life disturbance with a computed r value -0.03, positive anticipation with

-0.02, withdrawal with 0.09, cyber space oriented relationship with 0.14 and

overuse with a result of -0.30 which means that these five factors have no

significant relationship with loneliness.

It implies that when they experience loneliness their tolerance in

using their phone is low, that indicates that even if they do not want to use

their mobile phone, they cannot control themselves in using their phone. In

79
contrast, if they are not lonely their tolerance in using their phone is high,

which means that they can control themselves from not using their phone.

According to Sultana, et. Al. (2016) when tolerance level increases,

loneliness decreases. When people have high tolerance level, they can easily

interact with other people. They can talk, share their interest, being part of

social work and more importantly take others views even if they dont agree

with it.

Problem 8: Is there a significant relationship between mobile

phone addiction and social interaction among teenagers from public school

and private school?

Table 8

Summary of the Significant Relationship between Mobile Phone Addiction

and Social Interaction among Teeangers from Private School and Public
School

Public School Private School

FACTORS

80
 Compute Verbal Compute Verbal
Decisio Decisio
dr Interpreta dr Interpretati
n n
Value tion Value on
Daily-Life
Accept Not Accept Not
Disturbanc -0.05 0.30
H0 Significant H0 Significant
e

Positive Accept Not Accept Not

-0.12 0.25
Anticipatio H0 Significant H0 Significant
n

Not Accept Not

Withdrawa 0.007 Accept 0.31
Significant H0 Significant
l H0

Cyberspac
Accept Not Accept Not
e-oriented -0.04 0.23
H0 Significant H0 Significant
relationshi
p
Accept Not Reject
0.06 0.36* Significant
Overuse H0 Significant H0

Accept Not Accept Not

-0.09 0.28
Tolerance H0 Significant H0 Significant

Critical value: 0.3120 df:38 Level of Significance: 0.05

Note: *Critical value used 0.3120 is taken from the Pearson r distribution table
following two-tailed/non-directional level of significance 0.05. *H 0 means null
hypothesis.

Table 8 shows the summary of significant relationship between mobile

phone addiction and social interaction among teenagers from private and

public school.

81
 Results revealed that in private school, the computed r value for the

overuse factor and social interaction is 0.36 while the critical value of

0.3120 at 0.05 level of significance with 38 degrees of freedom. Since, the

computed value is greater than the critical value, the null hypothesis is

rejected. Therefore, there is a significant relationship between mobile

phone addiction and social interaction. However, results of the remaining

factors show that, first daily life disturbance with a computed r value of

0.30, positive anticipation with 0.25, withdrawal with 0.31, cyber space

oriented relationship with 0.23 and tolerance with the results of 0.28 which

means these 5 factors have no significant relationship with social

interaction.

Based on the results overuse alone is related to social interaction

which means the students from private school usually uses their phone for

socializing with their friends, families and other people.

According to Bianchi and Phillips (2005), extraversion has been linked

to addictive behavior. This means that, mobile phone is a tool which is

primarily used for communication, it makes sense that the two are

inextricably linked. In addition, Ling (2008) states that the mobile phone

plays a role for the interaction of a parent and their child, and how

82
teenagers interact with themselves, because the mobile phone helps with the

teens to maintain their relationship with their peers and it makes them

control their own communication channel.

Problem 9: Is there a significant relationship between loneliness and

social interaction among teenagers from public school and private school?

Table 9

Summary of the Significant Relationship between Loneliness and Social

Interaction among Teenagers from Private School and Public School

Lonelines
s Degree
Compute Critic Level of Verbal
and of Decisio
d r al r Significan Interpretat
Social Freedo n
value Value ce ion
Interacti m
on
Public 0.312 Reject
-0.3145* 38 0.05 Significant
School 0 H0
Private 0.312 Reject
-0.3259* 38 0.05 Significant
School 0 H0

Note: *Critical value used 0.3120 is taken from the Pearson r distribution table
following two-tailed/non-directional level of significance 0.05. *H 0 means null
hypothesis.

83
 Table 9 shows the summary of significant relationship between

loneliness and social interaction among teenagers from private and public

school.

Results shows that the Public school with a computed r value of

-0.3145 and in private school with -0.3259 computed r value while the

critical value of 0.3120 at 0.05 level of significance with 38 degrees of

freedom. Since the comuputed r value is greater than the critical value, the

null hypothesis is rejected which means there is significant relationship

between loneliness and social interaction among teenagers from private and

public school.

These results were supported by the study conducted by Nayyar &

Singh (2011), entitled, Personality Correlates of Loneliness, which talks

about some important personality dimensions and its relationship with

loneliness. Results shows that there is a significant negative correlation

between measures of extraversion and loneliness. They concluded that lonely

people may have less rewarding interpersonal and contacts with other and

may have less extensive social networks that they can gain support. As an

outcome, extraversion may influence loneliness negatively by allowing more

effective use of social support as a coping strategy. In addition, it was

84
supported by Hojat; Russell et al., that many researchers reveal that lonely

people have shown to be less extraverted. Also, Reid & Reid (2007) as cited

by Tan, Pamuk, & Donder (2013), found out that more face-to-face

interactions we associated with lower levels of loneliness.

The interactive role of extroversion and loneliness was evident in the

study entitled Behavior of people: Role of extraversion and loneliness

according to Parija & Shukla (2014) that when the person is higher on

extraversion and his loneliness will gradually decrease or became low.

Moreover, with the higher frequency of social interaction characteristic to

extraversion can be reduce the feeling of loneliness for those who are

extroverted.

85
 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter presents the summary of findings, and the conclusion

drawn from the synthesis of the findings. This also presents the

recommendation of the study based from the results obtained.

Summary of Findings

On the basis of the data presented in the previous chapter the study

revealed the following findings:

1. Level of mobile phone addiction among teenagers from private and

public school

Based on the findings, in private school respondents, the

level of mobile phone addiction in terms of Positive

Anticipation is average having a mean score of 29.6 with a

86
 standard deviation of 7.09 while the Daily Life Disturbance,

Withdrawal, Cyberspace-oriented relationship, and

Overuseis categorized as low level. And lastly, in Tolerance

the level is very low.

In public school respondents, the level of Positive

Anticipation is average with a mean score of 26.6 and the

standard deviation of 5.97. Daily Life Disturbance,

Withdrawal, Cyberspace-oriented relationship and Overuse

belongs to low level. Lastly in Tolerance, a mean score of

10.68 with a standard deviation of 3.63 is under very low

level.

2. Level of loneliness of among teenagers from private and public

school

The level of loneliness of the respondents in private

school is average with a mean score of 46.83 and a

standard deviation of 7.34.

87
 The level of loneliness of the respondents in public school

is average with a mean score of 46.58 and a standard

deviation of 8.62.

3. Level of social interaction among teenagers from private and public

school

The level of social interaction among teenagers from

private is average with a mean score of 48.13 and a

standard deviation of 6.89.

The level of social interaction among teenagers from

public is average, with a mean score of 49.46 and a

standard deviation of 7.33.

4. Summary of the Significant Difference on the level of mobile

phone addiction among teenagers between private and public school

88
 Based on findings, the computed t-value of -2.05 is

greater than the critical t-value of 1.9909 at 0.05 level

of significance with 38 degrees of freedom. Thus, null

hypothesis is rejected which means there is no

significant difference on mobile phone addiction among

teenagers on both school.

5. Summary of the Significant Difference on the level of loneliness

among teenagers between private and public school

Based on the results, the computed t-value of 0.89 is

lower than the critical t-value of 1.9909 at 0.05 level of

significance with 38 degrees of freedom. Thus, null

hypothesis is accepted which means there is no

significant difference on loneliness among teenagers on

both schools.

89
6. Summary of the Significant Difference on the level of social

interaction among teenagers between private and public school

Finding indicates that the computed t-value of 0.41 is

lower than the critical t-value of 1.9909 at 0.05 level of

significance with 38 degrees of freedom. Therefore, null

hypothesis is accepted, it indicates that there is no

significant difference on social interaction among

teenagers from public and private university.

7. Summary of the Significant Relationship between mobile phone

addiction and loneliness among teenagers from private and public

school

90
 Findings shows that the computed r value of 0.39 in

Positive Anticipation is greater than the critical value of

0.3120 at 0.05 level of significance with 38 degrees of

freedom. Thus, null hypothesis is rejected which means

that there is a significant positive relationship between

mobile phone addiction and loneliness among teenagers

from public school.

Private school attained -0.45 which is greater than the

critical value of 0.3120 at 0.05 level of significance with

38 degrees of freedom. Thus, null hypothesis is rejected

it means that there is a negative correlation between

their mobile phone addiction and loneliness.

8. Summary of the Significant Relationship between mobile phone

addiction and social interaction among teenagers from private and

public school

Public school the computed r value of -0.05, -0.12, 0.007,

-0.04, 0.06, -0.09 in Daily-Life Disturbance, Positive

91
 Anticipation, Withdrawal, Cyberspace-oriented relationship,

Overuse and Tolerance respectively is lower than the critical

value of 0.3120 with a level of 0.05 level of significance with

38 degrees of freedom. Thus, null hypothesis is accepted,

indicating that there is no significant positive correlation on

mobile phone addiction and social interaction in terms on

extraversion.
Private school obtained computed r value of 0.36 in Overuse

which is higher than the critical value of 0.3120 with a level

of 0.05 level of significance with 38 degrees of freedom.

Thus, null hypothesis is rejected which shows there is

significant relationship on mobile phone addiction and social

interaction.

9. Summary of the Significant relationship between loneliness and

social interaction among teenagers from private and public school

The computed r value of -0.3145 for public university is

greater than the critical value of 0. 3120 at 0.05 level of

92
 significance with 38 degrees of freedom.Therefore, null

hypothesis is rejected which indicates that there is

significant negative correlation towards loneliness and

social interaction.

Results for private university, the computed r value is

-0.3259 is greater than the critical value. Thus, the null

hypothesis is rejected it shows that there is significant

negative correlation towards loneliness and social

interaction.

Conclusions

Based on the summary findings, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. The level of mobile phone addiction among teenagers from private and

public school is low. It implies that they do not use their phone

excessively, they use it simply for to relieve stress, exhaustion and

anxieties.

93
2. The level of loneliness of among teenagers from public and private

school is average which shows that the students can manage

themselves and they can cope with their feeling of loneliness and can

still be happy if they want to.

3. The level of social interaction of among teenagers from public and

private school is moderate with regards to extraversion. It means

that they can balance their relationship between having time for

themselves and socialize with other people.

4. There is significant difference on the level of mobile phone addiction

among teenagers between private and public school in terms of

positive anticipation factor. It implies that private school students

compare to public school students constanly use their mobile phones in

order to reduces their stress and their feeling of anxiety.

94
5. There is no significant difference on the level of loneliness among

teenagers between private and public school. It implies that with the

same level of loneliness in private and public school is average it means

that sometimes they experience happiness or unhappiness depending

on the situation they are in.

6. There is no significant difference on the level of social interaction

among teenagers between private and public school. It shows that

both private and pulic school has the same level of social interaction

which is average, they engage more in face to face interaction than

using their phone for communication.

7. The mobile phone addiction, in positive anticipation factor of public

school is related to loneliness which means that they use their mobile

phone to help them get rid or reduce their stress, relieves them from

exhaustion and anxieties, making them feel safe. Furthermore

tolerance factor is found to be negatively correlated to lonelinesss in

95
 private school. As level of loneliness increases their level of tolerance

decreases, it indicates that when they feel lonely, they tend to have

less control using their mobile phones.

8. The respondents mobile phone addiction level with respect to overuse

is significantly related to social interaction in private school. It

indicates that the more they need to interact with their family and

friends, the more their phone usage increases.

9. Loneliness is significantly related to social interactions in terms of

extraversion which implies when there is more face-to-face

interaction, loneliness decreases.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the findings and conclusion obtained from this study the

researchers propose the following recommendations:

96
 Students should engage in extracurricular activities like sports and

other recreational activities to lessen their feeling of loneliness.

Parents should advise their children on the proper use of mobile

phones. Parents should be able to supervise their childrens activities

most especially if they are engaged in technology at such a young age.

Mobile phone users should engage more on face to face interaction

than using the social media to reduce their feeling of loneliness.

Future researchers are encouraged to use other independent

variables to be correlated with mobile phone addiction so that they

will be able to identify other factors that may influence the usage of

mobile phone.

97
REFERENCES:

Abu-Jedy A. Mobile phone addiction and its relationship with self-discloser

among sample of students from University of Jordan and Amman Al-
Ahliyya University. Jordan Journal of educational science.
2008;4920:137-50

Ahmed, I., Qazi T. F., & Perji, K. A. (2011). Mobile Phone to

Youngsters:Necessity or Addiction. African Journal of Business
Management Vol.5 (32), pp. 12512-12519,14.

Al-Barashadi, H. S., Bouazza, A., Jabur, N. H. & Al-Zubaidi, A. (2015). Smart

Phone Gratification among Sultan Qaboos University Undergraduates:
A Mixed -Approach Investigation. British Journalof Education,
Society &Behavioural Science. 10 (1):1-17.

Al-Barashadi, H. S., Bouazza, A., Jabur, N. H. & Al-Zubaidi, A. (2014).

Smartphone Addiction among University Undergraduates: A
Literature Review. Journal of Scientific research & reports 4(3):210-
225, 2015. DOI: 10.9734/JSSR/2015/12245

Bakker M., Hartgerink C. H. J., Wicherts, J. M., & van der Maas H. L. J.
(2016) Researchers Intuitions About Power in Psychological Research.
Retrieved on September 22,2016 from
pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/06/28/0956797616647519.full

Banjo, O. Hu, Y. & Sundar, S. (2008). Cell Phone Usage and Social interaction
with Proximate Others: Ringing in a Theoretical Model. The Open
Communication Journal, 2008, 2, Pages 127-135.

Baron, N. S. (2011) Concerns about mobile phones: A cross national study.

Retrieved on October 12, 2016 from
firstmonday.org/article/view/3335/3032

98
Bhardwaj, M. & Ashok, S. J. (2015). Mobile phone addiction and loneliness
among teenagers. The international journal of Indian Psychology vol. 2
issue 3.

Broto, A. S. (2006). Statistic made simple. Cacho Hermanos, Inc. Pines cor.
Union Sts., Mandaluyong City.

Billieux J. (2012). Problematic use of the mobile phone: A Literature Review

and a Pathways Model. Catholic University of Louvain, Louvain-La-
Neuve,Belgium. Retrieved on October 13, 2016 from
http://www.uclep.be/wpcontent/uploads/pdf/Pub/Billieux_CPR_2012.p
df

Bian, M.& Leung, L. (2014). linking loneliness, shyness, smartphone addiction

symptoms, and patterns of smartphone use to social capital.
Social Science Computer Review 2015, Vol. 33(1) 61-79.

Bianchi, A., & Phillips. J.G. (2005). Psychological Predictors of Problem

Mobile Phone Use. CyberPsychology & Behavior. Volume: 8. Issue 1:
February 2005, 8(1): 39-51.

Campbell, M. A. (2005) The impact of the mobile phone on young people's

social life. Retrieved on October 12, 2016 from
firstmonday.org/article/view/3335/3032

Casey, B.M (2012). Lingking psychological Attributes to Smartphones

Addiction , Face- to-face Communication, Present Absence and
Social Capital. Retrieved on March 29, 2017 from
http://pg.com.cuhk.edu.hk/pgp_nm/projects/2012/BIAN
%20Mengwei%20Casey.pdf

Chatterjee, S. (2014). A Sociological Outlook of Mobile Phone Use in Society.

International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary
Studies (IJIMS), Vol 1, No. 6, Pages 55-63.

Choliz. M. (2010). Mobile Phone Addiction: A point of issue. Addiction.

Volume 105, Issue 2 February 2010. Pages 33-374.

99
Choliz M. (2012). Mobile-phone addiction in adolescence: The Test of Mobile
Phone Dependence (TMD). Prog Health Sci 2012, Vol 2, No.1.

Corbett, A. (2009). Cellular Phones Influences and Impacts on Social

Interactions and Interpersonal Relationships. Retrieved on October
25, 2016 from https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/student-
journals/Corbett2009.pdf
Corcoran, M. (2012). The impact of New Media Technologies on Social
Interaction in the Household. Retrieved October 25, 2016 from
https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/sites/default/files/assets/docum
ent/Sio hanMcGrath.pdf.

Darcin, A. E. et al. (2016). Smartphone addiction in relation with social

anxietyand loneliness among University Students in Turkey. Behaviour
& Information Technology. Retrieved on October 29, 2016 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299997519_Smartphone_a
ddiction_and_its_relationship_with_social_anxiety_and_loneliness?
enrichId=rgreq-
d5bc20c83b7e49c0e4e6ecfe16ddbec8XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJ
QYWdlOzI5OTk5NzUxOTtBUzozNDk0Mjg5NjQ3MDgzNTVAMTQ2
MDMyMTc2NTg0Ng%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

Gao, Y. Li, A., Liu X., & Liu X. (2016). How smartphone usage correlates with
social anxiety and loneliness. Retrieved on October 11, 2016
from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279208759_Smartphone_
Addic
tion_in_Relation_with_Social_Anxiety_and_Loneliness_Among_Unive
rsit y_Students_in_Turkey

Griffiths M.D. (2013). Adolescent mobile phone addiction: A cause for

concern? Nottingham Trent University. Retrieved on October 12, 2016
from http://sheu.org.uk/x/eh331mg.pdf

Goscicki, Claire (2011). Study discovers how cell phone use affects social
interactions. Retrieved on October 11, 2016 from
https://www.michigandaily.com/news/%E2%80%98u%E2%80%99-

100
 researchers-identify-link-between-cell-phones-and-socialization-
habits

Goswami, V., & Singh, D.R. (2016) Impact of mobile addiction on adolescents
life: A Literature Review. International Journal of Home Science
2016;2(1): 69-74.

Groarke, H. (2014). The impact of smartphones on social behavior and

relationships. Retrieved on October 11, 2016
http://esource.dbs.ie/bitstream/handle/10788/2096/hdip_groake_h
_2014.pdf?sequence=1

Gutierrez, De-Sol. Et. Al. (2016). Cell-Phone Addiction: A Review. Journal

List.. Front Psychiatry. v.7; 2016PMC5076301. Retrieved on March 28,
2017 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5076301/

Haydar, A. (2013). Examination of loneliness and mobile phone addiction

problem observed in teenagers from the some variables. The Journal
of Academic Social Science Studies vol. 6, issue 2.

Ictech, O. M. (2014). Smart Phones and Face-to-Face Interactions:

ExtendingGoffman to 21st Century Conversation. University of New
Orlans theses and Dissertations. Paper 1812.

Ishii, K. (2011) Examining the Adverse Effects of Mobile Phone Use among
Japanese Adolescents. Retrieved on October 12, 2016
from /www.mediacom.keio.ac.jp/publication/pdf2011/04ISHII.pdf

Isiklar, A., Sar, A.H., & Durmuscelebi, M. (2013). An investigation of the

relationship between high-school students problematic use and their
self-esteem. Academic Journal Article. Vol. 134, No. 1.

Iqbal, M. & Nurdiani, G. (2016). Is smartphone addiction related to

loneliness?. Science Arena Publications Specialty Journal of
Psychology and Management. 2016, Vol, 2 (2): 1-6.

101
Jones, T. (2014). Students Cell Phone Addiction and Their Opinions. The
Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications. Vol. 5,
No.1.

Kahyaoglu Sut H., Seda K., Ozge U., & Saadet Ozdilek (2016). Effects of
smartphone addiction level on social and educational life in health
sciences students. Euras J Fam Med 2016;5(1):13-9

Kalogeraki, S. & Papadaki M. (2010). The impact of mobile use on teenagers

socialization. The international journal of interdisciplinary social
sciences. Volume 5, Number 4.

Lenhart, A. Ling, R. Campbell, S. & Purcell, K. (2010). Teen and Mobile Phones:
Text Messaging Explodes as teens embrace it as the
centerpiece of their communication strategies with friends. Retrieved
April 20, 2010. From http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/04/20/teens-
and-mobile-phones/.

Leung, D. YP., Wong, E. ML. Chan, S. CH., & Lam, TH. (2013). Psychometric
properties of the big five inventory in a Chinese sample smokers
receiving cessation treatment: A validation study. Journal of
Nursing Education and Practice, 2013, Vol. 3, No. 6.

Ling, R. (2008) Mobile communication and teen emancipation. Retrieved on

October 12, 2016 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259249905_Mobile_comm
unication_and_teen_emancipation

Lomax, R. & Li, J. (2013). Correlational Research. Retrieved April 8, 2017

from https://www.education.com/article/correlational-research/

Lutze, M. (2014). The mere presence of a smartphone affects social

interaction. October 11, 2016 from
http://guardianlv.com/2014/07/the-mere-presence-of-a-smartphone-
affects-social-interactions/

102
Matic, A., Osmani, V. & Ibarra O. M. (2012). A Sociological Outlook of Mobile
Phone Use in Society. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
From
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257626135_Analysis_of_S
ocial Interactions_Through_Mobile_Phones.

Nayyar, S. & Singh, B. (2011). Personality Corre;ates of Loneliness. Journal

of the indian Academy of Applied Psychology. January 2011, No.1, 163-
168.

Nastaran N.P., et al. (2016) Internet and Mobile Phone Addiction among High
School Students: A Cross Sectional Study from Iran. IOSR Journal of
Nursing and Health Science (IOSR-JNHS) Volume 5, Issue 3 Ver. V
(May.- Jun. 2016), pp 31-34.

Parija, S., Shukla, A. (2014). Behavior of People: Role of Extraversion and

Loneliness. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 3, No. 1, 2014, pp.
17-24. doi: 10.11648/j.pbs.20140301.14

PsychGuides.com (2016). Teen cell phone addiction. Retrieved on October 11,

2016 http://www.psychguides.com/guides/teen-cell-phone-addiction/.

Rettie, R. (2009). Mobile Phone Communication: extending Goffman to

Mediated Interaction. Sociology. BSA Publication Ltd. Volume 43(3).
Pages 421-438.

Roberts, J. A., Pullig, C. & Manolis, C. (2014). I need my smartphone: A

hierarchical model of personality and cell-phone addiction.
Personality and Individual Differences 79 (2015) 1319.

Sansone, R. A.& Sansone, L.A (2013). Cell phones: The Psychosocial Risks.
Inno Clin neurosci.10(1): 33-37.

103
Sultana, S., Dey. B, K., Rahman, A., Hossein. H. (2016). Aged Peoples
Tolerance Level and Loneliness. The International Journal of Indian
Psychology. Volume 3, Issue 4, No. 65

Takao, M., Takashi, S., & Kitamura, M. (2009). Addictive Personality and
Problematic Mobile Phone Use. CyberPsychology & Behavior. Volume
12, Number X, 2009. DOI: 10.1089/cbp.2009.0022

Tan C., Pamuk, M. & Dnder A. E. (2013) Loneliness and mobilephone.

Retrieved on November 7, 2016 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275542808

Taneja C. (2014) The Psychology of Excessive Cellular Phone Use. Delhi

Psychiatry Journal. Vol. 17 No. 2.

Tavakolizadeh J., et al (2014) The Prevalence of Excessive Mobile Phone Use

and its Relation with Mental Health Status and Demographic Factors
Among the Students of Gonabad University of Medical Sciences in
2011 2012. Iran. Retrieved on October 13, 2016 from
http://razavijournal.com/25929.pdf

Tessa Jones (2014) Students Cell Phone Addiction and Their Opinions.
Retrieved on October 12, 2016 from www.elon.edu/docs/e
web/academics/communications/.../08jonesejspring14.pdf

Tossell, C., Kortum, P., Shepard, C., Rahmati, A. & Zhong L. (2015) Exploring
Smartphone Addiction: Insights from Long-Term Telemetric
Behavioral Measures. Retrieved on October 12, 2016 from
clay.rice.edu/pubs/Tossel Addiction-12.pd

104
105
 APPENDICES

Appendix A

Confirmation Letter to Adviser

January 24, 2017

Dr. Helen C. Baguno

Faculty Arts & Sciences

Dear Dr. Baguno,

106
 Warm greeting!

The Faculty of Psychology Department respectfully invites you to be the

Thesis Adviser of the following fourth year BS Psychology student on their entitled
Mobile Phone Addction, Loneliness and Social Interaction among teenagers from
Private School and Public School.

Name of Advisees Signature

Alysha Thalia M. Bernardino ______________

Daniel O. Delgado ______________

Almira S. Javier ______________

Maryjoy S. Merilles ______________

Krishia Marielle R. Samaniego ______________

We believed that with your expertise, you will be able to help our students to
accomplish their degree papers with high competence.

Thank you very much for your continued support to our department.

Very Respectfully yours,

Mr. Pedrito A. Aton, CAsP, RPm

Subject Adviser

Conforme:

Dr. Helen C. Baguno

Date Signed_______

Appendix B

Smartphone Addiction Scale

Dear Respondents,

107
 We are 4th year BS Psychology Students at Trinity University

of Asia we are conducting a study entitled Relationship between Mobile

Phone Addiction, Social Interaction and Loneliness among teenagers from

Public School and Private School. Please answer these questionnaires as

honestly as possible. Rest assured that your responses will be held with

outmost confidentiality.

PART 1

Name (Optional):

INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree

with that statement. Encircle the number that corresponds to your answer.

Strong Disagr Weakl Weakl Agre Strong

ly ee y y e ly
STATEMENTS
disagre disagr agree agree
e ee
1 Missing planned work 2 3
1 4 5 6
due to smartphone use
2. Having a hard time
concentrating in class,
while doing assignments, 1 2 3 4 5 6
or while working due to
smartphone use
3. Experiencing
lightheadedness or
1 2 3 4 5 6
blurred vision due to
excessive smartphone use
4. Feeling pain in the 1 2 3 4 5 6
wrists or at the back of
the neck while using a

108
smartphone
5. Feeling tired and
lacking adequate sleep
1 2 3 4 5 6
due to excessive
smartphone use
6. Feeling calm or cozy
1 2 3 4 5 6
while using a smartphone
7. Feeling pleasant or
excited while using a 1 2 3 4 5 6
smartphone
8. Feeling confident while
1 2 3 4 5 6
using a smartphone
9. Being able to get rid of
1 2 3 4 5 6
stress with a smartphone
10.There is nothing more
fun to do than using my 1 2 3 4 5 6
smartphone
11 My life would be empty
1 2 3 4 5 6
without my smartphone.
12 Feeling most liberal
1 2 3 4 5 6
while using a smartphone
13 Using a smartphone is
1 2 3 4 5 6
the most fun thing to do.
14 Wont be able to stand
1 2 3 4 5 6
not having a smartphone
15 Feeling impatient and
fretful when I am not 1 2 3 4 5 6
holding my smartphone
16 Having my smartphone
in my mind even when I 1 2 3 4 5 6
am not using it
17 I will never give up 1 2 3 4 5 6
using my smartphone even

109
when my daily life is
already greatly affected
by it.
18 Getting irritated when
bothered while using my 1 2 3 4 5 6
smartphone
19 Bringing my
smartphone to the toilet
1 2 3 4 5 6
even when I am in a hurry
to get there
20 Feeling great meeting
more people via 1 2 3 4 5 6
smartphone use
21 Feeling that my
relationships with my
smartphone buddies are
1 2 3 4 5 6
more intimate than my
relationships with my
real-life friends
22 Not being able to use
my smartphone would be
1 2 3 4 5 6
as painful as losing a
friend.
23 Feeling that my 1
smartphone buddies
understand me better 2 3 4 5 6
than my
real-life friends
24. Constantly checking
my smartphone so as not
to miss conversations 1 2 3 4 5 6
between other people on
Twitter or Facebook
25 Checking SNS (Social 1 2 3 4 5 6

110
Networking Service)
sites like Twitter or
Facebook right after
waking up
26 Preferring talking
with my smartphone
buddies to hanging out
1 2 3 4 5 6
with my real-life friends
or with the other
members of my family
27 Preferring searching
from my smartphone to 1 2 3 4 5 6
asking other people
28 My fully charged
battery does not last for 1 2 3 4 5 6
one whole day.
29 Using my smartphone 1
longer than I had 2 3 4 5 6
intended
30 Feeling the urge to
use my smartphone again
1 2 3 4 5 6
right after I stopped
using it
31 Having tried time and
again to shorten my
1 2 3 4 5 6
smartphone use time, but
failing all the time
32 Always thinking that I
should shorten my 1 2 3 4 5 6
smartphone use time
33 The people around me
tell me that I use my 1 2 3 4 5 6
smartphone too much.

111
 Appendix C
UCLA Loneliness Scale Version 3

PART 2

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate how often each of the statements below is

descriptive of you. Please encircle the number that corresponds to your
answer.
Statement Sometim
Never Rarely Often
es
*1. How often do you feel that you are "in
1 2 3 4
tune" with the people around you?
2. How often do you feel that you lack
1 2 3 4
companionship?
3. How often do you feel that there is no
1 2 3 4
one you can turn to?
4 How often do you feel alone? 1 2 3 4
*5. How often do you feel part of a group
1 2 3 4
of friends?
*6. How often do you feel that you have a
1 2 3 4
lot in common with the people around you?
7. How often do you feel that you are no
1 2 3 4
longer close to anyone?
8. How often do you feel that your
interests and ideas are not shared by 1 2 3 4
those around you?
*9. How often do you feel outgoing and
1 2 3 4
friendly?
*10. How often do you feel close to people? 1 2 3 4
11. How often do you feel left out? 1 2 3 4
12. How often do you feel that your
relationships with others are not 1 2 3 4
meaningful?
13. How often do you feel that no one really 1 2 3 4

112
knows you we11?
14. How often do you feel isolated from
1 2 3 4
others?
*15. How often do you fee1 you can find
1 2 3 4
companionship when you want it?
*16. How often do you feel that there are
1 2 3 4
people who really understand you?
17, How often do you feel shy? 1 2 3 4
18. How often do you feel that people are
1 2 3 4
around you but not with you?
*19. How often do you feel that there are
1 2 3 4
people you can talk to?
*20. How often do you feel that there are
1 2 3 4
people you can turn to?

Appendix D
Big Five Inventory

PART 3

INSTRUCTIONS: Here are a number of characteristics that may or may

not apply to you. Please encircle the number that indicates the extent to
which you agree or disagree with that statement.

I see Myself as Someone Who...

Neithe
Disagre r Agre
Disagre Agree
e agree e
STATEMENT e Strongl
Strongl nor a
a little y
y disagre little
e
1. Is talkative 1 2 3 4 5
2. Tends to find fault with 1 2 3 4 5

113
others
3. Does a thorough job 1 2 3 4 5
4. Is depressed, blue 1 2 3 4 5
5. Is original, comes up with
new ideas 1 2 3 4 5
6. Is reserved 1 2 3 4 5
7. Is helpful and unselfish
with others 1 2 3 4 5
8. Can be somewhat careless 1 2 3 4 5
9. Is relaxed, handles stress
well 1 2 3 4 5
10. Is curious about many
different things 1 2 3 4 5
11. Is full of energy 1 2 3 4 5
12. Starts quarrels with
others 1 2 3 4 5
13. Is a reliable worker 1 2 3 4 5
14. Can be tense 1 2 3 4 5
15. Is ingenious, a deep
thinker 1 2 3 4 5
16. Generates a lot of
enthusiasm 1 2 3 4 5
17. Has a forgiving nature 1 2 3 4 5
18. Tends to be disorganized 1 2 3 4 5
19. Worries a lot 1 2 3 4 5
20. Has an active imagination 1 2 3 4 5
21. Tends to be quiet 1 2 3 4 5
22. Is generally trusting 1 2 3 4 5
23. Tends to be lazy 1 2 3 4 5
24. Is emotionally stable, not
easily upset 1 2 3 4 5
25. Is inventive 1 2 3 4 5

114
26. Has an assertive
personality 1 2 3 4 5
27. Can be cold and aloof 1 2 3 4 5
28. Perseveres until the task
is finished 1 2 3 4 5
29. Can be moody 1 2 3 4 5
30. Values artistic, aesthetic
experiences 1 2 3 4 5
31. Is sometimes shy,
inhibited 1 2 3 4 5
32. Is considerate and kind to
almost everyone 1 2 3 4 5
33. Does things efficiently 1 2 3 4 5
34. Remains calm in tense
situations 1 2 3 4 5
35. Prefers work that is
routine 1 2 3 4 5
36. Is outgoing, sociable 1 2 3 4 5
37. Is sometimes rude to
others 1 2 3 4 5
38. Makes plans and follows
through with them 1 2 3 4 5
39. Gets nervous easily 1 2 3 4 5
40. Likes to reflect, play with
ideas 1 2 3 4 5
41. Has few artistic interests 1 2 3 4 5
42. Likes to cooperate with
others 1 2 3 4 5
43. Is easily distracted 1 2 3 4 5
44. Is sophisticated in art,
music, or literature 1 2 3 4 5

115
 Appendix E

Letter Approval

116
 Appendix F

Letter to the Principal

117
 Appendix G

Letter to the Principal

118
119
CRONBACH
ALPHA

120
MOBILE PHONE ADDICTION

Number of items in scale: 33

Number of valid cases: 80

Number of cases with missing data: 0
Missing data were deleted: casewise

SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SCALE

Mean: 108.97500000 Sum: 8718.0000000
Standard Deviation: 22.318735389 Variance: 498.12594937
Skewness: .152945254 Kurtosis: -.505062329
Minimum: 67.000000000 Maximum: 166.00000000
Cronbach's alpha: .889373672 Standardized alpha: .891356351
Average Inter-Item Correlation: .204513870

LONELINESS

Number of items in scale: 20

Number of valid cases: 80

Number of cases with missing data: 0
Missing data were deleted: casewise

SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SCALE

Mean: 46.700000000 Sum: 3736.0000000
Standard Deviation: 7.956209262 Variance: 63.301265823
Skewness: .282034317 Kurtosis: .780076364
Minimum: 28.000000000 Maximum: 74.000000000
Cronbach's alpha: .812701547 Standardized alpha: .807179022
Average Inter-Item Correlation: .179400258

SOCIAL INTERACTION

Number of items in scale: 8

Number of valid cases: 80

Number of cases with missing data: 0
Missing data were deleted: casewise

121
 SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SCALE
Mean: 24.825000000 Sum: 1986.0000000
Standard Deviation: 4.541719409 Variance: 20.627215190
Skewness: .014404578 Kurtosis: -.361771563
Minimum: 15.000000000 Maximum: 34.000000000
Cronbach's alpha: .638125337 Standardized alpha: .612365195
Average Inter-Item Correlation: .172404283

MOBILE PHONE ADDICTION

ITEM 1-5, DAILY-LIFE DISTURBANCE

Number of items in scale: 5

Number of valid cases: 80

Number of cases with missing data: 0
Missing data were deleted: casewise

SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SCALE

Mean: 18.950000000 Sum: 1516.0000000
Standard Deviation: 5.108692022 Variance: 26.098734177
Skewness: -.733289772 Kurtosis: .182215021
Minimum: 5.000000000 Maximum: 29.000000000
Cronbach's alpha: .723397032 Standardized alpha: .721790372
Average Inter-Item Correlation: .345098179

ITEM 6-13, POSITIVE ANTICIPATION

Number of items in scale: 8

Number of valid cases: 80

Number of cases with missing data: 0
Missing data were deleted: casewise

SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SCALE

Mean: 28.100000000 Sum: 2248.0000000

122
Standard Deviation: 6.683817601 Variance: 44.673417722
Skewness: .383200599 Kurtosis: -.248728249
Minimum: 16.000000000 Maximum: 46.000000000
Cronbach's alpha: .770672431 Standardized alpha: .772865641
Average Inter-Item Correlation: .312220542

ITEM 14-19, WITHDRAWAL

Number of items in scale: 6

Number of valid cases: 80

Number of cases with missing data: 0
Missing data were deleted: casewise

SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SCALE

Mean: 16.150000000 Sum: 1292.0000000
Standard Deviation: 5.327502086 Variance: 28.382278481
Skewness: .506816869 Kurtosis: -.133106404
Minimum: 6.000000000 Maximum: 31.000000000
Cronbach's alpha: .707546160 Standardized alpha: .716179493
Average Inter-Item Correlation: .308108475

ITEM 20-26, CYBERSPACE-ORIENTED RELATIONSHIP

Number of items in scale: 7

Number of valid cases: 80

Number of cases with missing data: 0
Missing data were deleted: casewise

SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SCALE

Mean: 19.787500000 Sum: 1583.0000000
Standard Deviation: 6.796674075 Variance: 46.194778481
Skewness: .789222790 Kurtosis: .338741925
Minimum: 9.000000000 Maximum: 39.000000000
Cronbach's alpha: .779288305 Standardized alpha: .782898180
Average Inter-Item Correlation: .350414224

123
ITEM 27-30, OVERUSE

Number of items in scale: 4

Number of valid cases: 80

Number of cases with missing data: 0
Missing data were deleted: casewise

SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SCALE

Mean: 15.175000000 Sum: 1214.0000000
Standard Deviation: 4.221029330 Variance: 17.817088608
Skewness: -.182191112 Kurtosis: -.916812177
Minimum: 7.000000000 Maximum: 23.000000000
Cronbach's alpha: .664724758 Standardized alpha: .657927706
Average Inter-Item Correlation: .337073025

ITEM 31-33, TOLERANCE

Number of items in scale: 3

Number of valid cases: 80

Number of cases with missing data: 0
Missing data were deleted: casewise

SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SCALE

Mean: 10.812500000 Sum: 865.00000000
Standard Deviation: 3.460788488 Variance: 11.977056962
Skewness: -.117844851 Kurtosis: -.306996734
Minimum: 3.000000000 Maximum: 17.000000000
Cronbach's alpha: .614941542 Standardized alpha: .620857256
Average Inter-Item Correlation: .362079654

124
BIOPROFILE

125
 Ms. Alysha Thalia M. Bernardino is a 4 th year college student taking

up Bachelor of Science in Psychology at Trinity University of Asia. She was

born on August 25, 1996. She used to be an excellent student back in high

school. At college, she was a campus journalist for 2 years. She has excellent

skills for editing words and power points. She loves to write, listen to music,

and participate in a conversation. Alysha is also a go-getter, always trying to

lend a hand to those who needed her help, she works well under pressure.

She can also be really talkative and energetic. Alysha dreams to be a

psychologist and/or psychiatrist, and a journalist after finishing her

bachelors and masters degree.

126
Mr. Daniel O. Delgado is a 4th year college student taking up Bachelor of

Science in Psychology at Trinity University of Asia. He was born on February

18, 1994. Just an average joe, studied at the states till grade 2, studied at

the province till high school, transferee from FEU, shifter from med-tech.

Attended some seminars, participated in some events like Group Dynamics,

Mr. & Ms. CAS.

127
 Ms. Almira S. Javier was born on April 8, 1994. She graduated from

Taytay United Methodist Christian School, in her Secondary Education. She

is a 4th year college student taking up Bachelor of Science in Psychology at

128
Trinity University of Asia. She is a member of Psychology Society since year

2014.

She is interested in photography, music, and traveling. She has good

communication skills and also has good computer skills such as using the

Microsoft Word, Excel, and Powerpoint.

Ms. Almira S. Javier is looking forward in pursuing a career in the

industrial setting and took up the Psychometrcian Board Exam on August

2016. She also aspires to take up her master's and doctoral degree after

their graduation.

129
 Ms. Maryjoy S. Merilles was born on October 20, 1996. She graduated

from St. Bridget School, in her Secondary Education. She is 4 th yearcollege

student taking up Bachelor of Science in Psychology at Trinity University of

Asia.

She was a member of Psychology Society Organization in her

University. She participatedin Psychological Association of the Philippines

for Junior Affiliates (PAPJA) Convention on January 2016.

She tool her on-the-job training at Estrellas Nex Care in Kamias,

Quezon City for her Clinical Setting Internship; AFP Camp General Emilio

Aguinaldo, Quezon City for her Industrial Setting Internship; and at Trinity

University of Asia for her Educational Setting Internship. She intends to

take up the Psychometrician Board on October 2017 and pursue her dream

job.

130
 Ms. Krishia Marielle R. Samaniego is a 4th year student in Trinity

University of Asia taking up Bachelor of Science in Psychology. She was born

on February 8, 1993. She is already 24 years old and has two beautiful kids.

Still she went back to school to finish her college. She consistently gets

good grades despite of being a student and a mom. She has a multitasking

skills and loves making friends with new people. She graduated her

Secondary Education in Siena College Quezon City. In her spare time, she

enjoys baking, shopping and travelling. She also likes spending time with her

family and friend. She is looking forward in pursuing a career in the

industrial setting.

131
132
 APPROVAL FOR THESIS DEFENSE

This certifies that the study entitled

Mobile Phone Addiction, Loneliness and Social Interaction among teenagers

from Private School and Public School

of the following BS Psychology student researchers:

Alysha Thalia M. Bernardino

Daniel O. Delgado

Almira S. Javier

Maryjoy S. Merilles

Krishia Marielle R. Samaniego

is hereby thoroughly reviewed and approved for defense.

Dr. Helen C. Baguno

Thesis Adviser

133
Date of Approval: ________

134