| Literature DB >> 31120317 |
Zainab Alimoradi1, Chung-Ying Lin2, Vida Imani3, Mark D Griffiths4, Amir H Pakpour1,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Social media use has become increasingly popular among Internet users. Given the widespread use of social media on smartphones, there is an increasing need for research examining the impact of the use of such technologies on sexual relationships and their constructs such as intimacy, satisfaction, and sexual function. However, little is known about the underlying mechanism why social media addiction impacts on sexual distress. This study investigated whether two constructs (intimacy and perceived social support) were mediators in the association of social media addiction and sexual distress among married women.Entities:
Keywords: intimacy; sexual function; social media addiction; social support
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31120317 PMCID: PMC7044549 DOI: 10.1556/2006.8.2019.24
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Behav Addict ISSN: 2062-5871 Impact factor: 6.756
Figure 1.The hypothesized mediation models with perceived social support and relationship closeness as proposed mediators of the effect of social media addiction on sexual function, sexual distress, depression, and anxiety. BSMAS: Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale; FSFI: Female Sexual Function Index; FSDS-R: Female Sexual Distress Scale – Revised
Participants’ characteristics (N = 938)
| Characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Baseline | |
| Age (years) | 36.5 (6.8) |
| Years of education | 11.7 (4.8) |
| Number of years’ education (husband) | 12.24 (5.9) |
| Duration of marriage (years) | 9.7 (6.4) |
| Coital frequency (per month) | 5.2 (3.9) |
| Current smoker | 137 (14.6%) |
| Occupational status | |
| Unemployed | 677 (55.3%) |
| Employed | 261 (23.0%) |
| Student | 158 (16.8%) |
| Menopausal status | |
| Postmenopause | 113 (12.0%) |
| Premenopause | 825 (88.0%) |
| Parity | |
| 0 | 315 (33.6%) |
| 1 | 341 (36.3%) |
| 2 | 209 (22.3%) |
| ≥3 | 73 (7.8%) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.9 (6.2) |
| Baseline | |
| Social media addiction | 15.6 (5.8) |
| Perceived social support | 53.2 (10.7) |
| Relationship closeness | 4.9 (0.9) |
| Sexual functioning | 27.7 (4.6) |
| Anxiety | 7.7 (4.9) |
| Depression | 6.2 (4.8) |
| Female sexual distress | 7.4 (3.7) |
| Six months after baseline | |
| Sexual functioning | 27.0 (4.9) |
| Anxiety | 7.9 (4.7) |
| Depression | 6.4 (4.5) |
| Female sexual distress | 7.3 (3.4) |
Note. SD: standard deviation; BMI: body mass index.
Zero-order correlations for sexual function, anxiety, depression, social media addiction, relationship closeness, and sexual distress
| BSMASa | FSFIa | Anxietya | Depressiona | FSDS-Ra | URCSa | FSFIb | Anxietyb | Depressionb | FSDS-Rb | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSPSSa | −0.14 | 0.21 | −0.24 | −0.34 | −0.40 | 0.28 | 0.24 | −0.21 | −0.30 | −0.43 |
| BSMASa | – | −0.22 | 0.29 | 0.45 | 0.25 | −0.27 | −0.28 | 0.33 | 0.44 | 0.32 |
| FSFIa | – | – | −0.29 | −0.37 | −0.32 | 0.20 | 0.58 | −0.37 | −0.40 | −0.38 |
| Anxietya | – | – | – | 0.51 | 0.48 | −0.38 | −0.41 | 0.55 | 0.50 | 0.48 |
| Depressiona | – | – | – | – | 0.49 | −0.21 | −0.48 | 0.44 | 0.56 | 0.69 |
| FSDS-Ra | – | – | – | – | – | −0.26 | −0.49 | 0.50 | 0.44 | 0.54 |
| URCSa | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.27 | −0.31 | −0.28 | −0.33 |
| FSFIb | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | −0.41 | −0.39 | 0.51 |
| Anxietyb | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.40 | 0.37 |
| Depressionb | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.35 |
Note. MSPSS: Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support; BSMAS: Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale; FSFI: Female Sexual Function Index; FSDS-R: Female Sexual Distress Scale – Revised; URCS: Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale. All p values <.01.
aAssessed at 6 months. bAssessed at baseline.
Models of the effect of women’s social media addiction on sexual function, sexual distress, and psychological distress with mediators of perceived social support and relationship closeness
| Coefficient | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model A. Outcome variable: FSFI | ||||
| Total effect of BSMAS on FSFI | −0.93 | 0.14 | 6.83 | <.001 |
| Effects of BSMAS on FSFI in mediated model | ||||
| Direct effect of BSMAS on mediator | ||||
| URCS | −0.39 | 0.04 | −8.54 | <.001 |
| MSPSS | −0.25 | 0.06 | −4.37 | .003 |
| Direct effect of BSMAS on FSFI | −0.67 | 0.14 | −4.77 | <.001 |
| Indirect effect of BSMAS on FSFI | Effect | Boot SE | Boot LLCI | Boot ULCI |
| Total | −0.27 | 0.07 | −0.44 | −.16 |
| URCS | −0.16 | 0.05 | −0.29 | −.09 |
| MSPSS | −0.11 | 0.03 | −0.19 | −.06 |
| Model B. Outcome variable: FSDS-R | ||||
| Total effect of BSMAS on FSDS-R | 1.23 | 0.15 | 7.94 | <.001 |
| Effects of BSMAS on FSDS-R in mediated model | ||||
| Direct effect of BSMAS on mediator | ||||
| URCS | −0.38 | 0.05 | −8.42 | <.001 |
| MSPSS | −0.24 | 0.06 | −4.18 | <.001 |
| Direct effect of BSMAS on FSDS-R | 0.58 | 0.14 | 4.17 | <.001 |
| Indirect effect of BSMAS on FSDS-R | Effect | Boot | Boot LLCI | Boot ULCI |
| Total | 0.65 | 0.16 | 0.43 | 1.01 |
| URCS | 0.38 | 0.10 | 0.24 | .62 |
| MSPSS | 0.26 | 0.08 | 0.15 | .46 |
Note. Age, husband’s education, baseline values of depression, anxiety, FSFI, and FSDS-R were adjusted for both Models A and B. MSPSS: Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support; BSMAS: Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale; FSFI: Female Sexual Function Index; FSDS-R: Female Sexual Distress Scale – Revised; URCS: Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale; Boot SE: bootstrapping standard error; Boot LLCI: bootstrapping lower limit of confidence interval; Boot ULCI: bootstrapping upper limit of confidence interval.
Mediators were assessed at baseline.