Although Problematic Internet Use (PIU) may not be treated with the same gravity as some other addiction disorders (i.e. alcohol, gambling, etc.), it is a problem that grows with increased adoption of the internet. Problematic Internet Use relates to too much time spent online that results in problems at school, work, or at home. This is characterized by compulsive use, or the inability to control online activity and guilt about this inability, as well as excessive use, in which the amount of time actually spent online exceeds the amount of time that was intended. There are several areas on the internet that lend themselves to such problematic internet usage, including online gambling sites, porn sites, and the Facebook newsfeed. Gaming sites in particular have an “addicted” user base, and one such site includes games.com, a site on which you can play games like Monopoly.Anyone who has played Monopoly in real life knows that it is a time-consuming game. Individuals who are lonely and depressed might turn to an online form of a familiar face-to-face (FtF) social game like Monopoly. Caplan’s Theory of Problematic Internet Use and Psychosocial Well-Being suggests that this is because their loneliness and depression leads to perceived social incompetence, causing these individuals to prefer online interaction since it is less threatening. Socializing successfully online at a game which translates to “real life” allows these users to feel more efficacious than they do in a FtF environment. This rewarding feeling can lead to conditioning by which users are encouraged to spend even more time online, causing a spiral of increased internet usage, which can have negative academic and social outcomes.
This particular version of Monopoly has features which include a player rating and a chat box. The chat box facilitates in greater perceived social competence in that players feel less threatened due to affordance of the internet such as greater anonymity and greater control over self presentation. However, two of the internet affordances described by Caplan, less perceived social risk and responsibility, do not play out in this particular space. This is due to the unique property of player ratings on this internet space. It is true that there is less social responsibility in the sense that you can be more aggressive and competitive in the game. However, if you are in the middle of a game and decide you’ve had enough and want to leave, if you quit the game and leave the other player hanging your player rating will decrease. Therefore, this mechanism actually acts as a means by which to discourage/penalize users from logging off until the game is over, which is especially disadvantageous in a game that has no foreseeable end, like Monopoly. Therefore, in addition to the other factors causing users to be “addicted” to the internet, there is actually a formal mechanism in place that contributes to even more internet usage. Although you are anonymous, there is an implied social responsibility in that “bad sports” who log off in middle of game do so at the risk of a lower rating, so others in this “society” are discouraged from playing with that person. Perhaps ostracizing internet addicts in this way will force them back into the realm of FtF!
Comments:
http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/11/9-tv-online.html
http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/11/1day12hours4min-9.html
2 comments:
Hey, Christina! Your choice of online Monopoly is an interesting example of PIU – I never knew that there was interactive online Monopoly. I can see how you related this to Caplan’s model about the affordances the internet provides and how the individual prefers computer mediated interaction. I think your explanation was very clear and concise. I liked how you incorporated the unique properties of this space into your comparison to the theories we’ve discussed in class. The one thing I was confused about was how you stated that less social risk and responsibility did not apply; in a way I think they do because of the anonymity associated with the online interaction you can sort of mask yourself and act however you want, but I’m not familiar with the rules of the game online (maybe it’s more severe than I think). Also, how do you think Wallace’s ideas apply to this “addiction”? Great post!
First I must say that I had just watched a commercial for Monopoly during Gossip Girls, so my mind was actually on Monopoly when I saw your post. I didn’t realize how interactive online Monopoly was. You did a really good job relating Caplan’s model to people preferring computer mediated interaction rather than face to face interaction. It’s interesting how players are compelled to keep playing online Monopoly until the game has ended through player ratings and chat rooms. I find it difficult to finish a full game of Monopoly face to face, but the group consensus of continued play keeps me going. I guess it is the same with the internet. Great post!
Post a Comment