Youtube

As Caplan defines Problematic Internet Use to be “maladaptive cognitions and behaviors involving Internet use that result in negative academic, professional, and social consequences,” it is evident that there are many online activities that fit this definition. Caplan, whose research followed the conclusion that individual differences seem to play an important role in Problematic Internet Use, as reached by Davis, Flett, Besser (2002), understands Problematic Internet Use to be a combination of both individual dispositions that may influence individuals toward problematic Internet activities, and the affordances provided by Internet interaction. In Caplan’s “Theory of Problematic Internet Use and Psychosocial Well-Being,” he claims that individuals with psychosocial problems perceive themselves to have low social competence, which leads to preferences for Internet action, which subsequently results in further psychosocial problems. This model, which implements many of the concepts put forth by Wallace, such as Locus of Control and Maintenance of Virtual Presence ultimately establishes the affordances of Internet interaction for individuals with perceived weak social skills. In light of the research put forth by Davis (2002) and Caplan (2004), it is evident that there exist problematic Internet use activities that are due to both psychosocial issues and the affordances of online psychological spaces. One activity that is associated with Problematic Internet Use is definitely youtube browsing.
In light of the more serious Problematic Internet Uses, such as gambling and pornography, which may present far more serious real-life consequences than does youtube browsing, youtube browsing nonetheless is a good example of a Problematic Internet activity. Individuals who procrastinate on Youtube definitely create negative consequences for themselves in their academic, work, and social settings. Given that both individual traits and the affordances provided by Youtube account for its problematic nature, elements of Wallace’s, Davis’s, and Caplan’s work apply. According to Wallace’s locus of control, which is the degree to which one believes he or she has control over his or her circumstances, and Davis’s diminished impulse control and procrastination, it is clear that an individual’s respective ability to avoid procrastination on youtube greatly affects his or her vulnerability to problematic internet use. Additionally, according to Davis’s study on Problematic Internet Use, social comfort is an indicator of problematic Internet use. The fact that many individuals find great comfort in youtube contributes to its problematic nature. Central to the notion of Problematic Internet Use is the distinction of excessive use and compulsive use, which Caplan does in his 2004 study. Defining excessive use to be the quantity of use considered by participants to exceed normal, usual, planned amount of time online, and compulsive use to be the inability to control one’s online activity along with guilt about lack of control, it is clear that either definition represents problematic internet use. Though compulsive use is more classically associated with various addictions, excessive Internet use on youtube will definitely create negative real-life consequences. Also, though loneliness and depression play a considerable role in Caplan’s Theory of Problematic Internet Use and Psychosocial Well-Being, which considers the psychological factors that contribute to a preference for mediated interaction, loneliness and depression seem to play a less significant role in youtube browsing.