| Literature DB >> 26014669 |
Engin Karadağ1, Şule Betül Tosuntaş, Evren Erzen, Pinar Duru, Nalan Bostan, Berrak Mizrak Şahin, İlkay Çulha, Burcu Babadağ.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Phubbing can be described as an individual looking at his or her mobile phone during a conversation with other individuals, dealing with the mobile phone and escaping from interpersonal communication. In this research, determinants of phubbing behavior were investigated; in addition, the effects of gender, smart phone ownership and social media membership were tested as moderators.Entities:
Keywords: Internet; addiction; mobile phone; phubber; phubbing; social media; structural equation model
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26014669 PMCID: PMC4500886 DOI: 10.1556/2006.4.2015.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Behav Addict ISSN: 2062-5871 Impact factor: 6.756
Figure 1.Research model and hypotheses in this research
Multiple regression matrices between phubbing and other variables
| Phubbing | VIF | |||||
| Constant | 0.53 | 0.11 | 4.91 | 0.00 | ||
| 1. Mobile phone addiction | 0.37 | 0.04 | 0.39 | 8.73 | 0.00 | 1.70 |
| 2. SMS addiction | 0.28 | 0.03 | 0.33 | 7.80 | 0.00 | 1.58 |
| 3. Internet addiction | 0.15 | 0.04 | 0.18 | 3.84 | 0.00 | 1.87 |
| 4. Social media addiction | 0.45 | 0.04 | 0.36 | 8.71 | 0.00 | 1.88 |
| 5. Game addiction | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 0.91 | 1.35 |
n = 401, R = .74, R2 = .54, F = 95.64, P < .01
Correlation matrix between research variables
| Variables | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 1. Phubbing | 2.76 | 0.72 | – | .65* | .62* | .50* | .46* | .33* |
| 2. Mobile phone addiction | 2.89 | 0.75 | – | .55* | .46* | .52* | .36* | |
| 3. SMS addiction | 2.74 | 0.86 | – | .42* | .48* | .32* | ||
| 4. Internet addiction | 2.56 | 0.86 | – | .61* | .47* | |||
| 5. Social media addiction | 2.60 | 0.75 | – | .38* | ||||
| 6. Game addiction | 2.05 | 0.91 | – |
n = 401, *p < .01
Results of Factor Analysis Phubbing Scale
| Factor | Communication Disturbances | Phone Obsession |
| Item Number | Factor Loading | Factor Loading |
| Item 3 | .81 | .12 |
| Item 4 | .81 | .19 |
| Item 10 | .74 | .27 |
| Item 2 | .77 | .22 |
| Item 1 | .61 | .32 |
| Item 8 | .23 | .80 |
| Item 7 | .30 | .77 |
| Item 6 | .27 | .67 |
| Item 9 | .12 | .55 |
| Item 5 | .29 | .45 |
| Eigen Value | 4.44 | 1.17 |
| Variance | 44.44 | 11.74 |
Goodness-of-fit indices: Structural equation model of research
| Fit Parameters | Coefficient |
| CFI | .94 |
| GFI | .92 |
| AGFI | .91 |
| RMSEA | .06 |
| 27 | |
| 86.5 | |
| 3.20 |
Figure 2.Structural equation diagram model of research and path coefficients
Summary of hypothesis testing results
| Path | Hypotheses | Effect Size | Results | |||
| H1 | MPA | → | Phubbing | Positive | .50 | Accepted |
| H2 | SMS | → | Phubbing | Positive | .34 | Accepted |
| H3 | SMA | → | Phubbing | Positive | .24 | Accepted |
| H4 | IA | → | Phubbing | Positive | .17 | Accepted |
| H5 | GA | → | Phubbing | Positive | .05 | Accepted |
| H6 | Frequency of SMS use | → | MPA | Positive | .19 | Accepted |
| H7 | Internet use | → | SMA | Positive | .29 | Accepted |
| H1a | MPA | → | Phubbing | Female > Male | .14 | Accepted |
| H2a | SMS | → | Phubbing | Female > Male | .10 | Accepted |
| H3a | → | Phubbing | Female > Male | .11 | Accepted | |
| H4a | IA | → | Phubbing | Female > Male | –.09 | Rejected |
| H5a | → | Phubbing | Male > Female | .16 | Accepted | |
| H1b | MPA | → | Phubbing | Yes > No | .37 | Accepted |
| H3b | SMA | → | Phubbing | Yes > No | .07 | Accepted |
| H4b | IA | → | Phubbing | Yes > No | .26 | Accepted |
MPA: mobile phone addiction, SMS: SMS addiction, SMA: social media addiction, IA: Internet addiction, GA: game addiction frequency of SMS use