以認知行為理論建構病態網路使用與網路敵意模式之研究—以北部三所綜合型大學為例

Abstract

本研究旨在驗證病態網路使用的認知行為模式，並發展以認知行為模式為基礎的網路敵意模式。研究樣本來自於北部三所大學，分別為台灣大學、交通大學與淡江大學，經由網路問卷的實施，總共蒐集有效樣本987份。經由統計分析，可以發現以下之結果：在病態網路使用方面，病態網路使用的認知曲解是最重要的影響因素，其次為網路使用時間，而憂鬱與網路情境線索對於病態網路使用則有間接影響效果，初步驗證了Davis對於病態網路使用認知行為模式的假設。此外在背景變項上，性別差異在病態網路使用上之差異已不復見；成績較差者其病態網路使用情形較嚴重；大學生過度使用網路情形普遍高於研究生。而在網路敵意方面，敵意的認知曲解是影響網路敵意最主要的因素，而憂鬱與網路論戰經驗則具有間接影響效果，因此驗證了研究者對於網路敵意認知行為模式之假設。此外在背景變項上，男性較女性有較高的網路敵意表現；成績較差的學生也具有較高的網路敵意分數；在網路敵意展現上，個體隨年齡增長而轉變攻擊型態的假設並未獲得證實。以群集分析為網路敵意人群進行區分，樣本中約有一半可被定名為迂迴表達網路敵意群體，約有四分之一的樣本屬於沈默群體，只有四分之一人群可稱為直接表達網路敵意的群體，他們的網路人際懷疑、表現忿怒、直接口語攻擊、運用團體力量攻擊、其他網路攻擊手段等得分均顯著高於前述兩個群體。最後，在病態網路使用與網路敵意的結合模式中，並未發現病態網路使用與網路敵意的直接影響效果，間接證明網路成癮的名詞不適用來描述網路過度使用，但是本研究也發現當去抑制行為發生時，認知曲解佔有重要的影響地位。 在研究限制方面，本研究係屬調查研究，尚有許多不足之處有待克服。首先，在推論性方面，本研究選取北部三所大學，因此在進行全國性的推論時須謹慎小心。其次，本研究屬於橫段性的問卷調查，只能針對目前的現況加以描述，無法深入探討網路敵意的深層狀態，建議往後研究可以針對個案進行質化訪談，或進行網路論戰的內容分析。第三，受限於時間與研究者之能力，無法發展一套有效的輔導方案並檢驗其成效。最後，本研究建議各級學校能設計相關的課程，教導學生正確的網路使用規範，並且重建學生使用網路時不合理之認知，使其擁有一個健全、無威脅的網路環境，以及培養正確的網路使用態度。

Based on the cognitive behavior theory, this study is aimed to analyze the relation between pathological Internet use (PIU) and Internet hostility. By conducting a questionnaire survey on a website, nine hundred and eighty seven samples were selected from students in three universities of northern Taiwan. The results can be analyzed from three models. First, in the model of pathological Internet use, it is concluded that cognitive distortions of pathological Internet use and the amount of time using Internet could predict pathological Internet use directly. Depression and Internet situational cues could predict pathological Internet use indirectly. Besides, the students with low achievement and undergraduate students had higher scores on the questionnaire of pathological Internet use. Second, in the model of Internet hostility, it indicated that hostility cognitive distortions could predict Internet hostility directly. Depression and online flaming experience could predict Internet hostility indirectly. Moreover, male Internet users’ Internet hostility level was higher than females’, and the Internet users with low achievement showed more Internet hostility as well. The result of a clustering analysis demonstrated that samples could be grouped into three hostility style groups. They were the direct expression of Internet hostility group (26%), the silent group (27%), and the indirect expression of Internet hostility group (47%). The direct expression group reported to have higher scores on suspicion on Internet relations, expression of anger, direct oral aggression, group aggression, and other Internet aggression than other two groups. Third, from the combination model of pathological Internet use and Internet hostility, the study found that pathological Internet use did not directly predict Internet hostility as the hypothesis suggested. Additionally, cognitive distortions had a significant way toward Internet disinhibition, i.e. pathological Internet use and Internet hostility. The limitations of this study are in the following. First, because the samples came from the universities of northern Taiwan, it should be cautious to infer the results to other samples. Second, this study adopted questionnaire survey, so it provides quantitative descriptions without deeper understanding. Thus, a further qualitative study in the future is suggested. Third, the study didn’t offer counseling methods for PIU users. Finally, the researcher suggests teachers several preventive ways for student’s Internet hostility from the view of cognitive behavior therapy.