Journal of the Korea Convergence Society (한국융합학회논문지)

Korea Convergence Society (한국융합학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Exploratory Study on the Role of Fatigues of the Relationship between Interpersonal Communication Motives and Loneliness in Mobile Environment

모바일 환경에서 대인간 의사소통 동기와 외로움 간의 관계에서 피로감의 역할에 대한 연구

  • Received : 2018.12.31
  • Accepted : 2019.04.20
  • Published : 2019.05.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between communication motive, fatigue and loneliness in mobile environment. According to previous research, the most important communication motive in mobile environment is pleasure. Therefore, pleasure was selected as a representative communication motive. To do this, we collected data for empirical analysis from mobile messenger users using questionnaire. We found that pleasure has a negative effect on loneliness. Second, pleasure has a negative effect on connection, function, and focus. On the other hand, pleasure has no effect on delivery and relationship fatigue. Finally, function and focus have a positive effect on loneliness. On the other hand, connection, delivery, and relationship fatigue have no effect on loneliness. As a result of the research, it is possible to reduce the function and focus fatigue due to the use of the mobile messenger by adding the functions that cause the enjoyment of using the messenger. In addition, the addition of fun-inducing features can also reduce loneliness caused by the use of mobile messenger. Future research will also need to identify factors that may reduce connection and relationship fatigue.

본 연구의 목적은 모바일 환경에서 의사소통 동기와 피로감과 외로움 간의 관계를 규명하는 것이다. 선행연구에 따르면 모바일 환경에서 가장 중요한 의사소통 동기는 즐거움이다. 따라서 즐거움을 대표적 동기로 선정했다. 이를 위해 설문기법을 사용하여 모바일 메신저 사용자들로부터 실증분석에 필요한 데이터를 수집했다. 분석결과 즐거움은 외로움에 부정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 즐거움은 피로감의 유형인 연결, 기능, 집중에 부정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 반면에, 즐거움은 전달과 관계 피로감에는 아무런 영향도 미치지 않는 것으로 나타났다. 마지막으로 피로감 중 기능과 집중은 외로움에 긍정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 반면에 연결, 전달, 관계 피로감은 외로움에 아무런 영향도 미치지 않는 것으로 나타났다. 연구 결과 메신저 사용의 즐거움을 유발하는 기능들을 추가할 경우 모바일 메신저 사용으로 인한 기능 및 집중 피로감을 감소시킬 수 있다. 뿐만 아니라 즐거움을 유발하는 기능의 추가는 모바일 메신저 사용으로 인해 유발되는 외로움도 감소시킬 수 있다. 향후 연구는 연결 및 관계 피로감을 감소시킬 수 있는 요인을 규명하는 연구도 필요할 것으로 판단된다.

Keywords

OHHGBW_2019_v10n5_189_f0001.png 이미지

Fig. 1. Research Model

OHHGBW_2019_v10n5_189_f0002.png 이미지

Fig. 2. Research Results

Table 1. Demographic Information of Respondents

OHHGBW_2019_v10n5_189_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Exploratory Factor Analysis

OHHGBW_2019_v10n5_189_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Cross-loading Analysis

OHHGBW_2019_v10n5_189_t0003.png 이미지

Table 4. Correlation Analysis

OHHGBW_2019_v10n5_189_t0004.png 이미지

Table 5. Normality Tests

OHHGBW_2019_v10n5_189_t0005.png 이미지

Table 6. Research Results

OHHGBW_2019_v10n5_189_t0006.png 이미지

References

  1. C. A. Barbato & E. M. Perse. (1992). Interpersonal Communication Motives and the Life Position of Elders. Communication Research, 19(4), 516-531. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019004007
  2. C. M. Anderson & M. M. Martin. (2002). Communication Motives (State v. Trait?) and Task Group Outcomes. Communication Research Reports, 19(3), 269-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090209384855
  3. V. Pornsakulvanich, P. Haridakis & A. M. Rubin. (2008). The Influence of Dispositions and Internet Motivation on Online Communication Satisfaction and Relationship Closeness. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2292-2310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.11.003
  4. DMC. (2018). Social media usage behavior and ad contact attitude analysis report. DMC Report, 2018.06.25.
  5. Korea Information Society Development Institute. (2018). SNS(Social Network Service) Usage trend and usage behavior analysis. KISDI STAT Report, 18(11), 2018.06.15.
  6. R. Kraut, M. Patterson, V. Lundmark, S. Kiesler, T. Mukopadhyay & W. Scherlis. (1998). Internet Paradox: A Social Technology That Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-Being?. American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017-1031. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.9.1017
  7. M.-S. Yim. (2018). A Study of Effect of Communication Motives for Mobile Messenger on Life Satisfaction and Loneliness. Journal of Management Consulting Research, 18(2), 217-235.
  8. S. Akin, B. Mendi, B. Ozturk, C. Cinper & Z. Durna. (2013). Assessment of Relationship between Self-Care and Fatigue and Loneliness in Haemodialysis Patients. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 23(5/6), 856-864.
  9. L. M. Jaremka, R. R. Andridge, C. P. Fagundes, C. M. Alfano, S. P. Povoski, A. M. Lipari, D. M. Agnese, M. W. Arnold, W. B. Farrar, L. D. Yee, W. E. Carson, T. Bekaii-Saab, E. W. Martin, C. R. Schmidt & J. K. Kiecolt-Glaser. (2014). Pain, Depression, and Fatigue: Loneliness as a Longitudinal Risk Factor. Health Psychology, 33(9), 948-957. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034012
  10. L. M. Jaremka, C. P. Fagundes, R. Glaser, J. M. Bennett, W. B. Marlarkey & J. K. Kiecolt-Glaser. (2013). Loneliness Predicts Pain, Depression, and Fatigue: Understanding the Role of Immune Dysregulation. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38, 1310-1317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.11.016
  11. Z. Papacharissi & A. M. Rubin. (2000). Predictors of Internet Use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(2), 175-196. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4402_2
  12. J. Goodman-Deane, A. Mieczakowski, D. Johnson, T. Goldhaber & P. J. Clarkson. (2016). The Impact of Communication Technologies on Life and Relationship Satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 219-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.053
  13. R. I. Iyer & J. A. Muncy. (2009). Purpose and Object of Anti-Consumption. Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 160-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.023
  14. Samsung Economic Research Institute. Anti-Consumption, Why should we pay attention?. CEO Information, 803, 2011.05.11.
  15. G. A. Hullman, A. Goodnight & J. Mougeotte. (2012). An Examination of Perceived Relational Messages That Accompany Interpersonal Communication Motivations. The Open Communication Journal, 6, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874916X01206010001
  16. G. Shabir, Y. W. Iqbal & G. Safdar. (2014). Demographics' Differences in Social Networking Sites Use: What Communication Motives Does It Gratify?. International Journal of Social Work and Human Services Practice, 2(5), 184-194. https://doi.org/10.13189/ijrh.2014.020503
  17. D. J. Canary & B. H. Spitzberg. (1993). Loneliness and Media Gratifications. Communication Research, 20(6), 800-821. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365093020006003
  18. N. M. Punyanunt-Carter. (2007). Using Attachment Theory to Study Communication Motives in Father-Daughter Relationships. Communication Research Reports, 24(2), 311-318. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090701624213
  19. Y. Hwang. (2014). Antecedents of Interpersonal Communication Motives on Twitter: Loneliness and Life Satisfaction. International Journal of Cyber Society and Education, 7(1), 49-70. https://doi.org/10.7903/ijcse.1090
  20. W. C. Schutz. (1966). The Interpersonal Underworld. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.
  21. R. B. Rubin, E. M. Perse & C. A. Barbato. (1988). Conceptualization and Measurement of Interpersonal Communication Motives. Human Communication Research, 14(4), 602-628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00169.x
  22. E. Katz, J. G. Blumler & M. Gurevitch. (1974). Utilization of Mass Communication by the Individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz. (ed.). The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research, Beverly Hills: Sage, 19-32.
  23. J. De Vries, H. J. Michielsen & G. L. Van Heck. (2003). Assessment of Fatigue among Working People: A Comparison of Six Questionnaires. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60, i10-i15. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.60.suppl_1.i10
  24. K. A. Lee, G. Hicks & G. Nino-Murcia. (1991). Validity and Reliability of a Scale to Assess Fatigue. Psychiatry Research, 36, 291-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1781(91)90027-M
  25. B. F. Piper, A. M. Lindsey & M. J. Dodd. (1987). Fatigue Mechanisms in Cancer Patients: Developing Nursing Theory. Oncology Nursing Forum, 14, 17-23.
  26. K. D. Stein, P. B. Jacobsen, C. M. Blanchard & C. Thors. (2004). Further Validation of the Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory-Short Form. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 27(1), 14-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2003.06.003
  27. A. Blachnio, A. Przepiorka, W. Boruch & E. Balakier. (2016). Self-presentation styles, privacy, and loneliness as predictors of Facebook use in young people. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 26-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.051
  28. E. E. Graham, C. A. Barbato & E. M. Perse. (1993). The Interpersonal Communication Motives Model. Communication Quarterly, 41(2), 172-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379309369877
  29. Y. Erdogan. (2008). Exploring the Relationships among Internet Usage, Internet Attitudes and Loneliness of Turkish Adolescents. Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2(2), Article 4.
  30. U. Wolfradt & J. Doll. (2001). Motives of Adolescents to Use the Internet as a Function of Personality Traits, Personal and Social Factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(1), 13-27. https://doi.org/10.2190/ANPM-LN97-AUT2-D2EJ
  31. H. Hong, M. Cao & G. A. Wang. (2017). The Effects of Network Externalities and Herding on User Satisfaction with Mobile Social Apps. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 18(1), 18-31.
  32. B. Jin & N. Park. (2010). In-Person Contract Begets Calling and Texting: Interpersonal Motives for Cell Phone Use, Face-to-Face Interaction, and Loneliness. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(6), 611-618. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0314
  33. R. T. Rust, D. V. Thompson & R. W. Hamilton. (2006). Defeating Feature Fatigue. Harvard Business Review, 84(2), 98-107.
  34. D. Russell, L. A. Peplau & C. E. Cutrona. (1980). The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and Discriminant Validity Evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 477-480.
  35. J. C. Fisk, P. G. Ritvo, L. Ross, D. A. Haase, T. J. Marrie & W. F. Schlech. (1994). Measuring the Functional Impact of Fatigue: Initial Validation of the Fatigue Impact Scale. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 18, S79-S83. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinids/18.Supplement_1.S79
  36. H. J. Michielsen, J. De Vies & G. L. Van Heck. (2003). Psychometric Qualities of Brief Self-Rated Fatigue Measure: The Fatigue Assessment Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 54, 345-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00392-6
  37. J. Henseler, G. Hubona & R. A. Ray. (2016). Using PLS Path Modeling in New Technology Research: Updated Guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 16(1), 2-20.
  38. D. Gefen, D. W. Straub & M-C. Boudreau. (2000). Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(7), 1-76.
  39. J. F. Hair Jr, M. Sarstedt, L. Hopkins & V. G. Kuppelwieser. (2014). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): An Emerging Tool in Business Research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106-121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
  40. J. C. Anderson & D. W. Gerbing. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
  41. P. B. Lowry & J. Gaskin. (2014). Partial Least Squares (PLS) Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) for Building and Testing Behavioral Causal Theory: When to Choose It and How to Use It. IEEE Transactions of Professional Communication, 57(2), 123-146. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2014.2312452
  42. J. C. Nunnally & I. H. Bernstein. (1994). Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
  43. C. Fornell & D. F. Larcker. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
  44. J. J. Sosik, S. S. Kahai & M. J. Piovoso. (2009). Silver Bullet or Voodoo Statistics? A Primer for Using the Partial Least Squares Data Analytic Technique in Group and Organization Research. Group & Organization Management, 34(1), 5-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108329198
  45. M. Tenenhaus, V. Esposito Vinzi, Y.-M. Chatelin & C. Lauro. (2005). PLS Path Modeling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 48(1), 159-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2004.03.005