St.

Rose Catholic School

TECHNOLOGICAL DEPENDENCE AND ITS EFFECTS ON STUDENTS’

SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS: A CORRELATIONAL STUDY

A Research
Presented to the Faculty of
St. Rose Catholic School, Inc.
Paniqui, Tarlac

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Subjects Research Capstone &
Inquiries, Investigations and Immersion

Manalo, Ernest John

Dasalla, Joshua John
Ramos, Sheena Reign
Jo, Ahliyah Gabriella
Cabusora, Yuri Luis
Sy, Julianna Marie
Callejo, Rea Michoule

April 2021
 St. Rose Catholic School

St. Rose Catholic School, Inc.

Sta. Rosa St., Pob. Sur, Paniqui, Tarlac

APPROVAL SHEET

The research proposal entitled “Technological Dependence and its Effects on

Students’ Social Relationships: A Correlational Study,” which was prepared and
submitted by Ernest John Manalo, Joshua John Dasalla, Sheena Reign Ramos, Ahliyah
Gabriella Jo, Yuri Luis Cabusora, Julianna Marie Sy, and Rea Michoule Callejo, for the
fulfillment of the requirements for the subjects Research Capstone and Inquiries,
Investigations and Immersion, is hereby accepted.

Mr. Arseneth F. Turla

Research Adviser

RESEARCH COMMITTEE

Mr. Miguel F. Baluyut, Jr. Mr. Mitchell D. Alabado

Research Teacher SHS Academic Coordinator

Sr. Grace F. Tagnipez, OP

Head, Research Committee
Principal

ii
 St. Rose Catholic School

ABSTRACT

The technological advancement within the past few years has been regarded
as a great benefit because of their contribution to humanity. But with how
efficient and convenient technology is, people also started to grow more and
more dependent on it, thus, creating more and more problems. The purpose of
this study is to identify the relationship between technological dependence and
senior high school students’ social relationships. A descriptive-correlational
research design employing a quantitative approach was utilized in the study.
Data from the survey questionnaire were analyzed through descriptive
statistics and bivariate correlation to confirm the research hypothesis. The
participants for this study were senior high school students of St. Rose
Catholic School, Inc. who are currently enrolled in the academic year 2020–
2021. A total of two hundred and eighty-four (n = 284) respondents were
selected as participants for the study through simple random sampling. The
findings of the study showed that there is a significant relationship (p = 0.000)
between technological dependence and the students’ social relationships with
positive moderate correlation (r = 0.668). The results also showed that the
students are technologically dependent as they use gadgets almost all
throughout the day, they exhibit behavior such as not being able to control
technology usage and not being able to focus due to withdrawal, as well as
dizziness and eye strain. This, in turn, leads to loneliness, social disconnection
from family and peers, and deterioration of social skills.

Keywords: Technology, Technological dependence, Social relationships

iii
 St. Rose Catholic School

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Approval Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

List of Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Review of Related Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Research Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Significance of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Research Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Research Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Data Collection Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Statistical Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

iv
 St. Rose Catholic School

Data Analysis Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Ethical Consideration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Participants per Strand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 2: Participants per Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 3: Participants per Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 4: Distribution of Questionnaire Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 5: Reliability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 6: Mean Scoring Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 7: Pearson’s Correlation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 8: Hours Spent on Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 9: Students’ Level of Technological Dependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 10: Status of Students’ Social Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 11: Pearson’s Correlation between the Two Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 12: Summary of Mean Score per Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

v
 St. Rose Catholic School

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Letter of Request for Research Adviser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Appendix B: Letter of Permission to the Principal by the Class President . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Appendix C: Letter of Permission to the Department Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Appendix D: Letter of Permission to the Class Adviser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Appendix E: Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Appendix F: Pearson’s r Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

vi
 St. Rose Catholic School

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, the researchers want to deeply thank God for the strength and

intelligence that He bestowed to us in finishing this study. The researchers also want to send

their gratitude to the substantial efforts and guidance of both our research adviser, Sir

Arseneth F. Turla, and research teacher, Sir Miguel F. Baluyut. The respondents of the study

also deserve the researchers’ gratitude for their kind participation in the survey questionnaire

which was a major factor in the completion of this study. We also acknowledge the prior

researchers for their studies which have helped us generously to gain additional knowledge

about the topic that is being discussed in this paper. Lastly, researchers would like to set one

another’s heart on exerting effort to successfully completing this study. Hard times have

come to the researchers during the completion of this paper: either due to family conflicts,

getting the flu, mental health issues, or other personal matters, but these ordeals have never

been the reason for the researchers to stop and give up as we stood up and did what needs to

be done.

1
 St. Rose Catholic School

TECHNOLOGICAL DEPENDENCE AND ITS EFFECTS ON STUDENTS’

SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS: A CORRELATIONAL STUDY

Humans are inherently social creatures (Purdue University, 2015), and are thus

motivated to form, develop, and maintain meaningful social relationships (Arpin, 2015).

August and Rook (2013) stated that social relationships refer to the connection between two

or more people which includes the interactions between family members, friends, neighbors,

colleagues, and other associates that are perceived by the participants to have personal

meaning. These are established through social processes, which refer to forms of social

interaction that occur repeatedly (Samiksha, 2013).

However, rapid advancements in technology over the last century have drastically

influenced how humans see the world and interact with others—specifically, the internet as

well as mobile devices (Wardynski, 2019). Pavithra et al. (2015) concluded that mobile

phones and new technologies have both positive and negative aspects. They have improved

worldwide communication, but on the other hand, the long-term usage can lead to addictive

behavior. Media use has become so much of a portion of the lives of young adults that most

do not realize their degree of reliance on their mobile phones (Roberts et al., 2014).

According to Hawthorne (2011), technology has made people unable to communicate

effectively, and because of it, social contact between people is going down. As social events

or other social activities are discouraged for safety measures, this has also intensified due to

the pandemic. In addition, Gapsiso and Wilson (2015) found out that teenagers spend more

time on the internet and hardly have time for face-to-face communication with their family

2
 St. Rose Catholic School

members and friends. Aside from affecting one’s social relationships, Roberts et al. (2015)

have stated that emotional instability had a direct relationship with high mobile phone use.

That is, people who are emotionally dysfunctional are more susceptible to reliance on cell

phones than people with a stable emotional state, which leads to a cycle of worsening

dependence among people.

Hence, the purpose of this study is to identify the effects of technological dependence

on students’ social relationships. Specifically, it aims to: a) determine how technologically

dependent the students are, b) identify the effects of technological dependence on students’

social relationships, and c) show if there is a significant relationship between technological

dependence and students’ social relationships.

Our understanding of technology has been limited to the positive aspects, as we

continue to believe in its contribution to humanity. While there are studies existing about the

harms of technology in children and youth, it’s still not explored that much. Turel (2019)

stated, “There is a growing body of evidence in support of a technology duality view.” Many

have started realizing and quantifying the notion that many of the technologies being

developed can also be harmful, especially when used excessively. According to Anderson

and Rainie’s (2010) study, it shows that internet use makes people more of what they already

are. The context of internet use also matters a lot, as in these circumstances, technology can

restrict them. For example, people with extroverted personalities become more so with

technology, but if they are introverted, technology may make them more isolated.

3
 St. Rose Catholic School

It has been noticed that the time humans spent in front of the computer or smartphone

had started to spiral out of control—relying and depending on their computer and smartphone

more and more (Brulin, 2013). According to Rideout and Robb (2018), eighty-one percent of

teens use social media and that these statistics have risen dramatically since 2012. More than

a third also report using social media sites multiple times an hour. The respondents in

Brulin’s (2013) study, “Being human in a technological age,” believed technology to be very

addictive because they rely on technology in various situations.

Dihn et al. (2011) argued that there are clear advantages to being connected, an

instance being the possibility to always access information. The constant connection also

allows people to socialize with friends and family any time. To support, Lin and Lu (2011)

stated that one main goal of using social network websites or social media is to build and

maintain social relationships. The opportunity to quickly communicate with friends is a

significant key to why teenagers use gadgets, according to Papalia and Martorell (2014),

because teens do a lot of exploring in this developmental stage by spending more time with

their friends than their parents (Miller, 2011).

However, technology cuts into the time people spend on outdoor sports and

socializing. Individuals also forgo their sleep to spend more time on the internet. By

restricting the time for social events, one narrows their social circle. This results in the

individual feeling even lonelier, resorting to more online time (Garg, 2019). Whether time

spent on social networking platforms is eating away at face-to-face time, a phenomenon

known as social displacement, was one of the notable concerns. Twenge et al.’s (2019) study

4
 St. Rose Catholic School

also found that the most loneliness was identified by adolescents who spent the most time on

social media and the least time on face-to-face social interactions.

Brulin (2013) concluded that even though advantages exceed the disadvantages,

where the possibility to always reach friends and family, search the web, and to socialize is a

huge convenience regarding how beneficial technology is to human use, the impact of its

downsides remains. For instance, in Brulin’s study, respondents continued staying connected

even though they felt sore from using the computer all day since they had become so

dependent on it, although some are not aware of their dependence. While it is a huge

advantage that communication is facilitated through technology usage, as Drago (2015) had

stated, the use of gadgets can also interfere with the quality of face-to-face interaction. As

many have even continued to talk face-to-face while using their phones at the same time, this

way of communication further resulted in less physical contact, hence seclusion and

loneliness occur.

People are likely to be reliant on certain types of online social interaction that can

minimize engagement in real-life social contact. Ögel (2012) stressed that addiction to

technology contributes to the problems of alienation and separation for certain individuals

from interpersonal connections. Meanwhile, Muusses et al. (2011) found that compulsive

Internet users were more isolated, depressed, and generally had weaker social skills than their

non-compulsive counterparts. This suggests that their overuse of the Internet induced these

negative characteristics. Further use of technology contributes to social alienation within the

household and increasing privatization. Thus, social contact and communication between

5
 St. Rose Catholic School

individuals are negatively influenced by emerging technologies. This, in turn, leads to a

dramatic shift in family relationships and has weakened family values.

Subramanian’s (2017) study recognizes that younger generations tend to prefer

solitude, and instead of real-life friends and family, they seem to be in their own worlds. In

younger generations, the trend towards isolation appears to be related to the usage of mobile

devices and internet use, including social media. Pavithra et al. (2015) noted that the growing

use of modern technology products as well as virtual communication involving personal

computers, tablets, and smartphones triggers changes in the actions and daily habits of

individuals. Yet, Kearney (2018) stated that although people are spending increased amounts

of time when using the internet than to participate in face-to-face communication, that

doesn’t mean that they are the worse for it. People must ultimately be responsible for

maintaining their relationships, whether through social media or just the use of technology in

general.

Too much use of social media restricts people to behaviors that are very anti-social

(Shemul, 2015). Hertlein (2012) observed that increasingly blurred distinctions between

online and offline relationships are created by the Internet as a result. Hertlein (2012) found

in a study seeking to understand the role of technology in shifting family relationships, that

the rules of contact with online peers had many detrimental effects on everyday life, such as

undermining the role of offline relationships and increasing the potential for addictions to the

Internet. Due to the reduced time they can spend with their children, the use of gadgets

among children and adolescents often makes parents worry. People fail to communicate

6
 St. Rose Catholic School

individually, uninhibited by telephones and computers, and even when in the presence of

others. They are becoming more focused on interacting through technology with friends and

family. This is partly because they spend more time on the smartphone and internet and thus

have less time to connect with their friends and relatives, possibly because the internet

provides them a platform for personal communication with many people around the world

from different backgrounds. Also, as family and friends used technology while spending time

together, the majority of his respondents were bothered. To add, Rajeev et al. (2016) stated

that while social networking sites allow students to interact with their friends and family and

promote emotional growth, it has been noted that adolescents waste their time on social

networking sites.

Conceptual Framework

The variables presented in this study are the students’ technological dependence and

the status of their social relationships. The variables’ relationship was measured through

bivariate correlation, and interpretations and discussions were drawn from related studies

after analysis of gathered information through descriptive statistics.

Students’ Technological H1 Status of Students’

Dependence Social Relationships

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

7
 St. Rose Catholic School

Statement of the Problem

The objective of the study is to find out the effects of technological dependence on

the social relationships of Grade 12 students of St. Rose Catholic School, Inc. The study

seeks to answer the following:

1. How technologically dependent are the students?

2. How does technological dependence affect the status of students’ social relationships?

3. Is there a significant relationship between technological dependence and the status of

students’ social relationships?

Research Hypothesis

Przybylski and Weinstein’s (2012) findings in their study revealed that the existence

of mobile communication devices interferes with human relationships in social settings. Ögel

(2012) stressed that dependence to technology contributes to the problems of alienation and

separation for certain individuals from interpersonal connections. Meanwhile, Muusses et al.

(2011) found that compulsive Internet users were more isolated, depressed, and generally had

weaker social skills than their non-compulsive counterparts. Thus, technological dependence

greatly affects social relationships.

H1: There is a significant relationship between technological dependence and social

relationships.

H0: There is no significant relationship between technological dependence and social

relationships.

8
 St. Rose Catholic School

Significance of the Study

For the students, this study may raise awareness regarding their dependence on

technology, how they use it, how it affects their relationships with other people and with

themselves, and how it can affect their social skills. It may also help them to set limitations in

using technology.

For the parents, it may help them to be aware of socially engaging with their children

more especially in this situation where everyone is confined in their own homes. It may also

bring to their attention how technology can be a bridge towards better social relationships.

On the other hand, for the teachers and school administrators, this study may raise

awareness on their part on how technology is affecting the students’ social relationships, and

how they may address the concern to improve how they approach the student in their

academic activities. This may also help them recognize the problems that students are facing

due to technological dependence.

Lastly, this research may guide or serve as a reference for future researchers who will

choose a similar topic in their research endeavors.

9
 St. Rose Catholic School

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

A descriptive-correlational research design employing a quantitative approach was

utilized in the study in order to determine the effects of technological dependence on the

status of senior high school students’ social relationships. According to Sousa et al. (2007),

descriptive-correlational studies describe the variables and the relationships that occur

naturally between and among them. Meanwhile, quantitative research is the process of

collecting and analyzing numerical data (Bhandari, 2020). It can be used to find patterns and

averages, make predictions, test causal relationships, and generalize results to wider

populations. This descriptive-correlational study used a quantitative method quantifiable by

means of the Likert scale, utilizing scales of one (1) to four (4).

Research Respondents

The study was conducted during the second semester of the school year 2020–2021 at

St. Rose Catholic School, Inc., and the respondents were senior high school students who are

currently enrolled for the academic year. They were chosen as respondents because

according to Young (2017), teenagers in the age group 15 to 19 are dependent on technology

to varying degrees and find it difficult to take a break. The researchers wrote letters to the

class advisers (Appendix D) seeking permission to obtain the list of the students of their class

among the senior high school students.

10
 St. Rose Catholic School

Slovin’s formula was used to determine the sample population. From the total

population of six hundred and fifty-one (N = 651) students, two hundred and forty-eight (n =

248) respondents were selected as respondents through simple random sampling.

The formula is shown as follows:

𝑁
𝑛=
1 + 𝑁𝑒²

where n is the determined sample size, N is the total population, and e is the margin of error.

The computation is shown as follows:

651
𝑛= = 247.76
1 + (651)(0.05)2

𝒏 = 𝟐𝟒𝟖

Table 1 presents the distribution of the respondents according to grade level and

strand. As shown below, there were thirty-eight (n = 38, 15.3%) Grade 11 students and

thirty-six (n = 36, 14.5%) Grade 12 students from the strand ABM, thirty-six (n = 36, 14.5%)

Grade 11 students and thirty-five (n = 35, 14.1%) Grade 12 students from the strand

HUMSS, and fifty-seven (n = 57, 23.0%) Grade 11 students and forty-six (n = 46, 18.5%)

Grade 12 students from the strand STEM.

11
 St. Rose Catholic School

Table 1
Participants per Strand

Academic Track Total Population Sample Size Percentage

Grade 11 – ABM 80 38 15.3
Grade 11 – HUMSS 112 36 14.5
Grade 11 – STEM 149 57 23.0
Grade 12 – ABM 72 36 14.5
Grade 12 – HUMSS 112 35 14.1
Grade 12 – STEM 126 46 18.5
Total 651 248 100.0

Table 2 presents the composition of participants per age. As presented below, there

were sixty-four (n = 64, 25.8%) students aged sixteen (16), one hundred and eight (n = 108,

43.5%) students aged seventeen (17), sixty-six (n = 66, 26.6) students aged eighteen (18),

and ten (n = 10, 4.0%) students aged nineteen (19).

Table 2
Participants per Age

Age Frequency Percentage

16 64 25.8
17 108 43.5
18 66 26.6
19 10 4.0
Total 248 100.0

Table 3 displays the composition of participants according to sex. As depicted below,

the respondents consisted of one hundred and sixteen (n = 116, 46.8%) male students and one

hundred and thirty-two (n = 132, 53.2%) female students.

12
 St. Rose Catholic School

Table 3
Participants per Sex

Sex Frequency Percentage

Male 116 46.8
Female 132 53.2
Total 248 100.0

Research Instrument

In conducting the study, a self-constructed survey was used for gathering information.

The survey questionnaire consisted of thirty (30) statements, in which the respondents

answered it through the provided ratings of the Likert scale in response to their level of

agreement or disagreement to the statements. Likert scale is a type of rating scale wherein

respondents will rate from one to four, with one as Strongly Disagree and four as Strongly

Agree, on the variety of statements that are on the survey. Each item on the questionnaire

contained a four-point scale shown as follows:

4.0 – Strongly Agree 2.0 – Disagree

3.0 – Agree 1.0 – Strongly Disagree

The survey questionnaire consisted of fifteen (15) statements for the first factor and

thirteen (13) statements for the second factor. These two sets of statements are used to

measure the relationship between technological dependence and the status of students’ social

relationships. There are a total of twenty-eight (28) statements in the questionnaire.

13
 St. Rose Catholic School

Table 4
Distribution of Questionnaire Items vis-à-vis the Two Factors

Factors Survey Items No. of Items

1. Students’ level of
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
technological 15
12, 13, 14, & 15
dependence
2. Status of students’ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
13
social relationships 24, 25, 26, 27, & 28
Total 28

To test the reliability of the tool, a pilot-testing of the questionnaire was conducted

where it was distributed to thirty (30) students of St. Rose Catholic School, Inc. These

students were not considered as actual participants of the study.

For a reliable instrument, a Cronbach alpha higher than .70 is the standard measure.

The questionnaire, which contains twenty-eight (28) statements, was analyzed and tested for

reliability through the aid of Statistical Program for Social Sciences (SPSS), and got the rate

of .908, which signifies that the tool has good internal consistency. The tool was also

validated through the help of the research adviser.

Table 5
Reliability Analysis

No. of Items Coefficient of Reliability

Statements on the
28 .908
Questionnaire

14
 St. Rose Catholic School

Data Collection Procedure

The collection of data commenced once the proposal has been approved. Four

procedures were considered in the collection of data. First, the researchers prepared a survey

questionnaire to cover the factors relevant to the study. Second, the researchers presented the

initial survey questionnaire to the research adviser for corrections before the pilot-testing. It

has undergone reliability analysis for its validation as a tool for the study. Third, after the

tool’s reliability and validity was ensured, the floating of survey questionnaires commenced

through online links via Google Forms to the senior high school students of St. Rose Catholic

School, Inc. The researchers wrote a letter to the school principal (Appendix B) and

academic coordinator (Appendix C) seeking permission to formally conduct and administer

the study. After permission is sought and approved, the researchers wrote letters to each

adviser (Appendix D) seeking permission to float the survey in their respective class

advisories. Lastly, after the floating of the questionnaires, the researchers tabulated and

analyzed the results obtained in the questionnaire.

Statistical Treatment

The gathered information from the survey was computed and analyzed through

descriptive statistics and bivariate correlation. The data was obtained through the use of basic

statistics such as mean and standard deviation under descriptive statistics. The data was

computed by mean with its respective interpretation and descriptive value, while standard

deviation showed the spread of distribution in the scores. Lastly, through bivariate

15
 St. Rose Catholic School

correlation, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used in showing the relationship of

variables in the study. The following are the formulas used in the computations:

Mean formula is shown as follows:

∑𝑥𝑖
µ=
𝑛

where 𝛍 is the mean, ∑𝒙𝒊 is the summation of index scales, and 𝒏 is the number of cases.

Standard Deviation formula is shown as follows:

∑(𝑥𝑖 − µ)²
σ=√
𝑛

where 𝛔 is the standard deviation, ∑(𝒙𝒊 − µ)² is the index score subtracted by the mean

squared, and 𝒏 is the number of cases.

Pearson’s r coefficient formula is shown as follows:

∑(𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥̅ )(𝑦𝑖 − 𝑦̅)

𝑟=
√∑(𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥̅ )2 (𝑦𝑖 − 𝑦̅)2

where 𝒓 is the correlation coefficient, 𝒙𝒊 are the values of the x-variable in a sample, 𝒙̅ is the

̅ is
mean of the values of the x-variable, 𝒚𝒊 are the values of the y-variable in a sample, and 𝒚

the mean of the values of the y-variable.

16
 St. Rose Catholic School

Once the r coefficient was obtained, the data then underwent hypothesis testing. The

two-tailed significance levels of the variable pairs were compared to the alpha level. The set

alpha level for this study, which is under social sciences, is 0.05. If the results of the

computed of the computed significance level has a value lesser than or equal to 0.05, the

researchers will then accept the null hypothesis (H0) of the study. If the significance level is

greater than 0.05, the researchers will reject the null hypothesis (H0) and accept the

alternative hypothesis (H1).

Data Analysis Procedure

This study utilized descriptive statistics and bivariate correlation to analyze the

quantitative data collected. Through the Likert scale, the researchers utilized four scales to

determine each respondent’s level of agreement. The following are the scoring guidelines in

accordance to the level of agreement on the Likert-type scale response anchors:

Table 6
Mean Scoring Guidelines

Range Interpretation
4.00 – 3.26 Strongly Agree
3.25 – 2.51 Agree
2.50 – 1.76 Disagree
1.75 – 1.00 Strongly Disagree

In the bivariate correlational part of research, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient

interpretations were used to determine the relationship between technological dependence

17
 St. Rose Catholic School

and the status of the students’ social relationships. The range and interpretations are shown as

follows:

Table 7
Pearson’s Correlation Guidelines

Range Interpretation
1.0 and above Perfect Relationship
0.90 and below 1.0 Very Strong Relationship
0.70 and below 0.90 Strong Relationship
0.50 and below 0.70 Moderate Relationship
0.30 and below 0.50 Weak Relationship
0.00 and below 0.30 Very Weak Relationship

Ethical Consideration

Before conducting the study and floating the survey questionnaires, the researchers

asked for the permission of the school principal (Appendix B), department coordinator

(Appendix C), and class advisers (Appendix D) to administer the study. The objectives of the

study were presented to the respondents before the survey links are distributed. The

researchers assured that all data and information gathered was treated with utmost

confidentiality. The data gathered from the respondents were reported in summary and not

mentioned anywhere in the paper to protect the rights of the respondents. In addition,

informed consent was secured from the respondents by providing their e-mail address,

signifying their willingness to voluntarily participate in the study. This is in compliance with

the existing Republic Act No. 10173 otherwise known as the Data Privacy of 2012 that

protects all forms of information that are personal, private and privileged. It covers all

18
 St. Rose Catholic School

persons whether natural or judicial with particular emphasis to companies or judicial entities

involved in the processing of protected information.

RESULTS

The Relationship between Technological Dependence and the Students’ Social

Relationships

Table 8 below shows the number of hours that students spend on technology. One (n

= 1, 0.4%) student answered less than 1 hour, six (n = 6, 2.4%) students answered 1 to 2

hours, twenty-two (n = 22, 8.9%) students answered 3 to 4 hours, forty-one (n = 41, 16.5%)

students answered 5 to 6 hours, seventy-nine (n = 79, 31.9%) students answered 7 to 8 hours,

and ninety-nine (n = 99, 39.9%) students answered that they use technology almost all

throughout the day.

Table 8
Hours Spent on Technology
Hours Spent on
Frequency Percentage
Technology
Less than 1 hour 1 0.4
1 to 2 hours 6 2.4
3 to 4 hours 22 8.9
5 to 6 hours 41 16.5
7 to 8 hours 79 31.9
Almost all
99 39.9
throughout the day
Total 248 100.0

19
 St. Rose Catholic School

As illustrated in Table 9, the mean per factor determines the students’ level of

technological dependence. Among the fifteen (15) statements listed below, four (4) were

rated Strongly Agree, and eleven (11) were rated Agree. The students’ responses gained a

weighted mean of 3.06 (s = .759) with the descriptive rating of Agree. Precisely, item

number one (1), “As soon as I wake up, the first thing I check is my phone,” got the highest

rating of 3.43 (s = .651) with a descriptive rating of Strongly Agree. Meanwhile, item

number two (2), “I use my phone during meals with family or friends,” obtained the lowest

rating of 2.66 (s = .939) with a descriptive rating of Agree.

Table 9
Students’ Level of Technological Dependence
Standard
No. Statements Mean Interpretation
Deviation
As soon as I wake up, the first thing I check
1. 3.43 .651 Strongly Agree
is my phone.
I use my phone during meals with my family
2. 2.66 .939 Agree
or friends.

I feel weird when my phone is charging or

3. when I don’t have my phone around because 2.87 .865 Agree
it’s like I don’t have anything to do.

I feel the need to immediately respond to

4. 2.92 .806 Agree
chats and notifications.
I feel anxious when I don’t have my phone
5. 2.90 .811 Agree
with me.
After not checking my phone for a while, I
6. 3.12 .660 Agree
feel the desire to check it.
I find it hard to focus on a task because of
7. 2.92 .821 Agree
the thought that I want to use my phone.

20
 St. Rose Catholic School

I find myself using my phone longer than

8. 3.38 .605 Strongly Agree
intended.

I find myself failing to complete my

9. responsibilities (e.g. house chores, school 2.69 .954 Agree
works) because I’m busy using my phone.
10. I stay up late at night using my phone. 3.37 .673 Strongly Agree
I think to myself, “just a few more minutes”
11. 3.23 .649 Agree
when I should be doing other stuff.
I immediately feel bored when I don’t have
12. 3.04 .814 Agree
my phone.
I anticipate the time when I can use my
13. phone again after not having it for a period 3.10 .659 Agree
of time.
I have suffered from dizziness/eye strain
14. because of using gadgets for a long period of 3.03 .841 Agree
time.

I keep using technology even though I know

15. 3.29 .638 Strongly Agree
it isn’t good for me.
MEAN AND STANDARD
DEVIATION PER FACTOR, 3.06 .759 Agree
DESCRIPTIVE RATING

As shown below in Table 10, the mean per factor shows the students’ level of

agreement regarding the status of their social relationships. Among the thirteen (13)

statements under this factor, thirteen (13) were rated Agree. The response of the students

acquired a weighted mean of 2.99 (s = .885) with the descriptive rating of Agree. To be

specific, item number twenty-eight (28), “I use my phones during social events (e.g.

birthdays, family/friend meetups, etc.) instead of interacting with others,” got the highest

rating of 3.20 (s = .784) with the descriptive rating of Agree. On the other hand, item number

21
 St. Rose Catholic School

twenty-six (26), “I feel like I just want to talk to people online instead of talking to them

personally,” obtained the lowest rating of 2.85 (s = .964) with the descriptive rating of Agree.

Table 10
Status of Students’ Social Relationships
Standard
No. Statements Mean Interpretation
Deviation
I don’t get to talk much with my family at
16. 2.88 .939 Agree
home because of time spent online.
I feel socially isolated or disconnected in the
17. 2.84 .963 Agree
real world.
I feel lonely at times despite having people
18. 3.03 .870 Agree
around me.
I find my social skills deteriorating because of
19. 2.99 .822 Agree
my reliance on technology.
I would rather stay at home when my friends
20. 2.91 .928 Agree
ask me to go out.

I ignore my friends’ messages when I’m busy

21. watching shows, scrolling on social media, 3.00 .911 Agree
playing games, etc.

I feel nervous or awkward when socially

22. 3.07 .841 Agree
interacting in real life.
I have friends where I’m comfortable talking
23. 3.00 .865 Agree
to them online but we’re awkward in real life.
People around me say that I use my gadgets
24. 3.11 .807 Agree
too much.
I get annoyed at other people when they
25. 2.96 .887 Agree
bother me while I’m using my phone.
I feel like I just want to talk to people online
26. 2.85 .964 Agree
instead of talking to them personally.
I share my thoughts or problems online
27. 2.97 .924 Agree
because I can’t do it with my family.

22
 St. Rose Catholic School

I use my phone during social events (e.g.

28. birthdays, family/friend meetups, etc.) instead 3.20 .784 Agree
of interacting with others.
MEAN AND STANDARD
DEVIATION PER FACTOR, 2.99 .885 Agree
DESCRIPTIVE RATING

Showcased in Table 11 is the bivariate correlation between technological dependence

and students’ social relationships. As presented below, the Pearson’s r is displayed to have a

value of .668 which shows a moderate relationship existing between the two variables.

Meanwhile, the p-value (p = 0.000) is lower than the set alpha level (α = 0.05), signifying

that there is a significant relationship between technological dependence and the status of

students’ social relationships. Hence, this suggest that the null hypothesis (H0) must be

rejected and the alternate hypothesis (H1) be accepted.

H1: There is a significant relationship between technological dependence and social

relationships.

H0: There is no significant relationship between technological dependence and social

relationships.

Table 11
Pearson’s Correlation between the Two Variables

Technological Dependence Social Relationships

Pearson Correlation .668 .668
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000
n 248 248

23
 St. Rose Catholic School

Moreover, Table 12 showcases the summary of the factors’ mean with their respected

descriptive values. The students’ level of technological dependence obtained a weighted

mean of 3.06 with a descriptive rating of Agree, while their status of social relationships

obtained a weighted mean of 2.99 with a descriptive rating of Agree.

Table 12
Summary of Mean Score per Factor

Factors Mean Interpretation

1. Students’ level of technological dependence 3.06 Agree
2. Status of students’ social relationships 2.99 Agree

DISCUSSION

This study aimed to explore the relationship between technological dependence and

social relationships. As more and more people become dependent on technology, it affects

how they interact with other people. As such, there is a correlation between the two variables.

People who spend most of their time using their phones and other digital devices lead to them

having weaker social skills and losing opportunities to form connections with peers and

family. This also leads to seclusion, feelings of isolation, and loneliness, which can

negatively affect well-being.

Level of Technological Dependence

Worldwide, the Philippines still ranked as the highest in internet usage and in social

media usage for six consecutive years (Chua, 2021). Results showed that about thirty-nine

24
 St. Rose Catholic School

percent of this study’s respondents answered that they use gadgets almost all throughout the

day, while only three percent cumulatively claimed using them for less than an hour or one to

two hours at most. It can be observed that fewer and fewer students select the number of

hours ranging below 7-8 hours a day, suggesting that the respondents are technologically

dependent. In the Philippines, statistics show that Filipinos spend approximately 10.6 hours

per day using the internet in the quarter of 2020 (Statista, 2020), coinciding with Kemp’s

(2021) report of seventy-four million Filipino internet users. Eighty-nine million are also

recorded to be social media users, although they do not necessarily equate to unique

individuals.

This dependence in technology can also be attributed to a lack of control to break

from the usage or a lack of motivation to do other things. Among all the survey statements,

this factor is the most agreed upon by respondents. Because technology offers access to

entertainment such as games, shows, social media, etc., it became a challenge for mobile

phone users to refrain from using their devices (Buctot et al., 2020). According to Cha and

Seo’s (2018) study, because there are not many leisure activities to relieve their stress, most

adolescents spend their free time on their smartphones; the pandemic only heightened the use

of technology by limiting outdoor activities. In this kind of environment which promotes

smartphone use, combined with the inability of people to control their usage despite negative

consequences, it could lead to dependence, and ultimately, addiction.

Withdrawal from smartphone use, however, also causes negative effects on people.

King et al. (2013) states that this is known as nomophobia, which refers to the distress or

25
 St. Rose Catholic School

anxiety caused by the non-availability of a device. Significant results from Russo et al.’s

(2017) study states that students expressed feelings of guilt for not being able to respond to

received messages from peers. Also, because one’s smartphone use is ultimately an attempt

to escape boredom (Roberts et al., 2014), not being able to use the device results in an

individual feeling as if they don’t have anything else to do. This also hampers their ability to

focus as technology remains as a distraction from other tasks. Ward et al. (2017) concluded

that even when individuals are successful at maintaining sustained attention while avoiding

the temptation to check their phones, just the presence of these devices decreases one’s

cognitive capacity.

Among other things, lack of sleep and eye strain also emerged as relevant factors in

ascertaining students’ dependence on technology. Adams et al. (2013) stated that as

smartphones become more accessible for teenagers, it becomes a key aspect that hinders both

the amount of rest and sleeping quality of an individual. In addition, dizziness and eye strain

are also side effects of prolonged gadget use; the prevalence of digital eye strain (DES) may

be 50% or more among users (Sheppard and Wolffsohn, 2018).

How Technological Dependence affect Social Relationships

Results showed that there is a positive moderate correlation between technological

dependence and social relationships. The usage of technology negatively affects the students’

social relationships. Przybylski and Weinstein (2012) showed similar findings that revealed

that the existence of mobile communication devices interferes with human relationships in

26
 St. Rose Catholic School

social settings, negatively impacting the quality of closeness, interactions, and

communication.

If people were deprived of normal face-to-face conversations on a daily basis, the

ability to communicate and people’s social relationships altogether will deteriorate as time

passes. In the long run, the nature of interactions will change in a negative way, the impact of

which is evident on younger generations. As reported by Khamel (2018), Wynel (2015)

explained that people are so used to looking at their phones and devices so often that more

have become fidgety and distracted and often not looking directly at others, thus, missing the

subtle changes of expressions that shows the real emotions of the participants of a

conversation. Findings from Rotondi et al.’s (2017) study also indicated that time spent with

friends and family is worth less for smartphone users in terms of life satisfaction; time spent

at home for the family is instead used for hours of gadget use.

In addition, Common Sense Media (2018) found out that today’s teens

overwhelmingly prefer texting and chatting online to hanging out with their friends in real

life, numbering at 61%. The respondents of this study also answered that their usage of

technology has resulted in weaker social skills, as overuse of screen time displaces time spent

engaging in face to face interactions (Beurkens, 2020).

Feelings of social isolation and loneliness follow suit due to smartphone dependence.

Bian and Leung (2016) stated that smartphone addiction is related with loneliness and

shyness. For some, these feelings cause people to use their gadgets more, which in turn,

27
 St. Rose Catholic School

worsen their dependence on their devices. A possible reason teens feel loneliness is due to

their ability to see what everyone else is doing (Carter, 2018), where exposure to others’

success as well as idealized image of friends can result in negative social comparisons with

others and themselves. Primack et al. (2017) also concluded that young adults with high

social media use feel more socially isolated than their counterparts with lower social media

use.

CONCLUSION

To sum up, based on the data gathered, there is a positive moderate correlation

between the two variables. Moreover, most students claimed that they use gadgets all

throughout the day. Under the first objective which tackles the technological dependence of

students, the respondents answered that they are dependent on technology. On the other hand,

for the second objective regarding the effects of technological dependence on their social

relationships, results showed that their social relations are affected notably.

Hence, this study recognized the growing problem of technological dependence

among people. Individuals are affected either physically, due to eye strain and dizziness, and

mentally, due to the distractions caused by technology—even obstructing one’s day-to-day

life. Moreover, this has caused other problems as well, namely: loneliness, social

disconnection, and deterioration of social skills. By looking at the aspects of the topic

examined in this research, it can be determined that the root cause of technological

dependence has something to do with how the students use their time. Thus, limiting one’s

usage of technology plays a great role in lessening this dependence.

28
 St. Rose Catholic School

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of the study, the following suggestions and recommendations

are made by the researchers:

1. The researchers suggest that students take breaks in-between gadget use to rest their

eyes every once in a while, and interact with family members to reconnect with them.

2. Students may consider making schedules on when they will use their phones to limit

their use. This way, the student can track the amount of time they have been using

their gadgets.

3. Parents may assist their children in limiting their technology use, especially those

who are still young, so that they may spend quality time together.

4. The researchers suggest that parents encourage their children to interact more with

them and their peers to avoid the deterioration of their social skills.

5. The researchers suggest that school administrators can take action during online

classes by lessening the time that students spend in front of the screen.

6. For future researchers, the findings of this study may serve as their reference or guide

for their own studies. Through this, further research may be done to find out more

about the relationship between technological dependence and social relationships.

This study is applicable to be used in a different culture, location, and/or context.

29
 St. Rose Catholic School

REFERENCES

Adams, S., Daly, J., Williford, D. (2013). Adolescent sleep and cellular use: Recent trends
and implications for research. Health Serv Insights, 6, 99-103.
https://doi.org/10.4137%2FHSI.S11083

Arpin S. (2015). Intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences of loneliness: Health

behavior, social interactions, self-disclosure, and perceived responsiveness [Doctoral
dissertation, Portland State University]. PDX Scholar.
https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.2337

August, K., & Rook, K. (2013). Social Relationships. Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine,
1838–1842. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_59

Beurkens, N. (2020). How does technology affect children’s social development?

https://www.qustodio.com/en/blog/2020/07/technology-child-social-development/

Bhandari, P. (2020). An introduction to quantitative research.

https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/quantitative-research/

Bian, M., Leung, L. (2016). Smartphone addiction: Linking loneliness, shyness, symptoms
and patterns of use to social capital. Media Asia, 41, 159-176.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01296612.2014.11690012

Brulin, S. (2013). Being human in a technological age: A study on the impacts of smart
technology usage. [Master’s thesis]. Umea University.

Buctot, D., Kim, N., & Kim, S. (2020). The role of nomophobia and smartphone addiction in
the lifestyle profiles of junior and senior high school students in the Philippines.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 2(1).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2020.100035

Carter, C. (2018). Three risks of too much screen time for teens.
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/three_risks_of_too_much_screen_time_f
or_teens

Cha, S., Seo, B. (2018). Smartphone use and smartphone addiction in middle school students
in Korea: Prevalence, social networking service, and game use. Health Psychology
Open, 5(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2055102918755046

30
 St. Rose Catholic School

Chua, K. (2021). PH remains top in social media, internet usage worldwide - report.
https://www.rappler.com/technology/internet-culture/hootsuite-we-are-social-2021-
philippines-top-social-media-internet-usage

Common Sense Media (2018). Common sense research reveals everything you need to know
about teens’ use of social media in 2018. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/about-
us/news/press-releases/common-sense-research-reveals-everything-you-need-to-
know-about-teens

Dihn, H., Lee, C., Niyato, D., and Wang, P. (2011). A survey of mobile cloud computing:
Architecture, applications, and approaches. Wireless Communications and Mobile
Computing, 13(18). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcm.1203

Drago (2015). The effect of technology on face-to-face communication. Elon Journal of

Undergraduate Research in Communications, 6(1), 1-2.

Gapsiso, N., & Wilson, J. (2015). The impact of the internet on teenagers’ face-to-face
communication. Journal of Studies in Social Sciences, 13(1).

Garg, V. (2019). Impact of excessive use of technology and ways to deal with it mindfully.
http://www.businessworld.in/article/Impact-Of-Excessive-Use-Of-Technology-And-
Ways-To-Deal-With-It-Mindfully/12-03-2019-168126

Hawthorne, A. (2011). Dependence on technology.

https://bestwritingservice.com/essays/Technology/Dependence-on-Technology.html

Hall, J., Kearney, M., & Xing, C. (2018). Two tests of social displacement through social
media use. Information. Communication & Society, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2018.1430162

Hertlein, K. M. (2012). Digital Dwelling: Technology in couple and family relationships.

Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 61(3), 374–
387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00702.x

Kemp, S. (2021). Digital 2021: The Philippines. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-

2021-philippines

Khamel, J. (2018). How mobile phones are killing human interaction skills.
https://gulfnews.com/going-out/society/how-mobile-phones-are-killing-human-
interaction-skills-1.2205044

31
 St. Rose Catholic School

King, A., Valenca, A., Silva, A., Bacynzki, T., Carvalho, M., Nardi, A. (2013). Nomophobia:
Dependency on virtual environments or social phobia? Computers in Human
Behavior, 29(1), 140-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.025

Lin, K., & Lu, H. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study
integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27(3), 1152–1161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.009

Miller, P. (2011). Theories of developmental psychology. Worth Publishers.

Muusses, L., Finkenauer, C., Kerkhof, P., & Righetti, F. (2015). Partner effects of
compulsive internet use: A self-control account. Communication Research, 42(3)
365-386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212469545

Ögel, K. (2012) Internet addiction. Business Bank of Turkey Cultural Publications.

Papalia, D., & Martorell, G. (2014). Experience human development. Mcgraw-Hill

Education.

Pavithra, M., Suwarna, M., & Mahadeva, M. (2015). A study on Nomophobia - mobile
phone dependence, among students of a Medical college in Bangalore. National
Journal of Community Medicine, 6(2), 340–344.

Purdue University (2015). Interpersonal relations.

https://www.purdue.edu/hhs/hdfs/research/areas/interpersonal_relations.html

Primack, B., Shensa, A., Sidani, J., Colditz, J., Radovic, A., Miller, E. (2017). Social media
use and perceived social isolation among young adults in the U.S. American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, 53(1), 1-8. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.01.010

Przybylski, A., & Weinstein, N. (2012). Can you connect with me now? How the presence of
mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(3), 237–246.
doi:10.1177/0265407512453827

Rajeev, R., Soans, S., Aroor, A., Shastry, R., Shriyan, A. (2016). Dependence on social
networking sites in adolescents. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences,
5(22), 1172-1174. https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2016/272

Rideout, V., & Robb, M. (2018). Social media, social life.

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/uploads/research/2018_cs_soc
ialmediasociallife_fullreport-final-release_2_lowres.pdf

32
 St. Rose Catholic School

Roberts, J., Pullig, C., Manolis, C.(2015). I need my smartphone: A hierarchical model of
personality and cell-phone addiction. Personality and Individual Differences, 79(1),
13–19. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.049

Roberts, J., Yaya, L., & Manolis, C. (2014). The invisible addiction: Cell-phone activities
and addiction among male and female college students. Journal of Behavioral
Addictions, 3(4), 254–265. https://doi.org/10.1556/JBA.3.2014.015

Rotondi, V., Stanca, L., Tomasuolo, M. (2017). Connecting alone: Smartphone use, quality
of social interactions and well-being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 63, 17-26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2017.09.001

Russo, M., Bergami, M., Morandin, G. (2017). Surviving a day without smartphones.
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/surviving-a-day-without-smartphones/

Samiksha, S. (2013). Social processes: The meaning, types, characteristics of social

processes. https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/social-processes-the-
meaning-types-characteristics-of-social-processes/8545

Shemul, K. (2015). Social impact for technology addiction. Unpublished paper. American
International University Bangladesh.

Sheppard, A., & Wolffsohn, J. (2018). Digital eye strain: prevalence, measurement and
amelioration. BMJ Open Ophthalmol, 3(1), 1-32.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmjophth-2018-000146

Sousa, V., Driessnack, M., & Mendes, I. (2007). An overview of research designs relevant to
nursing: Part 1: Quantitative research designs. Revista Latino-Americana de
Enfermagem, 15(3), 502–507. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-11692007000300022

Statista (2020). Average time spent using online media in the Philippines in 3rd quarter 2020,
by activity (in hours per day). https://www.statista.com/statistics/803812/daily-time-
spent-using-online-media-by-activity-philippines/

Subramanian, K. (2017). Influence of social media in interpersonal communication.

International Journal of Scientific Progress and Research, 38(109), 70-75.

Turel, O. (2019). Potential ‘dark sides’ of leisure technology use in youth. Communications
of the ACM, 62(3), 24-27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306615

33
 St. Rose Catholic School

Twenge, J. M., Spitzburg, B. H., & Campbell, W. K. (2019). Less in-person social interaction
with peers among U.S. adolescents in the 21st century and links to loneliness. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(6).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519836170

Ward, A., Duke, K., Gneezy, A., Bos, M. (2017). Brain drain: The mere presence of one’s
own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. Journal of the Association for
Consumer Research, 2(2), 140-154. http://doi.org/10.1086/691462

Wardynski, D. (2019). What are the effects of technology on human interaction?

https://www.brainspire.com/blog/what-are-the-effects-of-technology-on-human-
interaction

Young, S. (2017). Teens most likely to struggle with technology addiction.

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/teens-most-likely-to-struggle-with-
technology-addiction-070717.html

34
 St. Rose Catholic School

APPENDIX A

Letter of Request for Research Adviser

St. Rose Catholic School, Inc.

Sta. Rosa St., Pob. Sur, Paniqui, Tarlac

March 16, 2021

Mr. Arseneth Turla

Faculty Member
St. Rose Catholic School, Inc.

Re: Request for Research Adviser

Dear Sir Arseneth:

Greetings of Dominican Peace!

We, the undersigned are graduating Grade 12 students from the strand Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). We are currently taking up the subject Research Capstone. Its objective
is to provide students the opportunity to integrate their learning in the different learning areas of the strand
through creative culminating activity. It focuses on the exhibitions/exhibits of authentic products and
performances as evidence of their learning in the strand. One of the requirements of this subject is to create an
output based on a research paper. The output and the research must be a school-based themed that will benefit
the students, faculty members, administrators, and the school. Thus, each group is required to have a research
adviser to guide the students.

In line with this, may we request you as our research adviser? The duties of the research adviser are to
(1) guide the students in crafting their research paper and output, and (2) give ideas to students that will be of
benefit to their research and output. However, the research adviser is NOT required to: (1) proofread the
manuscript — but may do so if the adviser requests it, and (2) meet the advisee regularly.

Your insights, views, and opinions will be of great help in our magnum opus.

Hoping for you favorable response. Thank you!

Sincerely yours,
Cabusora, Yuri Luis Manalo, Ernest John Ramos, Sheena Reign
Callejo, Rea Michoule Jo, Ahliyah Gabriella
Dasalla, Joshua John Sy, Julianna Marie

Researchers

Noted by:
Mr. Miguel F Baluyut Jr.
Culminating Activity Teacher

35
 St. Rose Catholic School

APPENDIX B

Letter of Permission to the Principal by the Class President

St. Rose Catholic School, Inc.

Sta. Rosa St., Pob. Sur, Paniqui, Tarlac

February 24, 2021

Sr. Grace F. Tagnipez, OP

Principal
St. Rose Catholic School, Inc.
Paniqui Tarlac

Dear Sr. Grace:

Greetings of Dominican Peace!

We, the Grade 12 students under the strand Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics, are conducting our study in partial fulfillment for our Capstone Research
Project. The goal of our research is to add up to existing knowledge and create programs that
will be of benefit to the school or the community.

In line with this, may I request on behalf of the class to conduct our research to Grade
11 and Grade 12 as well as to float questionnaires to students? Any help you will extend will
be of great help to our studies.

We are hoping for your positive response.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest John A. Manalo

Class President

Noted by:

Mr. Miguel F. Baluyut Jr.

Capstone Project Teacher

36
 St. Rose Catholic School

APPENDIX C

Letter of Permission to the Department Coordinator

St. Rose Catholic School, Inc.

Sta. Rosa St., Pob. Sur, Paniqui, Tarlac

February 24, 2021

Mr. Mitchell D. Alabado

SHS Department Academic Coordinator
St. Rose Catholic School, Inc.

Dear Sir:

Greetings of Dominican Peace!

The undersigned is a Grade 12 student under the strand Science, Technology

Engineering, and Mathematics, and we will be conducting our study our study in our
Capstone Project. The goal of our research is to determine if there is a significant relationship
between technological dependence and the senior high school students’ social relationships,
and add up to existing knowledge as well as to create programs that will benefit the school or
the community.

In line with this in behalf of my group, may we request to conduct our research to the
entire Grade 12, as well as to float questionnaires to students? Any help you will extend will
be of great help on our study.

We are hoping for your positive response.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest John A. Manalo

Research Leader

Noted by:

Mr. Miguel F. Baluyut Jr.

Capstone Project Teacher

37
 St. Rose Catholic School

APPENDIX D

Letter of Permission to the Class Adviser

St. Rose Catholic School, Inc.

Sta. Rosa St., Pob. Sur, Paniqui, Tarlac

March 16, 2021

Name of Adviser
Class Adviser
St. Rose Catholic School, Inc.

Dear Ma’am/Sir:

Greetings of Dominican Peace!

The undersigned is a Grade 12 student of St. Rose Catholic School Inc., under the
strand Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics currently conducting a research
entitled: “Technological Dependence and its Effects on Students’ Social Relationships: A
Correlational Study.” This study seeks to determine if there is a significant relationship
between technological dependence and the status of social relationships of Senior High
School students of St. Rose Catholic School, Inc.

In line with this in behalf of my research group, may we ask to float survey
questionnaires on your class advisory about the said undertaking? We will assure that all
gathered information will be treated with outmost confidentiality. This endeavor will be of
great help on our school and its stakeholders.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest John A. Manalo

Research Leader

Noted by:

Mr. Miguel F. Baluyut Jr.

Capstone Project Teacher

38
 St. Rose Catholic School

APPENDIX E

Survey Questionnaire

Dear Respondent,
We are currently doing a study entitled, “Technological Dependence and its Effects on
Students’ Social Relationships: A Correlational Study”. This survey would only take
approximately a couple of minutes to answer. Rest assured that all information provided will be
treated with utmost confidentiality. Thank you!

Ernest John Manalo Joshua John Dasalla Julianna Marie Sy

Ahliyah Gabriella Jo Sheena Reign Ramos Rea Michoule Callejo
Yuri Luis Cabusora
Researchers

No. Statements SA A D SD
1. As soon as I wake up, the first thing I check is my phone. 4 3 2 1
2. I use my phone during meals with my family or friends. 4 3 2 1
I feel weird when my phone is charging or when I don’t have my
3. 4 3 2 1
phone around because it’s like I don’t have anything to do.
4. I feel the need to immediately respond to chats and notifications. 4 3 2 1
5. I feel anxious when I don’t have my phone with me. 4 3 2 1
After not checking my phone for a while, I feel the desire to
6. 4 3 2 1
check it.

I find it hard to focus on a task because of the thought that I want

7. 4 3 2 1
to use my phone.
8. I find myself using my phone longer than intended. 4 3 2 1
I find myself failing to complete my responsibilities (e.g. house
9. 4 3 2 1
chores, school works) because I’m busy using my phone.
10. I stay up late at night using my phone. 4 3 2 1
I think to myself, “just a few more minutes” when I should be
11. 4 3 2 1
doing other stuff.
12. I immediately feel bored when I don’t have my phone. 4 3 2 1
I anticipate the time when I can use my phone again after not
13. 4 3 2 1
having it for a period of time.

39
 St. Rose Catholic School

I have suffered from dizziness/eye strain because of using

14. 4 3 2 1
gadgets for a long period of time.
15. I keep using technology even though I know it isn’t good for me. 4 3 2 1
I don’t get to talk much with my family at home because of time
16. 4 3 2 1
spent online.
17. I feel socially isolated or disconnected in the real world. 4 3 2 1
18. I feel lonely at times despite having people around me. 4 3 2 1
I find my social skills deteriorating because of my reliance on
19. 4 3 2 1
technology.
20. I would rather stay at home when my friends ask me to go out. 4 3 2 1
I ignore my friends’ messages when I’m busy watching shows,
21. 4 3 2 1
scrolling on social media, playing games, etc.
22. I feel nervous or awkward when socially interacting in real life. 4 3 2 1
I have friends where I’m comfortable talking to them online but
23. 4 3 2 1
we’re awkward in real life.
24. People around me say that I use my gadgets too much. 4 3 2 1
I get annoyed at other people when they bother me while I’m
25. 4 3 2 1
using my phone.

I feel like I just want to talk to people online instead of talking to

26. 4 3 2 1
them personally.

I share my thoughts or problems online because I can’t do it with

27. 4 3 2 1
my family.

I use my phone during social events (e.g. birthdays, family/friend

28. 4 3 2 1
meetups, etc.) instead of interacting with others.

40
 St. Rose Catholic School

APPENDIX F

Pearson’s r Computation

Correlations
Students’
Technological
Social
Dependence
Relationships
Pearson Correlation 1 .668**
Technological
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Dependence
N 248 248
Pearson Correlation .668** 1
Students’ Social
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Relationships
N 248 248
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Hypothesis testing interpretation:

r= .668 (moderate correlation/relationship)

Sig. (2-tailed) p= 0.000 (less than the set alpha level α= 0.05)
Therefore, reject the null hypothesis (H0) and accept the alternate hypothesis (H1).

41