Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 10891097

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Theory and measurement of generalized problematic Internet use: A two-step

approach
Scott E. Caplan *
Department of Communication, University of Delaware, 250 Pearson Hall, Newark, DE 19716, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study tested an updated cognitive-behavioral model of generalized problematic Internet use and
Available online 3 April 2010 reports results of a conrmatory analysis of the Generalized Problematic Internet Use Scale 2 (GPIUS2).
Overall, the results indicated that a preference for online social interaction and use of the Internet for
Keywords: mood regulation, predict decient self-regulation of Internet use (i.e., compulsive Internet use and a cog-
Problematic Internet use nitive preoccupation with the Internet). In turn, decient self-regulation was a signicant predictor of the
Computer-mediated communication extent to which ones Internet use led to negative outcomes. Results indicated the model t the data well
CMC
and variables in the model accounted for 27% of the variance in mood regulation scores, 65% of variance
Internet addiction
Preference for online social interaction
in participants decient self-regulation scores, and 61% of variance in the negative outcome scores.
Decient self-regulation 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
GPIUS2
Measurement

1. Rationiale Generalized Problematic Internet Use Scale 2 (GPIUS2). To date,

For almost 15 years, researchers have examined problematic as-
pects of Internet use. One consistent pattern to emerge from this
literature is that problematic Internet use (PIU) is often associated
with interpersonal uses of the Internet (for recent reviews see Ca-
plan & High, in press; Morahan-Martin, 2007, 2008). To explain
why online social behavior is related to problematic outcomes, Ca-
plan (2002, 2003) employed Davis (2001) cognitive-behavioral
model of generalized problematic Internet use (GPIU)1. Drawing
on Davis theory, Caplan (2003) proposed that individuals who suffer
from psychosocial problems may prefer online social interaction
over ordinary face-to-face (FtF) conversations. Further, Caplan ar-
gued that a preference for online social interaction (POSI) may facil-
itate compulsive Internet use that results in negative outcomes.
Subsequent studies have found empirical support for these ideas
and also identied ways in which the model of GPIU might be re-
ned. The current paper updates the cognitive-behavioral model
by integrating recent research.
A second goal of the study reported here was to empirically val-
idate a new instrument to measure the theorys key constructs, the
only a few studies have sought to develop a reliable and valid mea-
sure of generalized PIU cognitions, behaviors, and outcomes that
also has been subjected to a conrmatory analysis (e.g., Davis, Flett,
& Besser, 2002; Jia & Jia, 2009; Meerkerk, van den Eijnden, Ver-
mulst, & Garretsen, 2009; Pratarelli & Browne, 2002)2. Without for-
mal conrmatory analyses of measurement instruments, researchers
lack the ability to adequately test theoretical models (i.e., one must
rst operationalize key constructs in order to formally test concep-
tual models). Researchers have recommended that future studies
formally conrm theory-based measurement models and test
hypothesized structural models in order to better understand GPIU
(Jia & Jia, 2009). The study reported here sought to address both of
these goals using a two-step approach outlined by Anderson and
Gerbing (1988).
Anderson and Gerbing (1988) recommended a two-step model-
ing approach to theory development and testing that employs
structural equation modeling (SEM) to empirically assess measure-
ment (i.e., operational) and structural (i.e., conceptual) models.
Consistent with the two-step approach, the rst part of this article
proposes an integrated conceptual model of GPIU that combines

* Tel.: +1 302 831 2958; fax: +1 302 831 1892.
E-mail address: caplan@udel.edu
1
Symptoms of generalized PIU include cognitions and behaviors related to Internet
use that are not linked to any specic content (i.e., gambling, shopping, etc.). Rather,
generalized PIU occurs when an individual develops problems due to the interper-
sonal contexts available online (Caplan, 2002, 2003; Davis, 2001; Davis, Flett, &
Besser, 2002).
2
Although Davis et al. (2002) did conduct a conrmatory analysis of a GPIU
measure, the Online Cognition Scale, the instrument did not assess negative
outcomes. Pratarelli and Browne (2002) conducted a conrmatory analysis of a scale
measuring Internet use and addiction, but the instrument did not assess GPIU as
described in the current paper. Similarly, Meerkerk et al. (2009) employed
conrmatory analysis to validate their compulsive Internet use scale, but that
instrument did not assess other aspects of GPIUS.

0747-5632/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.012
1090 S.E. Caplan / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 10891097
elements of Davis (2001) cognitive-behavioral theory of GPIU, Ca-
plans (2003, 2005) work with preference for online social interac-
tion, and the socio-cognitive model of unregulated Internet use
advanced by LaRose and his colleagues (e.g., Kim, LaRose, & Peng,
2009; LaRose, Lin, & Eastin, 2003). Subsequent sections of this arti-
cle then report a conrmatory analysis of a new measurement
model (the GPIUS2 instrument) and results of a formal test of the
hypothesized conceptual model. Before presenting the hypothe-
sized model in detail, the following section briey elaborates the
models key constructs.
1.1. Key constructs in conceptual model
Davis (2001; Davis et al., 2002) introduced a cognitive-behav-
ioral theory of generalized PIU; asserting that psychosocial prob-
lems such as loneliness or depression predispose individuals to
develop maladaptive Internet-related cognitions and behaviors
that ultimately result in negative outcomes. According to Davis
(2001), GPIU cognitions and behaviors, and the negative outcomes
they lead to, are consequences, rather than causes, of broader psy-
chosocial problems. From this perspective, psychosocial problems
predispose individuals to develop maladaptive cognitions that lead
to difculties with behavioral impulse control, ultimately resulting
in negative outcomes associated with their Internet use. The re-
search published since Davis introduced the model has identied
several specic cognitive and behavioral constructs associated
with negative outcomes of Internet use: preference for online so-
cial interaction, mood alteration, cognitive preoccupation, and
compulsive behavior.
1.2. Preference for online social interaction (POSI)
Research published subsequent to the introduction of the cogni-
tive-behavioral model indicates that one important cognitive
symptom of GPIU is a preference for online social interaction (Ca-
plan, 2003, 2005, 2007; Kim & Davis, 2009; Kim et al., 2009).
According to Caplan (2003) preference for online social interac-
tion is a cognitive individual-difference construct characterized
by beliefs that one is safer, more efcacious, more condent, and
more comfortable with online interpersonal interactions and rela-
tionships than with traditional FtF social activities (p. 629). Caplan
argues that individuals who are lonely, socially anxious, or have
decient social skills may also develop a heightened POSI because
they perceive online interaction to be less face threatening and
they perceive themselves to be more socially efcacious when
interacting with others online (Caplan, 2003, 2005, 2007).
Studies support the claim that people who exhibit interpersonal
problems such as social anxiety and low social skill report greater
levels of POSI. Both Caplan (2003) and Kim et al. (2009) found that
loneliness was a signicant predictor of POSI. In a 2005 study, Ca-
plan found that individuals self-presentational condence (an as-
pect of social skill) predicted their level of POSIparticipants who
reported lower self-presentational skill were especially likely to
perceive online social interaction more favorably FtF communica-
tion. Similarly, Kim et al. (2009) also found that decient social
skill predicted POSI. In addition, Caplan (2007) found that social
anxiety was a signicant predictor of POSI. Taken together, these
results suggest that POSI is an important component of GPIU that
may help explain why certain individuals exhibit other indicators
of problematic use such as going online for mood regulation and
having decient self-regulation.
1.3. Mood regulation
Another cognitive symptom of GPIU, suggested by the extant
literature, is a motivation to use the Internet for mood regulation
(Caplan, 2002, 2007; LaRose et al., 2003). In an early study, Caplan
(2002) found that mood regulation was a signicant cognitive pre-
dictor of negative outcomes associated with Internet use. In a later
study, Caplan (2007) argued that socially anxious individuals may
prefer online interaction because it represents a way to mitigate
their anxiety about self-presentation in interpersonal situations.
LaRose and colleagues work on the socio-cognitive model of
unregulated Internet use also emphasizes the role of mood regula-
tion in the development of decient self-regulation.
1.4. Decient self-regulation
The literature also suggests that GPIU involves decient self-
regulation (Kubey, Lavin, & Barrows, 2001; LaRose, 2001; LaRose,
Eastin, & Gregg, 2001; LaRose, Mastro, & Eastin, 2001; LaRose
et al., 2003). The current model adopts La Rose and colleagues
view that decient self-regulation of Internet use is a state in
which conscious self-control is relatively diminished (p. 232).
More specically, decient self-regulation refers to a failure to
adequately monitor ones use, judge ones usage behaviors, and
adjust ones pattern of use (Bandura, 1986, 1991). As a conse-
quence, decient self-regulation of ones Internet use may eventu-
ally result in difculties in ones personal relationships, at work,
and in school (e.g., Kubey et al., 2001). Decient self-regulation
is conceptually useful for explaining GPIU because it represents
a higher-order construct that reects the interplay between com-
pulsive behavioral symptoms and obsessive cognitive symptoms
of GPIU.
The model proposed below makes an important distinction be-
tween the cognitive and behavioral aspects of decient self-regula-
tion in GPIU. Here, the cognitive manifestation of decient self-
regulation involves a preoccupation with the Internet. On the other
hand, compulsive Internet use is a behavioral aspect of decient
self-regulation. As the hypotheses presented below explain, if cog-
nitive symptoms of GPIU are salient enough, they lead to behav-
ioral symptoms that ultimately result in negative outcomes.
1.4.1. Cognitive preoccupation
Cognitive preoccupation refers to obsessive thought patterns
involving the Internet use (i.e., I cant stop thinking about going
online or when I am off line, I cant stop wondering what is
happening online). Shapira and colleagues (2003) proposed that
PIU entails a combination of both cognitive preoccupation and a
problematic pattern of use of the Internet. Similarly, Caplan and
High (2007) found that the association between Internet use and
negative outcomes is more pronounced when cognitive preoccu-
pation is present. In other words, the literature suggests that
how individuals think about the Internet may help explain
whether they experience negative outcomes associated with
their use.
1.4.2. Compulsive internet use
At the behavioral level, decient self-regulation takes the form
of compulsive Internet use (Kim & Davis, 2009; Kim et al., 2009). A
number of early publications emphasized the compulsive nature of
PIU (e.g., Grifths, 2000; Young, 1998; Young & Rogers, 1998). In
one review, Shapira et al. (2003) concluded that, based on the cur-
rent limited empirical evidence, problematic Internet use may best
be classied as an impulse control disorder (p. 207). More recent
studies have produced empirical evidence supporting the claim
that compulsive use is a central component of PIU (Caplan, 2005;
Kim et al., 2009; Meerkerk et al., 2009; van den Eijnden et al.,
2008; van der Aa et al., 2009). Kim and Davis (2009) argue there
is no serious question that a behavior such as Internet use is prob-
lematic if the activities become compulsive, if they interfere with
normal activities of daily living, and if the person can no longer
 S.E. Caplan / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 10891097
control his/her own use (p. 490). In all, the extant literature sug-
gests that decient self-regulation, in the forms of both cognitive
preoccupation and compulsive behavior, plays an important role
in GPIU.
Now that the key constructs have been dened, the next section
presents the hypothesized conceptual model suggested by the ex-
tant literature and tested in the current study. Fig. 1 summarizes
the conceptual model and the following paragraphs elaborate on
the model and present the direct- and indirect-effect hypotheses
tested in the current study.
1.5. Direct effect hypotheses
The model advanced here argues that, when individuals prefer
online interaction, they are more likely to use computer-mediated
communication to regulate their mood. Indeed, one reason why
some people might prefer online social interaction is because it
helps alleviate the stresses associated with face-to-face meetings.
For example, people with high POSI may seek to mitigate the stress
they experience in traditional FtF situations with online social
interaction because, online, features of interpersonal communica-
tion differ in ways that give a person greater self-presentational
control and condence (Caplan, 2005, 2007). Additionally, individ-
uals who have a high POSI may be especially likely to seek out
computer-mediated sources of social support to alleviate affective
distress. In other words, POSI may lead an individual to use the
Internet, rather than traditional FtF behavior when they seek com-
forting and companionship from members of their support net-
work. The current study proposed and tested the following
hypothesis:
H1: Preference for online social interaction is a direct positive
predictor of using the Internet for mood regulation.
In addition to predicting mood regulation, the model in Fig. 1
proposes that POSI also predicts decient self-regulation. To date,
studies have partially tested this hypothesis Caplan (2005) and
Kim et al. (2009) both found that a POSI predicted individuals
level of compulsive Internet use (one indicator of decient self-
regulation). In light of the previous discussion which described
compulsive use along with cognitive preoccupation as indicators
of decient self-regulation, the following hypothesis was
advanced:
H1: Preference for online social interaction is a direct positive
predictor of decient self-regulation of Internet use.
LaRose et al. (2003) argue that using the Internet for mood
regulation can lead to decient self-regulation (also see Lee &
Perry, 2004). They note that the transition to problematic usage
can begin if the behavior acts as an important or exclusive
+
POSI
+ +
Mood
Regulation
Fig. 1. Hypothesized model of GPIUS.
1091
mechanism to relieve stress, loneliness, depression, or anxiety
(p. 231). Moreover, these researchers contend that using the
Internet to alleviate dysphoric moods fosters self-reactive out-
come expectations that Internet use will relieve ones negative
feelings. In other words, as LaRose et al. (2001) explain expecta-
tions about the positive outcomes of Internet use. . .should in-
crease Internet usage (p. 398). Such thinking is consistent with
Banduras (1991) argument that anticipative affective reactions
to ones own behavior play a central role in the self-reactive pro-
cess that governs self-regulation (p. 256). Thus, the next hypoth-
esis advanced in Fig. 1 is that using the Internet for mood
regulation predicts decient self-regulation (i.e., compulsive use
and cognitive preoccupation).
H1: Using the Internet for mood regulation is a direct positive
predictor of decient self-regulation of Internet use.
Davis (2001) cognitive-behavioral theory proposes that the cog-
nitive and behavioral processes described thus far work together to
foster negative outcomes associated with ones Internet usage.
Although mood regulation and increased feelings of social compe-
tence may be very helpful for some individuals, those whose Internet
use becomes compulsive and obsessive are likely to experience neg-
ative outcomes in other domains (Caplan, 2005; Kim et al., 2009).
H1: Decient self-regulation is a direct positive predictor of neg-
ative outcomes arising from ones Internet use.
1.6. Indirect-effect hypotheses
In addition to testing direct effects, researchers also need to
empirically assess mediated or indirect effects (see Holbert & Ste-
phenson, 2002, 2003; McLeod, Kosicki, & MeLeod, 2002). When
studies only test direct effects, they run the risk of under repre-
senting total effects. Indeed, as Raykov and Marcoulides (2000) ex-
plain, if an indirect effect does not receive proper attention, the
relationship between two variables of interest may not be fully
considered (p. 7). Consequently, the current study hypothesized
and systematically tested the following mediated relationships
(illustrated in the model in Fig. 1):
H1: There is a positive indirect relationship between POSI and
decient self-regulation that is mediated by using the Inter-
net for mood regulation.
H2: There is a positive indirect relationship between POSI and
negative outcomes that is mediated by decient self-
regulation.
H3: There is a positive indirect relationship between mood reg-
ulation and negative outcomes that is mediated by decient
self-regulation.
Deficient
Self Regulation
+
Negative
Outcomes
1092 S.E. Caplan / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 10891097

The next section describes a study that sought to test the
hypotheses proposed above.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were recruited in two ways. First, 424 undergradu-
ate students from a variety of different majors enrolled in a large
introductory communication course participated in the study for
extra credit. Next, to obtain a more representative sample (i.e., old-
er and non-student), students in a different large undergraduate
class recruited 361 non-student participants who were at least
30 years old. In all, 785 people (543 men and 242 women) ranging
in age from 18 to 70 (M = 33.14 years old, Median = 22, SD = 15.25)
participated in the study.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. The GPIUS2
The current study employed the Generalized Problematic Inter-
net Use Scale 2 (GPIUS2) to operationalize the key variables iden-
tied in the previous section. The GPIUS2 is a revised and updated
version of the Generalized Problematic Internet Use Scale (GPIUS;
Caplan, 2002).
Originally, the GPIUS was an exploratory instrument designed
to identify both cognitive and behavioral dimensions of PIU, along
with their negative outcomes. Caplan (2002) conducted an explor-
atory principal-axis factor analysis of the original GPIUS items and
found it tapped seven dimensions: mood alteration (an individual
using the Internet in order to facilitate some change in negative
affective states), social benets (the perceived social benets of
Internet use), social control (an individuals perceived degree of
control over self-presentation when interacting with others on-
line), withdrawal (a preoccupation with the Internet), compulsive
use (an inability to control or regulate ones online behavior),
excessive time online (the degree to which an individual felt that
he or she spends an excessive amount of time online), and nega-
tive outcomes (the extent to which an individual experienced per-
sonal, social, and professional problems resulting from Internet
use). Although the original GPIUS measure was exploratory, a
number of the dimensions signicantly predicted negative
outcomes.
Since its publication in 2002, subsequent research has yielded
additional information that may be helpful in improving the GPIUS.

POSI1 .83
.80
POSI2 POSI
.71
POSI3
.66
Neg. Out 1 .79
.52 .69
.75 Negative
Neg. Out 2
.82 Outcomes
Neg. Out 3
.77
.47
Mood Reg.1 .71

Mood Reg. 2 .91 Mood

Regulation
.88 .69
Mood Reg. 3

Compulsive 1 .83
.90 Compulsive
Compulsive 2
Use
.77 .88
Compulsive 3 Deficient
Self-Regulation
Cog. Preoc. 1 .91
.82

.50 Cognitive
Cog. Preoc. 2 Preoccupation

Cog. Preoc. 3 .79

2 = 421.12, d .f. = 82, p < .001

CFI = .95; ECVI = .63; SRMR .05

RMSEA = .073 (90% C.I: .07 - .09); p close to fit = .001

Fig. 2. Conrmatory factor analysis of GPIUS2.

 S.E. Caplan / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 10891097 1093

For example, in a follow-up study, Caplan (2003) demonstrated the Table 1

value of combining the social benets and social control factors The Generalized Problematic Internet Use Scale 2 (GPIUS2)*.

into a single subscale operationalizing POSI. Additionally, as noted Subscale (Cronbachs a) Item wording M (SD)
earlier, LaRose and colleagues work suggests that compulsive Preference for online 1. I prefer online social interaction 1.88 (1.52)
Internet use and cognitive preoccupation are both symptoms of social interaction over face-to-face communication
decient self-regulation (LaRose, 2001; LaRose et al., 2001, 2003). (POSI) (a = .82) 2. Online social interaction is more 2.17 (1.69)
At this point, researchers need to update and rene the GPIUS mea- comfortable for me than face-to-face
interaction
sure, conrm the new factor structure, assess its construct validity, 3. I prefer communicating with 2.21 (1.73)
and conduct a formal assessment of the structural relationships people online rather than face-to-
hypothesized earlier. The study reported here sought to accom- face
plish all three goals. Mood regulation 1. I have used the Internet to talk 2.91 (2.22)
The GPIUS2 includes two new factors, preference for online so- (a = .86) with others when I was feeling
cial interaction (POSI) and decient self-regulation. In the original isolated
2. I have used the Internet to make 2.77 (2.10)
GPIUS, social benets and social control were separate factors; new
myself feel better when I was down
GPIUS2 items were written to operationalize POSI as a single con- 3. I have used the Internet to make 2.79 (2.12)
struct, consistent with Caplans (2003) conceptualization. Another myself feel better when Ive felt
important change is that the GPIUS2 operationalizes decient self- upset
regulation as a higher-order factor that inuences both cognitive Cognitive 1. When I havent been online for 1.97 (1.67)
preoccupation and compulsive Internet use subscale scores. Fig. 2 preoccupation some time, I become preoccupied
illustrates the proposed hierarchical factor structure in the mea- (a = .86) with the thought of going online
2. I would feel lost if I was unable to 2.97 (2.15)
surement model. go online
In addition, the original scales excessive Internet use subscale 3. I think obsessively about going 1.53 (1.21)
was omitted from the new scale. Frequency of Internet use, in online when I am ofine
and of itself, is not necessarily indicative of problematic use (Ca- Compulsive internet use 1. I have difculty controlling the 2.75 (2.13)
plan, 2005). Although people may consider the amount of time (a = .87) amount of time I spend online
they spend online to be excessive, their excessive use may have 2. I nd it difcult to control my 2.27 (2.13)
Internet use
more to do with how they rely on the Internet to do their work
3. When ofine, I have a hard time 2.25 (1.85)
(i.e., functional rather than dysfunctional purposes) than with trying to resist the urge to go online
their psychosocial well-being. People rely on the Internet to man-
Negative outcomes 1. My internet use has made it 1.48 (1.15)
age a number of aspects of their lives (e.g., nances, travel plans, (a = .83) difcult for me to manage my life
research, etc.) and, consequently, they may nd themselves 2. I have missed social engagements 1.44 (1.79)
spending excessive time online in order to attain positive out- or activities because of my Internet
comes at work and at home. Indeed, many people would probably use
3. My Internet use has created 1.56 (1.26)
report that they use the Internet excessively, but out of practical
problems for me in my life
necessity for doing their work. Such uses are more indicative of
*
functional use rather than of an impulse control disorder. On When all items above are used together to create an overall GPIUS2 composite
score, the scales reliability estimate a = .91.
the other hand, compulsive use, which was retained as a subscale
in the new measure, clearly reects a problem with impulse
control.
US2 index score may be computed by summing the 15 items,
Finally, the names of two of the original constructs were revised
which results in possible scores ranging from 15 to 120 (in the cur-
to improve their conceptual clarity in the GPIUS2. Specically, the
rent sample, M = 33.00, SD = 17.67). Or, a composite score may be
mood alteration factor in the original measure was renamed mood
created by averaging a participants scores on all 15 items, which
regulation to emphasize the motivation to use the Internet to alle-
results in possible scores ranging from 1 to 8 (in the current sam-
viate distressing feelings. Also, the withdrawal construct was re-
ple, M = 2.20, SD = 1.18). The next section describes the scales
named cognitive preoccupation to more clearly reect its
validity.
emphasis on obsessive thinking about the online world. The
remaining factors, negative outcomes and compulsive use retained
their names. 2.3. Employing the two-step approach: analyses and results
In sum, the GPIUS2 was written to tap four constructs: (1) POSI,
(2) mood regulation, (3) decient self-regulation (consisting of a As noted earlier, Anderson and Gerbing (1988) suggest a two-
compulsive use subscale and a cognitive preoccupation subscale), step method for using structural equation modeling (SEM) to test
and (4) negative outcomes. Table 1 presents the item wording for and develop theories. Specically, they contend that the model-
the GPIUS2 and identies which items belong to the ve sub- building task can be thought of as the analysis of two conceptually
scales: POSI, mood alteration, cognitive preoccupation, compulsive distinct models. . .a conrmatory measurement, or factor analysis,
use, and negative outcomes. In the current study, participants were model species the relations of the observed measures to their
instructed to rate the extent to which they agreed with each of the posited underlying constructs, with the constructs allowed to
15 GIPUS2 items on a scale ranging from 1 (denitely disagree) intercorrelate freely. A conrmatory structural model then speci-
to 8 (denitely agree). es the causal relations of the constructs to one another as posited
Table 2 presents the zero-order Pearson correlation coefcients by some theory (p. 411).
among all items in the GPIUS2. The GPIUS2 scale can be used in Anderson and Gerbing (1988) note that conrmation of the
two different ways, as a set of separate sub-scales or as an overall measurement model assesses construct validity in general, (Ben-
composite index of GPIUS. Among the current sample, the individ- tler, 1978), and convergent and discriminant validity in particular
ual GPIUS2 sub-scales demonstrated good reliability (Table 1 pre- (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Next, assuming that the measurement
sents each scales item descriptive statistics and Cronbachs a model ts, the second step tests the structural model and can for-
coefcients). The overall reliability of the composite GPIUS2 mally evaluate nomological validity (Campbell, 1960; Chronbach &
(where all 15 scale items are included) was a = .91. An overall GPI- Meehl, 1955).
1094 S.E. Caplan / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 10891097

Table 2
Zero-order Pearson correlation coefcients among GPIUS2 items.

Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
(1) Compulsive use 1
(2) Compulsive use 2 .77*
(3) Compulsive use 3 .61* .67*
(4) Mood regulation 1 .48* .44* .45*
(5) Mood regulation 2 .48* .47* .42*
(6) Mood regulation 3 .54* .54* .49* .66*
(7) Negative outcomes 1 .39* .51* .44* .58* .81*
(8) Negative outcomes 2 .35* .43* .37* .29* .28* .33*
(9) Negative outcomes 3 .42* .48* .39* .31* .28* .31* .57*
(10) POSI 1 .36* .40* .42* .34* .35* .38* .66* .62* .46*
(11) POSI 2 .37* .42* .40* .39* .32* .36* .42* .46* .42* .66*
(12) POSI 3 .30* .35* .37* .46* .40* .40* .39* .44* .33* .61* .56*
(13) Cognitive preoccupation 1 .48* .56* .60* .34* .28* .31* .37* .37* .47* .47* .44* .41*
(14) Cognitive preoccupation 2 .30* .35* .43* .42* .39* .42* .47* .44* .24* .25* .30* .28* .45*
(15) Cognitive preoccupation 3 .47* .56* .63* .31* .32* .30* .26* .22* .47* .45* .39* .39* .65* .35*
*
p < .001.

2.4. Step 1: Testing the measurement model with a higher-order well (t statistics appear in Fig. 3). In addition, the analysis sup-
conrmatory factor analysis ported all seven hypotheses.

The rst step in the two-step modeling approach recommended

by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) involves using a maximum likeli-
hood conrmatory factor analysis to conrm the measurement
model and formally assess its construct validity. With such a pro-
cedure, they note that a hypothesized number of underlying fac-
tors can be specied and the goodness of t of the resulting
solution can be tested (p. 412). In the current measurement mod-
el, decient self-regulation was specied as a second-order factor
determining two rst-order factors, cognitive preoccupation and
compulsive Internet use. The remaining GPIUS2 sub-scales were
specied as rst-order factors without any higher-order determi-
nants. Fig. 2 presents the GPIUS2 measurement model specied
in the current study.
In order to conrm the measurement model, a higher-order
conrmatory factor analysis was performed. In higher-order factor
analysis, Bollen (1989) explains, abstract latent variables may
determine the rst-order latent variables. That is, the latent vari-
ables directly inuencing the observed variables may be inuenced
by other latent variables that need not have direct effects on the
observed variables. (pp. 313314).
The conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) reported here (and the
structural analysis reported later) employed a full-information
maximum likelihood estimation procedure using AMOS 18. Fig. 2
presents the estimated standardized beta coefcients along with
model t statistics for the measurement model (see Hu & Bentler,
1999 for summaries of recommended t statistics and their cut-off
values). The results of the CFA indicate that the model t the data
well. The results also indicate that, in addition to good face validity,
the GPIUS2 also exhibits adequate construct validity. With the
measurement instrument in place, the next part of the study
moved to formally assessing the nomological validity of the con-
ceptual model advanced earlier.
2.5. Step 2: Testing the structural model
After conrming the measurement model, the next step in the
two-step approach is to validate the structural model (Anderson
& Gerbing, 1988). The conceptual model and specic hypotheses
advanced earlier were tested with a full-information maximum
likelihood estimation procedure. Fig. 3 presents the estimated
standardized beta coefcients along with the relevant model t
statistics. Overall, as predicted, the structural model t the data
2.5.1. Direct effect hypotheses
The data supported H1; participants level of POSI was a signif-
icant positive predictor of mood regulation, b = .52 (all coefcient
estimates are standardized), p < .001. The results also supported
H2; participants level of POSI was a positive predictor of their level
of decient self-regulation, b = .52, p < .001. Additionally, the data
supported H3; the extent to which participants reported using
the Internet for mood regulation was a positive predictor of de-
cient self-regulation, b = .40, p < .001. H4 was also supported; par-
ticipants level of decient self-regulation was a direct positive
predictor of the extent to which they experienced negative out-
comes due to their Internet use b = .78, p < .001. Overall, all the re-
sults were consistent with the direct effect hypotheses presented
in Fig. 1.
2.5.2. Indirect-effect hypotheses
H5, H6, and H7 were each tested with a distribution of product
coefcients (P) test developed by MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Hoff-
man (1998; also see MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, &
Sheets, 2002). Holbert and Stephenson (2003) explain that the
product of coefcients procedure converts parameter estimates
of each path in the proposed mediated relationship into a stan-
dardized z-score and then computes the product of the two z-
scores that constitute the mediated effect. To assess statistical sig-
nicance, the product of the coefcients is compared to a product
of two random normal variables. Monte Carlo analyses of different
indirect effects tests indicate that the distribution of product coef-
cients test has greater statistical power and does a better job of
maintaining an accurate Type I error rate than other available pro-
cedures (MacKinnon et al., 2002; also see Holbert & Stephenson,
2003).
With regard to H5, the current results supported the hypothe-
sized indirect relationship between POSI and decient self-regula-
tion, mediated by mood regulation, P = 98.63, p < .001. The data
also supported the hypothesized indirect relationship between
POSI and negative outcomes, mediated by decient self-regulation
(H6), P = 167.69, p < .001. In addition, the results supported the
hypothesized indirect relationship between mood regulation and
negative outcomes, mediated by decient self-regulation (H7),
P = 132.40, p < .001.
Together the variables in the model accounted for 27% of the
variance in mood regulation scores, 65% of variance in participants
 S.E. Caplan / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 10891097 1095

Cognitive Compulsive
Preoccupation Use

.92**
.86**
.52**
Deficient
POSI Self Regulation
R2= .65
.78**
.52** .40** Negative
Outcomes
R2=.61
Mood
Regulation
R2= .27

2 = 452.31, d. f. = 84, p < .001

CFI = .95; ECVI = .67, SRMR =.05

RMSEA = .08 (90% C.I: .07 - .09); p close to fit = .001

** p < .001 (all coefficient estimates are standardized)
Fig. 3. Step 2: Standardized estimates for structural model.

decient self-regulation scores, and 61% of variance in the negative
outcome scores.
3. Discussion
The overall purpose of the study reported here was update the
cognitive-behavioral model of GPIU by integrating ideas and re-
sults from more recent research. The study employed Anderson
and Gerbings (1988) two-step approach to theory development
and validation. As such, the study had two specic goals. First
the study validated a measurement instrument, the GPIUS2, de-
signed to operationalize key constructs necessary for testing the
conceptual model. With the measurement model in place, the sec-
ond goal of the current study was to empirically test the hypothe-
sized conceptual model. The results presented above demonstrate
that both goals were accomplished. Moreover, as the R2 values re-
ported in Fig. 3 suggest, the structural model explained a substan-
tial proportion of variance in decient regulation and negative
outcome scores. Such ndings are particularly encouraging given
that previous studies have yielded much smaller effects; Caplan
(2003) accounted for 30% of negative outcome scores and Caplan
(2005) accounted for 10%. The following sections summarize the
ndings in Steps 1 and 2.
3.1. Step 1: Measurement model
The GPIUS2 represents an improvement over the earlier GPIUS
measure. First, the GPIUS2 was designed from more advanced liter-
ature than was available at the time the GPIUS was written. For in-
stance, the new measure includes a subscale that operationalizes
POSI and also includes two rst-order sub-scales that, together,
constitute a second-order factor, decient self-regulation. Thus,
the new measure is more consistent with research published since
the exploratory GPIUS measure was introduced. Results from the
current study indicate that the GPIUS2 sub-scales are reliable
and that the scale has good construct validity. The results reported
above also suggest the scale has and good discriminant and con-
vergent validity among its sub-scales (i.e., correlations presented
in Table 2 are consistently higher within dimensions than across
dimensions). The results from the higher-order CFA support the
proposed second-order factor intended to tap decient self-regula-
tion. In all, the GPIUS2 produced results that were more than suf-
cient for proceeding with testing the conceptual model in Step 2.
3.2. Step 2: Structural model
Results from the SEM analysis provided support for the overall
conceptual model presented in Fig. 1. Broadly, the model combined
Davis cognitive-behavioral model of GPIUS, Caplans work on POSI,
and LaRoses work on decient self-regulation of Internet use. In
addition to supporting the overall structural model, the analysis
also yielded support for each of the hypotheses advanced earlier.
The rst four hypotheses offered predictions of direct effects. Con-
sistent with H1, POSI was a direct positive predictor of the extent
to which individuals used the Internet to regulate their moods. In
line with H2, POSI was also a direct positive predictor of decient
self-regulation of Internet use. Next, supporting H3, using the
Internet for mood regulation was a direct positive predictor of de-
cient self-regulation. With regard to H4, as predicted, decient
self-regulation was a direct positive predictor of negative out-
comes associated with ones Internet use.
Additionally, the results supported all three indirect-effect
hypotheses. As predicted by H5, mood regulation was a signicant
mediator of the association between POSI and decient self-regula-
tion. Consistent with H6, decient self-regulation was a signicant
mediator of the association between POSI and negative outcomes.
Finally, as H7 predicted, decient self-regulation was a signicant
mediator of the association between mood regulation and negative
outcomes.
Overall, these results suggest that POSI is a key cognitive com-
ponent of GPIUS that predicts how individuals use the Internet,
along with the outcomes of such use. As such, GPIUS clearly repre-
sents a phenomenon worthy of scholarly attention by communica-
tion researchers, particularly those who study interpersonal
phenomena. Previous studies have shown that loneliness and so-
cial skills predict individuals degree of POSI. Thus, POSI represents
1096 S.E. Caplan / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 10891097
an important link in the association between psychosocial well-
being and decient self-regulation of Internet use.
Additionally, the results lend further support to the argument
that decient self-regulation and mood regulation are central as-
pects of GPIUS. Mood regulation explains how POSI might be re-
lated to decient self-regulation. Decient self-regulation helps
explain how and why Internet use can result in negative outcomes.
Together, POSI, mood regulation, and decient self-regulation play
important roles in GIPU. Taken together, these variables accounted
for a substantial proportion of variance in negative outcome scores.
3.3. Limitations of the current study
Although the results reported here supported the hypothesized
models, there are several methodological limitations worth noting
that qualify any conclusions drawn from the study. As with any
study of problematic behavior, it is logistically and ethically (i.e.,
in the view of many human subjects review boards) difcult for
researchers to obtain objective (i.e., direct observation or non-
self-report) measures. The current study was no exception; the
GPIUS2 measure relies solely on self-report data to operationalize
cognitive and behavioral components of decient self-regulation
and also of negative outcomes. Clearly, objective measures of Inter-
net behaviors and outcomes would enhance the validity of the
measures.
A second limitation pertains to the sample used in the current
study. Although the sample included participants over 30 years,
old, the median age was 22. A predominantly student sample
was useful in the sense that undergraduate students are heavy
Internet users. Thus, any study seeking to learn about compulsive
uses must include participants who are likely to use the Internet
frequently. So, for the purposes of initial theory testing, a predom-
inantly student sample was sufcient. As Shapiro (2002) notes if a
study detected an important effect, no matter what kind of sample
is used, it is clearly true for some group of people, in some setting,
at some time, for some message. The next step may be to conduct a
theoretically driven boundary search to determine to whom the ef-
fect applies and to whom it does not (p. 499).
One nal limitation worth noting is that the current study em-
ployed a cross-sectional rather than longitudinal design, making it
impossible to formally determine causality with the current data.
However, SEM does allow researchers to determine whether or
not data support hypothesized causal associations. In the current
study the SEM results did offer substantial support to the hypoth-
esized model.
3.4. Directions for future research
Although research on GPIU has come a long way, much work re-
mains to be done. With regard to the GPIUS2, future research needs
to continue to evaluate its reliability and validity. For example,
researchers should seek to determine the testretest reliability of
the instrument and should determine if the measurement model
ts data collected from more diverse samples.
Second, although the hypothesized model advanced here ac-
counted for over half of the variance in both decient self-regula-
tion and negative outcomes, there is still more variance to be
accounted for. Future researchers should consider ways to
strengthen the model in order to increase the proportion of ex-
plained variance in both decient self-regulation and negative
outcomes.
Another area worth investigating in the future is how different
types of interpersonal Internet use might play a role in the etiology
of GPIU. Currently, GPIU is dened as a problem with multiple func-
tions of the Internet. Moreover, the current study looked at com-
pulsivity in general, but does not assess compulsive use of
different interpersonal functions of the Internet. Future research
might improve the model and the measure by considering if differ-
ent types of interpersonal Internet use (i.e., instant messaging, chat
rooms, email) are more or less strongly associated with POSI, mood
regulation, decient self-regulation and negative outcomes.
The current study represents a step toward a better understand-
ing of GPIU, conceptually, and better tools to study it with. Based
on the results of the conrmatory analysis conducted in the cur-
rent study, the GPIUS2 appears to be a reliable and valid measure
of GPIU cognitions, behaviors, and outcomes. Moreover, the test of
the conceptual model offers a clearer picture of the associations
among the variables that constitute GPIUS.
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice. A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103,
411423.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248287.
Bentler, P. M. (1978). The interdependence of theory, methodology, and empirical
data: Causal modeling as an approach to construct validation. In D. B. Kandel
(Ed.), Longitudinal drug research (pp. 267302). New York: Wiley.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Campbell, D. T. (1960). Recommendations for APA test standards regarding
construct, trait, or discriminant validity. American Psychologist, 15, 546553.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by
the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81105.
Caplan, S. E. (2002). Problematic Internet use and psychosocial well-being:
Development of a theory-based cognitive-behavioral measure. Computers in
Human Behavior, 18, 533575.
Caplan, S. E. (2003). Preference for online social interaction: A theory of problematic
Internet use and psychosocial well-being. Communication Research, 30,
625648.
Caplan, S. E. (2005). A social skill account of problematic internet use. Journal of
Communication, 55, 721736.
Caplan, S. E. (2007). Relations among loneliness, social anxiety, and problematic
Internet use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 234241.
Caplan, S. E., & High, A. (in press). Online social interaction, psychosocial well-being,
and problematic internet use. In K. Young & Nabuco de Abrue (Eds.), Internet
addiction: A handbook for evaluation and treatment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Caplan, S. E., & High, A. C. (2007). Beyond excessive use: The interaction between
cognitive and behavioral symptoms of problematic Internet use. Communication
Research Reports, 23, 265271.
Chronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.
Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281302.
Davis, R. A. (2001). A cognitive-behavioral model of pathological Internet use.
Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 187195.
Davis, R. A., Flett, G. L., & Besser, A. (2002). Validation of a new measure of
problematic Internet use: Implications for pre-employment screening.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5, 331346.
Grifths, M. (2000). Does Internet and computer addiction exist? Some case study
evidence. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 3, 211218.
Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2002). Structural equation modeling in the
communication sciences, 19952000. Human Communication Research, 28,
531551.
Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2003). The importance of indirect effects in
media effects research: Testing for mediation in structural equation modeling.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 556572.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 155.
Jia, R., & Jia, H. H. (2009). Factorial validity of problematic Internet use scales.
Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 13351342.
Kim, H., & Davis, K. E. (2009). Toward a comprehensive theory of problematic
Internet use: Evaluating the role of self-esteem, anxiety, ow, and the self-rated
importance of Internet activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 490500.
Kim, J., LaRose, R., & Peng, W. (2009). Loneliness as the cause and effect of
problematic Internet use. The relationship between Internet use and
psychological well-being. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 451455.
Kubey, R. W., Lavin, M. J., & Barrows, J. R. (2001). Internet use and collegiate
academic performance decrements: Early ndings. Journal of Communication,
51, 366382.
LaRose, R. (2001). On the negative effects of e-commerce: A sociocognitive
exploration of unregulated on-line buying. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 6(3). <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue3/larose.html>
Retrieved 29.01.10.
 S.E. Caplan / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 10891097
LaRose, R., Eastin, M. S., Gregg, J. (2001). Reformulating the Internet paradox: Social
cognitive explanations of Internet use and depression. Journal of Online Behavior,
1(2). <http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n2/paradox.html> Retrieved 06.05.05.
LaRose, R., Lin, C. A., & Eastin, M. S. (2003). Unregulated Internet usage: Addiction,
habit, or decient self-regulation? Media Psychology, 5, 225253.
LaRose, R., Mastro, D., & Eastin, M. S. (2001). Understanding Internet usage: A social-
cognitive approach to uses and gratications. Social Science Computer Review,
19, 395413.
Lee, K. C., & Perry, S. D. (2004). Student instant message use in a ubiquitous
computing environment: Effects of decient self-regulation. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48(3), 399420.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C., & Hoffman, J. (1998). A new method to test for
mediation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Prevention
Research, Park City, UT.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A
comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.
Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83104.
McLeod, D. M., Kosicki, G. M., & MeLeod, J. M. (2002). Resurveying the boundaries of
political communication effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects:
Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 215267). Mahwah, NJ, US:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Meerkerk, G., Van Den Eijnden, R. J. J. M., Vermulst, A. A., & Garretsen, H. F. L. (2009).
The compulsive internet use scale (CIUS): Some psychometric properties.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 16.
Morahan-Martin, J. (2007). Internet use and abuse and psychological problems. In J.
Joinson, K. McKenna, T. Postmes, & U. Reips (Eds.), Oxford handbook of internet
psychology (pp. 331345). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
1097
Morahan-Martin, J. (2008). Internet abuse: Emerging trends and lingering
questions. In A. Barak (Ed.), Psychological aspects of Cyberspace. Theory,
research and applications (pp. 3269). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Pratarelli, M. E., & Browne, B. L. (2002). Conrmatory factor analysis of Internet use
and addiction. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(1), 5364.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A method for comparing completely
standardized solutions in multiple groups. Structural Equation Modeling, 7,
292308.
Shapira, N. A., Lessig, M. C., Goldsmith, T. D., Szabo, S. T., Lazoritz, M., Gold, M. S.,
et al. (2003). Problematic internet use: Proposed classication and diagnostic
criteria. Depression and Anxiety, 17(4), 207216.
Shapiro, M. A. (2002). Generalizability in communication research. Human
Communication Research. Special Issue: Statistical and Methodological Issues in
Communication Research, 28(4), 491500.
van den Eijnden, R. J. J. M., Meerkerk, G., Vermulst, A. A., Spijkerman, R., & Engels, R.
C. M. E. (2008). Online communication, compulsive internet use, and
psychosocial well-being among adolescents: A longitudinal study.
Developmental Psychology, 44, 655665.
van der Aa, N., Overbeek, G., Engels, R. C. M. E., Scholte, R. H. J., Meerkerk, G., Van den
Eijnden, R. J. J. M., et al. (2009). Daily and compulsive internet use and well-
being in adolescence. A diathesis-stress model based on big ve personality
traits. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(6), 765776.
Young, K. S. (1998). Caught in the net: How to recognize the signs of Internet addiction
and a winning strategy for recovery. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Young, K. S., & Rogers, R. C. (1998). The relationship between depression and
Internet addiction. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 1, 2528.