Addictionis defined by factors such as a person has attempted numerous times to withdrawthe substance being used, increasing the amount of usage, facing withdrawal symptomswhen ceasing the substance usage, continuing to use despite seeing the harmfuleffects and spending most of their time seeking the substance (Ögel, 2001).
Individuals can be addicted to many substances such as cigarettes, alcohol ordrugs. Other addictions independent of physical substances, such as foodaddiction based on behavior, game addiction, computer addiction, televisionaddiction, shopping addiction and internet addiction also exist (Greenfield,1999; Kim & Kim, 2002). Nowadays,substance addiction is the first notion coming to mind while talking aboutaddiction. However the notion of addiction includes different activities suchas internet addiction (Young, 1998), gambling addiction (Griffiths, 1995), foodaddiction and video game addiction (Griffiths, 1993). With the technologydevelopments in the 21st century, addictions such as internet addiction andsocial media addiction have taken their place within the list of important andfrequently encountered addictions. Internetaddiction shares similar features with substance addiction. Here, internetusage reaches a pathological level as “technological addictions” (Young, 1996).
Internet and technology addiction can be described as the situation where anindividual cannot control the usage with their own willpower, cannot refrainfrom performing that act and feel withdrawal symptoms when unable to access thetechnological product causing the addiction. While technological addictions canoccur in passive states such as watching TV, they can also be in activeaddiction form while performing other acts such as playing video games(Griffiths, 1995). Anothertype of addiction discussed alongside internet addiction in recent years issocial network addiction. Various definitions exist within the literatureregarding social networks, such as: social interaction network (Çetin, 2009),informal learning environment (Stevenson & Liu, 2010), advertisement andpublic relations environment (Onat & Alikk?l?ç, 2008), online humancommunity (Buss and Strauss, 2009), marketing environment and the innovatorphenomenon of the internet (Akar, 2010).
Socialnetworks are websites where individuals can create their profiles in aregistered system either publicly or semi?publicly,share links, see other people’s lists and see the relationship status of otherpeople within the system while also allowing individuals in online groups toshare their likes and activities and also share messages, e?mails,discussion groups, videos, audio chats and files (Boyd & Ellison, 2007).The most essential features of these environments include allowing theindividuals to work with others and actively participate, give and receivefeedback and customize their space in a comfortable environment, in a two?waycommunication process and interactive environment (Lee & McLoughlin, 2007).Thus a form of communication was born, where discussion and sharing are almostcost free and the individual is in the center.
Oneof the social networks allowing individuals to spend time in cyber spacetogether with their loved ones, share information and have fun together isFacebook. This software, first developed by Mark Zuckerberg in 2004 at HarvardUniversity for the university students, is now one of the most recognized andused social networks in the world (??man & Albayrak, 2014; Yaman , 2014). Thepopular social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google+, Snapchatand Whatsapp are followed and used actively by millions of people (Hergüner,2011). Social network addiction has started to be observed with the increasingrate of use. While these social networking sites increased in usage, theybrought positive results such as communication, interaction, sharing,collaboration and socializing for users, yet they can also cause problems suchas anxiety of socializing (?ahin, ??leyen & Özdemir, 2012), decrease inface?to?facecommunication (Das & Sahoo, 2011; ??bulan, 2011), solitude (Sheldon, 2008,2012), and addiction (Pelling & White, 2009; Wang, 2009; Wilson, Formasier,& White, 2010). Socialnetwork addiction needs to be included in the internet addiction or technologyaddiction categories due to the messaging, online gaming and other interactionactivities by the individuals and problematic internet usage by stayingconnected to the internet in carrying out these activities (Das & Sahoo,2011; Karaiskos, Tzavellas, Balta, & Paparrigopoulos, 2010). Therefore, theinternet usage ratings are expected to rise in proportion to the increase ofsocial networking addiction among individuals.Thepurpose of this study is to determine the Facebook addictions and the addictionlevels of the students studying in the Sakarya University, Faculty of SportsSciences, Physical Education and Sports Teaching Department, concerning thegender and class variables.
METHODInformationregarding the findings related to the study, participants, data collection tooland the processes is given in this section. ParticipantsSome274 students of the Physical Education students Department of physical education in the Bharathiar University,Coimbatore of Tamilnadu participated inthis study, which aimed at measuring the Facebook addiction levels of thestudents. Participant selection in the study was carried out throughconvenience sampling. By gender, 146 (53%) of the students are female while 128(47%) are male.
As for grade distribution, 65 (24%) of the students are in the1st grade, while 69 (25%) are in the 2nd grade, 74 (27%) in the 3rd grade and66 (24%) in the 4th grade. Data Collection Tool The”Facebook Addiction Scale” developed by Çam and ??bulan (2012) was used as thedata collection instrument in this study in which the descriptive method isused. The Facebook Addiction Scale consists of a single factorial model. Theload value of the 19 items on the factor vary between 0.57?0.
73.The factor in the scale accounts for 43.86% of the total variance. As a resultof the exploratory factor analysis, the scale was found to be consisting of 19items and a single factor.
Inthe confirmatory factor analysis carried out afterwards, the weight of thefactor varied between .55 and .77 for Facebook addiction. In the confirmatoryfactor analysis, the findings were as follows, chi square = 767.26, sd = 143.
02(p < 0.01), RMSEA = 0.054, NFI = 0.98, CFI = .99, SRMR = 0.035, and IFI =.
99 AGFI = 0.93. The 19?item internal coefficient of consistence of the Facebook Addiction scale wasfound as Cronbach ? .93. This value is seen as an acceptable value forthe reliability level of the Facebook Addiction Scale.
Data Collection ProcessThedata of this study which aims to determine the Facebook addiction levels of thePhysical Education and Sports Teaching Department students and examine the datain terms of various variables. The data was collected from 274 students whocontinue their studies in a public university, Sports Sciences Faculty,Physical Education and Sports Teaching Department in the fall semester of the2015?2016academic year, and through the application of the Facebook Addiction Scale. Thedata collection process lasted for approximately 2 weeks and special attentionwas paid to data collection from the volunteering students. FINDINGSInthis section, the findings regarding the research are presented in terms ofFacebook addiction levels, differences in the Facebook addiction levels inaccordance with the gender and grade variables.
Table1. THE FACEBOOK ADDICTION LEVELS OF THE STUDENTS Test Mean Min Max sd % Facebook Addiction Levels 40.53 19 114 19.
97 35 Accordingto the analysis, the Facebook addiction levels of the students who participatedin the study are around 35%. This represents the fact that the Facebookaddiction of the group is at a low level. TABLE 2.THE ITEMS RATED HIGHEST AND LOWEST BY THE STUDENTS Items Mean How often do you choose to spend time on Facebook instead of going out with your friends? 1.83 How often do you find yourself trying to hide how much time you spend browsing Facebook? 1.86 How often do you find yourself trying to hide how much time you spend browsing Facebook? 1.85 How often do you check Facebook while having something else to do? 2.46 How often do you establish new connections with Facebook users? 2.
49 How often do you choose to browse Facebook in order to get away from the negative thoughts in your life? 2.57 Analysisof the results suggests that students do not prefer to spend time on facebookrather than going out with their friends; they were not feeling depressive,down or tense and not trying to hide their behavior while browsing Facebook. Inaddition, another conclusion was that the students sometimes checked Facebook whiledoing other things, established new connections with Facebook users and usedFacebook in order to escape a negative occurrence in their life.
Theinnovations and developing technologies bring a new and different dimensioninto the lives of the individuals while offering them different options(Karaman & Kurto?lu, 2009). As can be seen, the results of the study revealthat even though they are not addicted to Facebook, the students choose fromthese options even if only occasionally. Table 3.
The FacebookAddiction Levels of the Students by Gender Gender N Mean SD t p Facebook Addiction Female 146 37.31 17.34 2.88 0.05 Male 128 44.24 22.11 Analysisof the mean scores of the male students showed that their scores weresignificantly higher when compared to the scores of the female students.
However, because the scores are still at low levels, the consideration is thatthe male students should not be qualified as Facebook addicts. TABLE4. THE FACEBOOK ADDICTION LEVELS OF THE STUDENTS BYGRADE Test Grade N Mean SD Source of Variance df Squares Mean F P Facebook Addiction 1.Grade 65 38.0 17.9 Inter- group 3 3.26 0.
22 2.Grade 69 36.9 19.8 Group Internals 267 1269.2 3. Grade 71 46.4 21.
0 Total 270 389.25 4. Grade 66 40.1 19.7 Significantdifferences with regards to the grade variable were found in the Facebookaddiction levels of the students as a result of the analysis. LSD test wasapplied in order to identify between which groups the significant differencestook place.Table5.
Results of the LSD Test Grades Mean Dif. p Facebook Addiction 3. Grade 1. Grade 8.45 .013 4. Grade 2. Grade 9.
53 .005 Accordingto the LSD Test results, the Facebook addiction levels of the students in the3rd grade are higher than the levels of the students in the 1st and 2nd grades. RESULTS AND SUGGESTIONSThefindings of the study indicate that the Facebook addiction levels of thestudents in the Physical Education and Sports Teaching Department at SakaryaUniversity are not at a serious level. Although the addiction levels are low,significant differences were observed with regard to gender and grade variablesamong the participants. The male students achieved higher scores in theFacebook addiction scale when compared to the female students and the studentsin the 3rd grade obtained significantly higher scores in the Facebook addictionscale in comparison to those in the 1st and 2nd grades. Thefact that the addiction levels of the group represent low levels can bedescribed as a decent state. Facebook addiction has possible negative effectson the lives of individuals, as shown in many studies. This is because Facebookaddicts may show behaviors such as feeling as if they are left behind when notusing Facebook (Denti et al.
, 2012), hacking the Facebook accounts of theirpartners and keeping them under control (Abhijit, 2011). Xu& Tan (2012) show that Facebook addiction may be causing loneliness andstress. In addition Facebook addiction has been identified as a cause ofdecreased sleep quality (Wolniczak et al., 2013). However, despite otherstudies, in this study the Physical Education and Sports Teaching students comeinto view as not being addicted to Facebook or having addictions at mildlevels.
Therefore, the students participating in this study are thought not tobe carrying the symptoms of Facebook addiction. To help prevent addiction,teachers need to be role models for the students in our schools. When the factthat these pre?serviceteachers will be the teachers in the near future is taken into consideration,this finding of the study can be considered to be reassuring.
The pre?serviceteachers of the Physical Education department are considered to be promisingrole models. Namely, since a teacher who is addicted will not be able torecommend their students not to be addicted, they will also not be able to be agood role model. Extensionof computer and internet usage nowadays also increases the amount of time spentusing the internet. Especially with the ability to access the internet serviceanytime anywhere through mobile technologies, addiction to Facebook is risingon a daily basis. Therefore, to prevent problematic internet use or increase inFacebook addiction levels, time spent on the internet and social media must belimited to certain levels.
Moreover, it is important for educators to takefurther steps by holding events such as in?service training, seminars and briefings organized by the counsellors andteachers of IT, aimed at raising the awareness levels of the students, parentsand other teachers regarding the dangers of social media addiction.