ANALYZING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL

ISOLATION AND INTERNET ADDICTION AMONG

YOUNGER GENERATION

ABSTRACT
Excessive use of the Internet in recent years has led to various social problems. One
of the significant consequences of excessive Internet usage is Internet addiction among
students, which directly impacts their academic performance and personal relationships,
ultimately leading to social isolation. This study aims to examine the connections between
gratification of using the Internet, internet skill, Internet addiction, and social isolation among
students and working professionals. It also explores the role of Internet addiction as a
mediator between gratification of using the Internet and internet skill with social isolation.
Additionally, the study investigates the influence of race and gender. The research involved
408 individuals including students and working professionals aged 14 to 30 years, who
completed a self-rank questionnaire assessing their Internet dependency.

1
 CHAPTER - 1

INTRODUCTION

The trend of internet use is increasing in today's society, and there are a lot of factors
related to its use that may have an impact on people's psychological health. This study aims
to determine whether the incentive for Internet usage directly impacts people who are feeling
socially isolated. Our well-being and mental and physical health depend on having strong
social ties. Among the many social variables that affect persons of all ages, including the
elderly, social isolation and loneliness are significant yet often overlooked.

1. SOCIAL ISOLATION:
Lack of interpersonal interactions and little or no social interaction or support constitute
social isolation. Even if a person does not experience loneliness, it is linked to risk. Although
loneliness and social isolation are two distinct ideas, they are related. One may make the
other worse, or they may both be upsetting people at the same time. There are two types of
social isolation:

● Feeling socially isolated; and

● Socially secluded by choice.

2. LONELINESS:
An unpleasant emotional reaction to feeling alone is loneliness. Another term for
loneliness is social pain, which is a psychological process that drives people to look for social
interactions. It is frequently linked to a feeling of estrangement and detachment. While
loneliness and solitude overlap, they are not the same thing. Being alone is the definition of
loneliness; not everyone who experiences solitude feels alone. Loneliness is a subjective
feeling that can occur in social situations as well. Therefore, there is a difference between
feeling lonely and actually being alone. Both short-term (state loneliness) and long-term
(chronic loneliness) loneliness are possible. It can be excruciating and agonizing in either
scenario.

2
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

There are many aspects of well-being that can be addressed in regards to Internet use,
but one that is fundamental to all aspects of life is an individual’s ability to connect with
others. The research question that guides the discussion of this paper is does an individual’s
motivation for using the Internet increase episodes of social isolation? The term “motivation”
in the above question refers to the reason why the individual chooses to access the Internet.
Some examples of possible motivations are communication through Social Network Sites
(SNS), information retrieval, engaging in social movements, personal development
(education and dating) and entertainment.

The above question is important to the overall conversation on Internet use because
many of the peer review articles studied for this paper did not provide extensive discussion
on correlations between an individual’s motivation for Internet use and the occurrence of
isolation. The above topic of social isolation is an important subject to study for the social
work profession due to the impact that interpersonal relationships have on human
development and general well-being. Many theoretical practices, developed perspectives and
researched models used in the social work profession encourage the professional to view an
individual in their environment, and to examine their ability to function in the surroundings
based on established beliefs and connections. Social workers have the challenge of viewing
the person in their entirety, and collaborating with the client to provide support and guidance
in achieving self-efficacy.

The occurrence of isolation with populations that social workers serve can be a real
concern because it impacts all areas of an individual’s life, and can manifest in ways such as,
depression, poor physical health, stunted developmental stages, inadequate interpersonal
skills, and undeveloped coping skills. The idea that there may be a correlation between
motivation for Internet use and episodes of social isolation establishes a great need for social
workers to assess and monitor the impact of the growing trend of Internet use. Social workers
would benefit in their interactions with clients by completing detailed evaluations, and
operating analytically in their approach with clients’ difficulties. Exploring all aspects of a

3
client’s environmental factors is the bases for developing enhanced interventions, and
addressing all barriers that a client may encounter.

In exploring the topic of Internet use and isolation a study conducted with a
systematic random sample was chosen. Also, a non probability, snowball sampling was
desirable for recruitment of additional known adult, Internet users. This sampling method
ideally produced a culturally diverse sample that was more representative of the greater
population of Internet users. An explanatory research design was utilized for this study. This
design was chosen to establish a causal connection between motivation of Internet use and
occurrence of social isolation. In addition, the explanatory research design is more
generalisable, and with the vast populations that use the Internet a study that can be applied to
many populations is appropriate. Adult participants were the desired population for this
study. There has been limited established research on the presented topic with this age
population. Recruitment for this study was through the avenue of social media and the
measurements utilized were online surveys. The surveys were composed of multiple close-
ended and Likert matrix questions. The surveys addressed individual's motivation (reasons)
for Internet use and addressed participant's Internet habits. Additionally, data collection
concentrated on social and emotional variables in order to establish a mixture of quantitative
and qualitative data.

Significance of the Project for Social Work Practice, the study of individual's
motivation for Internet use and how it may potentially relate to arising episodes of social
isolation is an important topic to address. Obtaining conclusive data on this topic can ideally
provide detailed information to assist the social work profession in developing
comprehensive biopsychosocial assessments and treatment modalities to address isolation.
Moreover, the social work profession’s ability to develop a multifaceted understanding of the
effects of Internet use on individual's well-being can potentially stimulate means of advocacy
for protective Internet policy creation and formation of educational programs designed to
highlight best practices for Internet use.

Regarding obtainment of conclusive data on the above topic, ideally future

implementation of new socially conscious Internet policies and programs will emerge, and
also command the attention of funders that see the benefit in funding longitudinal studies that
will observe a greater amount of participants. Further studies on this topic can also provide
improved insight on reduction of the risk of isolation, and improve access to resources for

4
support and treatment. Increased avenues of funding for organizations can allow them liberty
to be more creative when developing comprehensive measurements to examine clients, and
give them access to extra financial resources to hire additional staff to conduct inclusive
assessments with clients.

Growing the Social Work profession’s capacity to observe clients in a detailed

manner may encourage enhancements of micro and macro level practices, and also provide
clients with resources for improvements to their social structures and relationships. As
demonstrated above, an evolution of social work practice can emerge by studying the
question of, does an individual’s motivation for Internet use increase episodes of isolation?

CHAPTER - 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1.Internet use and Problematic Internet Use: a systematic review of longitudinal research
trends in adolescence and emergent adulthood

- Emma Louise Anderson, Eloisa Steen &Vasileios Stavropoulos

Mapping the longitudinal studies in the areas of Internet Use (IU) and Problematic Internet U
se (PIU) in adolescents and emerging adults is the goal of this systematic literature review.Th
is study also aims to assess whether statistically significant results have emerged from the are
as of research focus and to review the language and instruments used in longitudinal IU and P
IU research.Research trends on adolescent/emergent adult IU and PIU were found in a total o
f 29 papers.These patterns were explained in terms of environmental, activity-related, and ind
ividual factors.According to the findings, individual factors have been studied the most and
have been shown to have a substantial link with PIU in adolescents and young adults. To
better understand the IU and PIU behaviours of young people and to build a comprehensive
model that will direct future study in this expanding subject, more research on contextual and
activity-related factors is necessary.

5
2.Problematic Internet Use and Loneliness: How Complex Is the Relationship? A Short
Literature Review

- Tania Moretta & Giulia Buodo

Over the past few decades, a number of research have examined the connection between
loneliness and Problematic Internet Use (PIU). The current review seeks to raise some
important points and give a summary of the most recent research in this area.Numerous
cross-sectional studies have found a small-to-medium positive correlation between PIU and
loneliness. When additional factors are taken into account, the correlation weakens. Studies
with a longer time span indicate a dynamic connection between PIU and loneliness. There is
ample evidence that PIU and loneliness are positively associated, but care should be taken to
control for other related variables (e.g., depression). Over time, PIU and loneliness seem to
be linked in a vicious cycle, with PIU as a possible starting point.

3.Relationships between social support, loneliness, and internet addiction in Chinese

postsecondary students: a longitudinal study

-Zhang S, Tian Y, Sui Y, Shi J, Wang P

This is an important short-term longitudinal study that examined the associations among
social support, loneliness, and Internet addiction at three time points (T1, T2, and T3). The
results indicated that Internet addiction at T1 positively predicted loneliness at T2, and
increased loneliness positively predicted Internet addiction at T3, suggesting that Internet
addiction and loneliness are linked in a vicious cycle.

4.Bidirectional mediating role of loneliness in the association between shyness and

generalized pathological internet use in Chinese university students: a longitudinal cross-
lagged analysis.

- Tian Y, Guo ZX, Shi JR, Bian YL, Han PG &Wang P

In this important 1-year longitudinal study, the associations between loneliness, shyness, and
generalized pathological Internet use (GPIU) were examined at three time points (T1, T2, and
T3). The results showed that GPIU at T1 positively predicted increased loneliness at T2,

6
GPIU at T2 positively predicted increased loneliness at T3, and loneliness at T2 positively
predicted increased GPIU at T3. Also, loneliness was found to play a bidirectional mediating
role in the association between shyness and GPIU.

5.Shyness, loneliness avoidance, and internet addiction: what are the relationships?

-Ang C, Chan N & Lee C

In this study, the mediating role of loneliness avoidance in the relationship between shyness
and Internet addiction was investigated in young Internet users. The finding highlighted that
shyness was significantly and positively correlated with loneliness avoidance and Internet
addiction. In addition, loneliness avoidance was significantly and positively correlated with
Internet addiction.

OBJECTIVES

1. To obtain the level of internet usage among the youth

2. To obtain the level of loneliness among the youth .

3. To analyse if there are any relationship between respondent's Internet addiction and
loneliness.

4. To analyse if there are any differences between girls and boys about social isolation.

5. To determine the factors affecting loneliness and internet addiction levels of adolescents .

7
 CHAPTER - 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION:

This chapter explains the method used for statistical analysis of this project. We used
some of the statistical tools including Chi-square test, One Way ANOVA, and Logistic
Regression, Mann Whitney U-test. We will discuss these methods in detail in the following
sections.

1. CHI-SQUARE TEST:

The chi-square test is a statistical test used to determine if a there is a significant

difference between the expected and the observed frequencies in one or more categories of a
contingency table. It is commonly used in social sciences, medical researches, other fields to
test the hypothesis of whether to categorical variables are independent or not.

The test involves calculating the difference between the observed and expected
frequencies, squaring each difference and dividing by the expected frequency. The sum of
these variables Chi-squared statistics. The degrees of freedom for the test is equal to the
number of categories minus one.

The chi-squared statistic can then be compared to a critical value from a chi-the chi-
squared statistic is greater than the critical value, then the null hypothesis (then the two
variables are independent) is rejected, and it is concluded that there is a significant
relationship between the two variables assumes that the data being analyzed is categorical
and that the expected frequencies in each category are greater than 5. If this assumption is
met, alternative statistical tests may need to be used.

Start by stating our null hypothesis (H0) and alternative hypothesis (Ha). The null
hypothesis is usually the default assumption, which states that there is no significant

8
difference between two or more variables. The alternative hypothesis, on the other hand, is
the hypothesis that you want to test. We collect data for the our analysis and organize it each
to a contingency table. Calculate the expected frequencies for each cell of the contingency
table using the formula E=(row total*column Total)/grand Total. Calculate the chi-square test
statistic using the formula:

2
Chi-square=(Oi-Ei) /Ei

It has the degrees of freedom(r-1)(c-1),where Oi is the observed frequency, Ei is the

expected frequency, r is the number of rows and c is the number of columns in the
contingency table.

Compare the test statistic with the critical value of chi-square in a chi-square distribution
table, with the degrees of freedom and significance level; we try to conclude that there is a
significant relationship between the factors involved in this research.

Analysis:-

● Usegaming * Lonlinesscondt

Hypotheses:-

H0:- There is no association between gaming and loneliness.

H1:- There is an association between gaming and loneliness.

Crosstab
Count
lonlinesscon T
dt ot
Ye No al
s
usegaming 78 40 11
Never
8
Occasionally 70 36 10

9
 6
Some of the times 23 43 66
Alternative days 28 18 46
Everyday 42 30 72
24 167 40
Total
1 8

Chi-Square Tests
Valu d Asymp.
e f Sig. (2-
sided)
20.63 4 .000
Pearson Chi-Square
5a
20.42 4 .000
Likelihood Ratio
0
Linear-by-Linear 2.829 1 .093
Association
N of Valid Cases 408
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less
than 5. The minimum expected count is
18.83.

Interpretation
Since the Pearson Chi-Square is less than 0.05,we reject H0. Hence, we conclude that
there is an association between gaming and loneliness.

● Isolated * Lonlinesscondt

10
Hypotheses:-
H0:- There is no association between internet use and loneliness.
H1:- There is an association between internet use and loneliness.

Crosstab

Count

lonlinesscondt Total

Yes No

Strongly agree 0 8 8

Disagree 26 28 54

isolated Neutral 79 63 142

Agree 78 30 108

Strongly agree 58 38 96

Total 241 167 408

11
 Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp.
Sig. (2-
sided)

22.702 4 .000
Pearson Chi-Square a

Likelihood Ratio 25.770 4 .000

Linear-by-Linear 9.507 1 .002

Association

N of Valid Cases 408

a. 2 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The

minimum expected count is 3.27.

Interpretation:-
Since the Pearson Chi Square is less than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis (H0). Hence,
we conclude that there is an association between internet use and loneliness.

● Lackcompanionship * Internetcondt

Hypotheses:-

H0:- There is no association between lack of companionship and internet addiction.

H1:- There is an association between lack of companionship and internet addiction.

12
 Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Perce N Perce N Perce

nt nt nt

lackcompanionship 408 100.0 0 0.0% 408 100.0

* internetcondt % %

enoughpplclose * 408 100.0 0 0.0% 408 100.0

internetcondt % %

Crosstab

Count

Internetcondt Total

Yes No

Never 40 53 93

Hardly ever 30 44 74
lackcompanions
Some of the times 106 73 179
hip
Often 22 24 46

Always 6 10 16

Total 204 204 408

13
 Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

11.63 4 .020
Pearson Chi-Square
7a

11.70 4 .020
Likelihood Ratio
4

Linear-by-Linear 1.891 1 .169

Association

N of Valid Cases 408

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The

minimum expected count is 8.00.

Interpretation:-
The p value(0.020) is less than 0.05. Hence, we conclude that t here is an association
between lack of companionship and internet addiction at 5% level of significance.

● Enoughpplclose * Internetcondt

Hypotheses:-
H0:- There is no association between the people I feel close to and internet addiction.
H1:- There is an association between the people I feel close to and internet addiction.

14
 Crosstab
Count
internetcondt Total
Yes No
Never 16 23 39
Hardly ever 34 26 60
Some of the 56 56 112
enoughpplclose
times
Often 62 36 98
Always 36 63 99
Total 204 204 408

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asym
p. Sig.
(2-
sided)
Pearson 16.58 4 .002
Chi-Square 5a
Likelihood 16.77 4 .002
Ratio 2

15
 Linear-by- .744 1 .388
Linear
Association
N of Valid 408
Cases
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count
less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 19.50.

Interpretation:-
Since the p value is 0.002 which is less than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis at 5%
level of significance. Thus we conclude that there is an association between the people I feel
close to and internet addiction.

2. ONE WAY ANOVA:

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a statistical technique used to compare means

of two or more group of data. The primary purpose of this test is to determine whether there
is a significant difference between the means of the groups being compared.

The methodology for performing a one-way ANOVA test involves several steps. First,
the null and alternate hypothesis should be defined. The null hypothesis states that there is no
significant difference between the means of the groups being compared, while the alternate
hypothesis states that there is a significant difference between the means of the groups being
compared.

Next, data should be collected for each group being compared, and the sample mean
should be calculated for each group. Once the sample means are calculated, the sum of the
squares within groups should be calculated. This involves calculating the sum of the squared
deviations of each data point from its group mean, and summing the results for all groups.

The next step is to calculate the sum of the squares between groups, which involves
calculating the sum of squared deviations of each group mean from the overall mean, and
multiplying the results by the number of data points in the group.

16
 Once the sum of squares within and between groups is calculated, the degrees of freedom
for within and between groups can be determined. The degrees of freedom for between the
groups is equal to the number of groups minus one.

The F statistic can then be calculated by dividing the sum of squares between the groups
by degrees of freedom for between groups, and dividing the resulting sum by the sum of
squares within the groups.

The critical value for F distribution can be then determined for the given level of
significance and the degrees of freedom, and the F statistic can be compared to the critical
value. If the F statistic is greater than the critical value, then the null hypothesis can be
rejected, and it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between the means of
the group being compared.

In conclusion, concluding the One Way ANOVA involves defining the null and alternate
hypotheses, collecting data, calculating the sample means, calculating the sum of squares
within and between groups, determining the degrees of freedom, calculating the F statistic ,
and determining the critical value for the F-distribution to determine whether to reject or fail
to reject the null hypothesis.

Here, this test is used to find out the significant difference between the variables like
Qualification and our response variable is Internet Usage Total.

Hypotheses:

H0: There is no significant difference between the means of the variable

H1: There is significant difference between the means of the variable.

17
Analysis:-

Descriptives

Internettotal

N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Mini Maxi Between

Deviati Error Interval for Mean mum mum -
on Compon
Lower Upper
ent
Bound Bound
Variance

SSLC 54 25.78 3.840 .522 24.73 26.83 19 33

HSC 102 23.45 3.620 .358 22.74 24.16 17 31

6 23.67 3.141 1.28 20.37 26.96 20 27

Diploma
2

Graduation 246 24.59 3.971 .253 24.09 25.08 13 34

18
Total 408 24.45 3.910 .194 24.07 24.83 13 34

Fixed 3.859 .191 24.07 24.82

Effects
Model

Random .592 22.56 26.33 .707

Effects

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Internettotal

Levene df1 df2 Sig.

Statistic

.342 3 404 .795

Interpretation:-
At 5% level of significance p value=0.004<0.05. Hence, we reject our null hypothesis. Thus,
we conclude that there is a significant difference between the means of the variable.

3. MANN WHITNEY U-TEST:

The MANN WHITNEY U-TEST is a statistical test used to compare the differences
between two independent groups or samples. It is a non parametric test that does not assume
any specific distribution of the data. The test compares the medians of the two groups and
determines whether they are statistically different. It does this by all of the ranking all of the
data points in both groups together and then comparing the ranks of the two groups. The
Mann-Whitney U test is often used in the situations where the data is normally distributed or
where the sample size are small.it is commonly used in the social sciences, psychology and
medical research to compare the outcomes of different treatments or interventions.

The test produces a U-statsitsic,which represents the probbiity that a randomly selected
observation from one group will be greater than a randomly selected observation from the

19
other group. The test also produces a p-value,which indicates the significance of the
difference between the two groups. A small p-value suggests that there is a significant
difference between the two groups. In our data the variable calling friends does not follow
normality. Hence we go for a non parametric test,”Mann Whitey U Test”. Principle steps
involved in U test are - Calculate the U statistic and the statistic is calculated differently
depending on whether the sample sizes are equal or unequal.

For equal sample sizes, U is calculated as follows:

U=n1n2+(n1(n1+1))/2-R1

where n1 is the size of the sample 1,n2 is the size of the sample 2 and R1 is the sum of the
ranks of the data points in sample 1.

If the sample sizes are unequal, use the following formula:

U=n1n2+(n1(n1+1))/2-R1

where n1 is the of the smaller sample,n2 is the size of the larger sample and R1 is the sum of
the ranks of the data points in smaller sample .

Determine the critical vale for U based on the sample size and level of significance.
Compare the calculated U statistic to the critical value. If the calculated U is less than or
equal to the critical value, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. If the calculated U is greater
than the critical value, then reject the null hypothesis in favour of the alternative hypothesis.
To calculate U statistic ,we use SPSS.

Hypothesis:
H0: There is no significant difference between calling friends whenever I need them and
gender.
H1: There is significant difference between calling friends whenever I need them and gender.

Spss code:
Analyze> Non parametric > legacy dialogs > Two independent samples > Test
variable list(call friends) > Variables(gender) > define groups(1,2) > Mann whitney test > ok

Analysis:

20
 Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Std. Minimu Maxim

Deviation m um

callfriends 408 3.10 1.419 1 5

Gender 408 1.30 .461 1 2

Ranks

Gender N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Female 284 197.03 55956.00

callfriends Male 124 221.61 27480.00

Total 408

Test Statisticsa

Callfriends

Mann-Whitney U 15486.000

Wilcoxon W 55956.000

Z -1.983

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .047

a. Grouping Variable: Gender

Interpretation:

21
 At 5% level of signifance, pvalue=0.047<0.05.Hence, we reject our null hypothesis.
Thus, we conclude that there is significant difference between calling friends whenever I
need them and gender.

4. LOGISTIC REGRESSION
Logistic regression is a statistical technique used to model and analyze the relationship
between a binary dependent variable (a variable that takes on one of two possible values such
as “yes” or “no”, “pass” or “fail”, etc.) and one or more independent variables (also called
predictor variables or covariates). The goal of logistic regression to estimate the binary
dependent variable’s probability, given in the independent variable’s values.

In logistic regression, the dependent variable is modelled as function of the independent

variables using a logistic function known as a sigmoid function. This function maps any
revalued input into a value between 0 and 1, which can be interpretated as the probability of
the dependent variable taking on a particular value. Logistic regression is commonly used in
the fields such as health care, marketing and social sciences, where researchers are interested
in predicting the likelihood of a particular outcome or event based on a set of predictors. It is
also called as a popular machine learning technique, used for binary classification tasks such
as spam detection, fraud detection and sentiment analysis.

Logistic regression is also a procedure for modelling dichotomous dependent variable that
does not depend on the assumption that the independent variables are normally distributed.
As a result, many other types of variables, including indicator variables, are in the possible
set of explanatory variables.

In simple linear regression, the outcome variable Y is predicted from the equation of a

straight line:
Y i =bo +b 1 X 1 +∈i , In which b 0 is the Y-intercept, b 1 is the gradient of the

straight line,
X 1 is the value of the predictor variable and ∈ is a residual term. Given the

values of Y and
X 1 , the unknown parameters in the equation can be estimated by finding a
solution for which the squared distance between the observed and predicted values of the
dependent variable is minimized.

22
 In multiple regression, in which there are several predictors, a similar equation is derived
in which each predictor has its own coefficient. As such, Y is predicted from a combination
of each predictor variable multiplied by its respective regression coefficient:
Y i =b0 +b1 X 1 +b 2 X 2 +⋯+b n X n +∈i In which b n is the regression coefficient of the
,

corresponding variable
X n . In logistic regression, instead of predicting the value of a

variable Y from a predictor variable

X 1 or several predictor variables, we predict the

probability of Y occurring given known values of

X 1 is predicted. The logistic regression has
many similarities to the regression equations just described. In its simplest form, when there

is only one predictor variable

X 1 , the logistic regression equation from which the probability
of Y is predicted is given by equation:
1
p ( Y )= − ( bo+b 1 X 1 +∈i )
1+e
, in which P(Y) is the probability of Y occurring, e is the base of
natural logarithms, and the other coefficients form a linear combination much the same as in
simple regression. The above equation is identical to the linear regression equation in that
(b 0 ) ( Xi )
there is a constant , a predictor variable and a coefficient attached to that predictor
(b1 )
. Just like linear regression, it is possible to extent this equation so as to include several
predictors. When there are several predictors the equation becomes:

1
P(Y )=
1+ ℓ−( b )

The logistic regression equation described above is based on this principle that it
expresses the multiple linear regression equation in logarithmic terms and thus overcomes the
problem of violating the assumption of linearity. The resulting value from the equation is a
probability value that varies between 0 and 1. a value close to 0 means that Y is very unlikely
to have occurred, and value close to 1 means that Y is very likely to have occurred.

The function works well for modelling probabilities because it is restricted to be

between 0 and 1. The function forms an S-shaped curve. The logistic function is a non linear
function of the regression coefficients and must be solved by a non linear regression routine.

23
This makes the description of the solution process more complicated than that for linear least
squares. However, logistic regression routines are available in certain statistical software
packages. The maximum likelihood estimation is used to estimate the regression coefficients
in the logistic regression function.

Our dependent variables are-

⮚ LONELINESS CONDITION

⮚ SOCIAL PARTICIPATION CONDITION

Which are binary variables indicating whether the younger generation are getting
affected by the factors – use of internet,use of social networking apps,gaming,music and
news which are taken as independent variables. We used logistic regression because our
dependent variables are binary and we want to estimate the probability of the younger
generation getting affected by the factors.

Analysis: -

I. Logistic regression(1)

Dependent variable- Loneliness condition

Independent variable-Use of internet,use of social networking apps,gaming,music and news

Case Processing Summary

Unweighted Casesa N Percent

Included in 408 100.0

Analysis
Selected
Cases Missing Cases 0 .0

Total 408 100.0

24
 Unselected Cases 0 .0

Total 408 100.0

a. If weight is in effect, see classification table for

the total number of cases.

This output shows case processing summary highlighting the case included in the analysis. We have a
total of 408 of respondents.

Dependent Variable
Encoding

Original Internal
Value Value

Yes 0

No 1

The table tell us the predicted outcome,which is the higher coded category. Here the one (loneliness
condition) as coded as “ZERO” and two(social network apps) are having the higher coding “ONE”

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter coding
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Never 60 1.000 .000 .000 .000
Occasionally 72 .000 1.000 .000 .000
Some of the times 77 .000 .000 1.000 .000
usenews
Alternative days 100 .000 .000 .000 1.000
99 - - - -1.000
Everyday
1.000 1.000 1.000
isolated Strongly 2 8 1.000 .000 .000 .000

25
 Dis4 54 .000 1.000 .000 .000
Neutral 142 .000 .000 1.000 .000
Agree 108 .000 .000 .000 1.000
96 - - - -1.000
Strongly agree
1.000 1.000 1.000
Never 2 1.000 .000 .000 .000
Occasionally 10 .000 1.000 .000 .000
usesocial
Once in a week 24 .000 .000 1.000 .000
Alternative days 42 .000 .000 .000 1.000

330 - - - -1.000
Everyday
1.000 1.000 1.000
Never 8 1.000 .000 .000 .000
Occasionally 38 .000 1.000 .000 .000
Once in a week 42 .000 .000 1.000 .000
usemusic
Alternative days 100 .000 .000 .000 1.000
220 - - - -1.000
Everyday
1.000 1.000 1.000
Never 118 1.000 .000 .000 .000
Occasionally 106 .000 1.000 .000 .000
Some of the times 66 .000 .000 1.000 .000
usegaming
Alternative days 46 .000 .000 .000 1.000
72 - - - -1.000
Everyday
1.000 1.000 1.000
Rarely 20 1.000 .000 .000
Occasionally 50 .000 1.000 .000
136 .000 .000 1.000
Often
useinternet

202 - - -
Always
1.000 1.000 1.000

Block 0: Beginning Block

26
 Classification Tablea,b

Observed Predicted

lonlinesscondt Percentage Correct

Yes No

Yes 241 0 100.0

lonlinesscondt
Step 0 No 167 0 .0

Overall Percentage 59.1

a. Constant is included in the model.

b. The cut value is .500

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Step -.367 .101 13.272 1 .000 .693

Constant
0

Variables not in the Equation

Score df Sig.

Step 0 Variables useinternet 4.171 3 .244

useinternet(1) 3.235 1 .072

useinternet(2) 1.429 1 .232

useinternet(3) .812 1 .368

27
isolated 22.702 4 .000

isolated(1) 1.763 1 .184

isolated(2) 1.468 1 .226

isolated(3) .677 1 .411

isolated(4) 3.386 1 .066

usesocial 5.055 4 .282

usesocial(1) .308 1 .579

usesocial(2) .045 1 .833

usesocial(3) .102 1 .750

usesocial(4) .370 1 .543

usemusic 6.538 4 .162

usemusic(1) 5.728 1 .017

usemusic(2) 6.365 1 .012

usemusic(3) 4.309 1 .038

usemusic(4) 4.257 1 .039

usegaming 20.635 4 .000

usegaming(1) 1.744 1 .187

usegaming(2) 1.480 1 .224

usegaming(3) 7.164 1 .007

usegaming(4) .066 1 .798

usenews 5.823 4 .213

usenews(1) 4.527 1 .033

usenews(2) .865 1 .352

28
 usenews(3) 3.404 1 .065

usenews(4) 2.706 1 .100

Overall Statistics 55.327 23 .000

The output of the headed block 0 is the result of the analysis without any independent variables
used in the model. Therefore, it’s overall percentage is 59.1 . This serves as a base line later
comparing the model with our predictor variable included. In general, the block is not usable as
there are no predictor in the model.

Block 1: Method = Enter

Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients

Chi- df Sig.
square

Step 61.256 23 .000

Step Block 61.256 23 .000

1
Mode 61.256 23 .000
l

Model Summary

Step -2 Log Cox & Nagelkerke

likelihood Snell R R Square
Square

1 490.856a .139 .188

29
 a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 20
because maximum iterations has been reached.
Final solution cannot be found.

Hosmer and Lemeshow Test

Step Chi- df Sig.

square

1 11.104 8 .196

Contingency Table for Hosmer and Lemeshow Test

lonlinesscondt = lonlinesscondt = No Tota

Yes l

Observe Expecte Observe Expecte

d d d d

Ste 1 34 34.708 8 7.292 42

p1
2 30 32.309 12 9.691 42

3 34 30.354 8 11.646 42

4 30 28.829 12 13.171 42

5 23 26.192 18 14.808 41

6 30 24.584 12 17.416 42

7 16 22.540 26 19.460 42

8 22 19.813 19 21.187 41

30
 9 16 16.165 26 25.835 42

1 6 5.504 26 26.496 32
0

Classification Tablea

Observed Predicted

lonlinesscondt Percentage
Correct
Yes No

Yes 203 38 84.2

Step lonlinesscondt
No 98 69 41.3
1
Overall Percentage 66.7

a. The cut value is .500

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) 95% C.I.for

EXP(B)

Lower Upper

Step 1a 2.576 3 .46

useinternet
2

useinternet(1 .499 .427 1.365 1 .24 1.647 .713 3.807

) 3

useinternet(2 -.105 .296 .126 1 .72 .900 .503 1.609

) 2

31
useinternet(3 -.054 .219 .062 1 .80 .947 .616 1.455
) 4

7.281 4 .12
isolated
2

17.180 11154.844 .000 1 .99 28921383.331 .000 .

isolated(1)
9

-3.919 2788.711 .000 1 .99 .020 .000 .

isolated(2)
9

-4.100 2788.711 .000 1 .99 .017 .000 .

isolated(3)
9

-4.771 2788.711 .000 1 .99 .008 .000 .

isolated(4)
9

4.139 4 .38
usesocial
8

17.257 22736.694 .000 1 .99 31222866.923 .000 .

usesocial(1)
9

-4.295 5684.173 .000 1 .99 .014 .000 .

usesocial(2)
9

-5.139 5684.173 .000 1 .99 .006 .000 .

usesocial(3)
9

-3.874 5684.173 .000 1 .99 .021 .000 .

usesocial(4)
9

4.080 4 .39
usemusic
5

.405 .619 .428 1 .51 1.500 .446 5.048

usemusic(1)
3

.293 .337 .752 1 .38 1.340 .692 2.595

usemusic(2)
6

-.136 .347 .154 1 .69 .873 .442 1.721

usemusic(3)
4

usemusic(4) -.146 .256 .325 1 .56 .864 .524 1.427

9

32
 14.80 4 .00
usegaming
2 5

-.495 .210 5.561 1 .01 .610 .404 .920

usegaming(1)
8

-.324 .208 2.438 1 .11 .723 .481 1.086

usegaming(2)
8

.827 .256 10.46 1 .00 2.286 1.385 3.773

usegaming(3)
1 1

-.135 .276 .238 1 .62 .874 .508 1.502

usegaming(4)
6

3.122 4 .53
usenews
8

.000 .263 .000 1 .99 1.000 .597 1.673

usenews(1)
9

.040 .242 .027 1 .87 1.040 .648 1.671

usenews(2)
0

-.303 .242 1.563 1 .21 .739 .459 1.188

usenews(3)
1

-.041 .208 .039 1 .84 .960 .638 1.443

usenews(4)
3

8.367 6331.411 .000 1 .99 4303.830

Constant
9

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: useinternet, isolated, usesocial, usemusic, usegaming, usenews.

Interpretation:-

In the case processing summary table from the output we observe that SPSS logistic procedure
for the dependent variable loneliness and the above mentioned predicted were regressed on 408
youths in Chennai using Enter method. The -2 log likelihood values in the table show that there
is an improvement in the model due to stepwise procedure. Nagelkerke R Square shows that
18.8% of the variation in dependent variable is explained by the predictors- Use of internet,use
of social networking apps,gaming,music and news . Hosmer and Lemeshow test shows lack of

33
 significance, indicating that the model predictions are not significantly different from observed
values. In other words, the model is a good fit.

The classification table shows that the model makes a correct prediction of 98%. The fitted
model is given by

Logit [ P(Y=1)] = +

From the table, we see that these factors are found to be significant predictors which are
contributed to loneliness.

II. Logistic Regression(2)

Dependent variable- Social participation condition

Independent variable-Use of internet,use of social networking apps,gaming,music and news .

Case Processing Summary

Unweighted Casesa N Percent
Included in 408 100.0
Analysis
Selected Cases
Missing Cases 0 .0
Total 408 100.0
Unselected Cases 0 .0
Total 408 100.0
a. If weight is in effect, see classification table for the total number
of cases.

This output shows case processing summary highlighting the case included in the
analysis. We have total of 408 respondents.

34
 Dependent Variable Encoding

Original Value Internal Value

Yes 0

No 1

The table tell us the predicted outcome,which is the higher coded category. Here the one
(social participation condition) as coded as “ZERO” and two(social network apps) are having
the higher coding “ONE”

Categorical Variables Codings

Frequency Parameter coding

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Never 60 1.000 .000 .000 .000

Occasionally 72 .000 1.000 .000 .000

usenews Some of the times 77 .000 .000 1.000 .000

Alternative days 100 .000 .000 .000 1.000

Everyday 99 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000

Strongly agree 8 1.000 .000 .000 .000

Disagree 54 .000 1.000 .000 .000

isolated Neutral 142 .000 .000 1.000 .000

Agree 108 .000 .000 .000 1.000

Strongly agree 96 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000

usesocial Never 2 1.000 .000 .000 .000

Occasionally 10 .000 1.000 .000 .000

35
 Once in a week 24 .000 .000 1.000 .000

Alternative days 42 .000 .000 .000 1.000

Everyday 330 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000

Never 8 1.000 .000 .000 .000

Occasionally 38 .000 1.000 .000 .000

usemusic
Once in a week 42 .000 .000 1.000 .000

Alternative days 100 .000 .000 .000 1.000

Everyday 220 - -1.000 -1.000 -1.000

1.000

Never 118 1.000 .000 .000 .000

Occasionally 106 .000 1.000 .000 .000

usegaming Some of the times 66 .000 .000 1.000 .000

Alternative days 46 .000 .000 .000 1.000

Everyday 72 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000

Rarely 20 1.000 .000 .000

Occasionally 50 .000 1.000 .000

Often 136 .000 .000 1.000

useinternet

Always 202 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000

Block 0: Beginning Block

Classification Tablea,b

36
 Observed Predicted

socialcondt Percentage Correct

Yes No

Step Yes 393 0 100.0

socialcondt
0 No 15 0 .0

Overall Percentage 96.3

a. Constant is included in the model.

b. The cut value is .500

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Step -3.266 .263 154.096 1 .000 .038

Constant
0

Variables not in the Equation

Score df Sig.

Step 0 useinternet 9.712 3 .021

useinternet( 8.978 1 .003

1)

useinternet( 4.514 1 .034

2)

useinternet( 7.666 1 .006

37
 3)

isolated 3.474 4 .482

isolated(1) .194 1 .659

isolated(2) .462 1 .497

isolated(3) .878 1 .349

isolated(4) .027 1 .870

usesocial 13.133 4 .011

usesocial(1) 6.810 1 .009

usesocial(2) 10.542 1 .001

usesocial(3) 4.097 1 .043

usesocial(4) 7.265 1 .007

usemusic 8.119 4 .087

usemusic(1) .771 1 .380

usemusic(2) 3.515 1 .061

usemusic(3) 1.924 1 .165

usemusic(4) .017 1 .897

usegaming 9.761 4 .045

usegaming( 6.081 1 .014

1)

usegaming( 3.637 1 .057

2)
Variables

usegaming( .305 1 .581

3)

38
 usegaming( .222 1 .638
4)

usenews 7.506 4 .111

usenews(1) .058 1 .809

usenews(2) 4.160 1 .041

usenews(3) .529 1 .467

usenews(4) .547 1 .460

Overall Statistics 53.667 23 .000

The output of the headed block 0 is the result of the analysis without any independent
variables used in the model. Therefore, it’s overall percentage is 96.3. This serves as a base
line later comparing the model with our predictor variable included. In general, the block is
not usable as there are no predictor in the model.

Block 1: Method = Enter

Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients

Chi- df Sig.
square

Step 67.229 23 .000

Block 67.229 23 .000

Step 1
Mode 67.229 23 .000
l

39
 Model Summary

Step -2 Log Cox & Snell Nagelkerke R

likelihood R Square Square

1 61.310a .152 .562

a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 20 because maximum iterations has been

reached. Final solution cannot be found.

Hosmer and Lemeshow Test

Step Chi-square df Sig.

1 5.580 8 .694

Contingency Table for Hosmer and Lemeshow Test

socialcondt = Yes socialcondt = No Total

Observed Expected Observed Expected

Step 1 1 42 42.000 0 .000 42

2 42 42.000 0 .000 42

3 42 42.000 0 .000 42

4 42 42.000 0 .000 42

5 42 42.000 0 .000 42

6 42 41.992 0 .008 42

40
 7 40 39.917 0 .083 40

8 39 40.543 2 .457 41

9 38 37.611 2 2.389 40

10 24 22.938 11 12.062 35

Classification Tablea

Observed Predicted

socialcondt Percentage Correct

Yes No

Yes 393 0 100.0

Step socialcondt
No 8 7 46.7
1
Overall Percentage 98.0

a. The cut value is .500

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) 95% C.I.for

EXP(B)

Lowe Uppe
r r

Ste useinternet 9.963 3 .019

p
useinternet -.404 1.427 .080 1 .777 .668 .041 10.94
1a
(1) 9

41
useinternet - 1.053 1.011 1 .315 .347 .044 2.732
(2) 1.059

useinternet 2.678 .947 8.002 1 .005 14.562 2.276 93.14

(3) 9

isolated 5.374 4 .251

- 8727. .000 1 .999 .000 .000 .

isolated(1) 13.85
0

818

5.410 2181.95 .000 1 .998 223.71 .000 .

isolated(2)
5 9

2.569 2181.95 .000 1 .999 13.055 .000 .

isolated(3)
5

2.674 2181.95 .000 1 .999 14.495 .000 .

isolated(4)
5

13.49 4 .009
usesocial
5

- 22736.5 .000 1 .999 .000 .000 .

usesocial(1
20.20 83
)
5

usesocial(2 7.947 5684.14 .000 1 .999 2827.5 .000 .

) 6 73

usesocial(3 4.490 5684.14 .000 1 .999 89.146 .000 .

) 6

usesocial(4 6.338 5684.14 .000 1 .999 565.57 .000 .

) 6 4

usemusic 8.572 4 .073

42
 - 9099.50 .000 1 .999 .000 .000 .
usemusic(1
12.58 3
)
6

usemusic(2 4.375 2274.87 .000 1 .998 79.440 .000 .

) 6

usemusic(3 5.301 2274.87 .000 1 .998 200.57 .000 .

) 6 7

usemusic(4 .640 2274.87 .000 1 1.00 1.896 .000 .

) 6 0

usegaming 3.548 4 .471

usegaming( 8.696 1105.18 .000 1 .994 5980.7 .000 .

1) 7 86

usegaming( 7.688 1105.18 .000 1 .994 2182.1 .000 .

2) 7 57

usegaming( 5.178 1105. .000 1 .996 177.27 .000 .

3)

187 3

- 3476.41 .000 1 .997 .000 .000 .

usegaming(
11.45 3
4)
7

11.64 4 .020
usenews
7

- 2946.16 .000 1 .996 .000 .000 .

usenews(1) 16.53 2
8

7.204 736.541 .000 1 .992 1344.6 .000 .

usenews(2)
34

usenews(3) 5.465 736.541 .000 1 .994 236.16 .000 .

43
 4

usenews(4) 3.821 736.541 .000 1 .996 45.662 .000 .

- 6633.96 .000 1 .997 .000

Constant 25.46 1
9

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: useinternet, isolated, usesocial, usemusic, usegaming,

usenews.

Interpretation:-
In the case processing summary table from the output we observe that SPSS logistic
procedure for the dependent variable Social participation and the above mentioned predicted
were regressed on 408 youths in Chennai using Enter method. The -2 log likelihood values
in the table show that there is an improvement in the model due to stepwise procedure.
Nagelkerke R Square shows that 56.2% of the variation in dependent variable is explained by
the predictors- Use of internet,use of social networking apps,gaming,music and news .
Hosmer and Lemeshow test shows lack of significance, indicating that the model predictions
are not significantly different from observed values. In other words, the model is a good fit.

The classification table shows that the model makes a correct prediction of 98%. The
fitted model is given by
Logit [ P(Y=1)] = -25.469 +
From the table, we see that these factors are found to be significant predictors which
are contributed to social participation.

44
 CHAPTER – 4

VISUALIZATION

As previously said, an online survey was used to gather the data, and a questionnaire
tailored to our objectives was created. We have interpreted the intended outcomes after
visualizing the data in accordance with our goals.

1. Level of internet usage among youth

DIAGRAM-1

45
Interpretation:-

Data was gathered from 408 different people. The amount of internet usage across
various age groups is displayed in Diagram 1. It's evident that those in the 18 to 24 age range
utilize the internet more frequently. The 25–30 age group controls how much time they spend
online
2. Level of loneliness between males and females

DIAGRAM-2

46
Interpretation:-

To ascertain which gender is more isolated among the younger generations, the variables
gender and degree of loneliness were considered. Here, the multiple bar diagram makes it
quite clear that, between the ages of 14 and 30, women experience greater isolation than men .

3. Level of social isolation among different age groups

DIAGRAM-3

47
Interpretation:-

This diagram was created to determine whether age group perceives greater isolation
and whether internet use and behaviours have led people in the 1-30 age range feel less
connected to their lives.

We can interpret from this that people in the 18–24 age range are more socially
isolated. Ages 14–17 are less isolated than other age groups, and ages 26–30 have the ability
to choose how isolated they want to be.

CHAPTER - 5

CONCLUSION

48
49
REFERENCES: -

50
 QUESTIONNAIRE

1.Age

a) 14 - 17
b) 18 - 25
c) 25 -30

2.Qualification

a) SSLC
b) HSC
c) Diploma
d) Graduate

3.Gender

a) Male
b) Female

4.Profession

a) Working
b) Not Working
c) Business
d) Students

Internet usage

5.Choose how often do you use the Internet

a) Rarely
b) Occasionally
c) Often
d) Always

6. What do you often do online?

a) Social media (eg.instagram, whatsapp, telegram, etc..)

b) Shopping
c) OTT Platform

51
 d) Learning
e) Gaming
f) Youtube

7. What is your mode of communication with friends?

a) Phone call
b) Texting
c) Meet up
d) Face time/ Video call

8.Do you believe that your Internet use and habits have made you more isolated from the
people in your life?

a) Strongly agree
b) Agree
c) Neutral
d) Disagree
e) Strongly disagree

9.How many online contacts do you have ?

a) 0-10
b) 11-20
c) 21-30
d) Above 30
e) Other:

10.How many online contacts you have not met in person

a) 0-10
b) 11-20
c) 21-30
d) Above 30
e) Other:

11.How often do you use the following? (Everyday,AlternativeDays,Once in a

week,Occasionally,Never)

a) social network apps.

52
 b) Music
c) Gaming
d) News
e) OTT platform.

Loneliness

12.Answer according to how you feel ( Never,Hardlyever,Some of the times,Often,Always-5)

a) How often do you feel that you lack companionship

b) How often do you feel left out
c) Miss the pleasure of the company of others
d) Find my circle of friends and acquaintances too limited
e) There are enough people i feel close to
f) There are many people i can trust completely
g) Miss having people around
h) How often do you feel rejected
i) Call my friends whenever i need them

Social Participation

13.Answer according to how often you feel this way (Never,Rarely,

Occasionally,Often,Always)

a) Do you call other people to go outside with you

b) Do you find it easy to make friends
c) Do you like to participate in the events conducted by neighbours
d) Do you like to participate in the events conducted by friends
e) Do you like to participate in the parties/functions conducted by relatives
f) Do you like people to hangout with you?
g) How often do you go out or spend time with your family?

53