| Literature DB >> 31798471 |
Xinli Chi1,2,3,4, Xiaofeng Liu1,4, Tianyou Guo1,4, Mingxia Wu5, Xiaochen Chen2,3.
Abstract
Research has revealed that Internet addiction is a risk factor for adolescents' development of depressive symptoms, although the underlying mechanisms are largely unknown. The present study examines the mediating role of positive youth development and the moderating role of mindfulness to determine the association between Internet addiction and depression. A sample of 522 Chinese adolescents completed measures related to Internet addiction, positive youth development, mindfulness, depression, and their background information, for which the results reveal that positive youth development mediates the relation between Internet addiction and depression. Moreover, the associations between both Internet addiction and depression as well as positive youth development and depression are moderated by mindfulness. These two effects were stronger for adolescents with low mindfulness than for those with high mindfulness. The present study contributes to a more thorough understanding of how and when Internet addiction increases the risk of depression in adolescents, suggesting that Internet addiction may affect adolescent depression through positive youth development and that mindfulness can alleviate the negative effect of Internet addiction or a low level of psychological resources on depression. The implications for research and practice are finally discussed.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese adolescents; depression; internet addiction; mindfulness; positive youth development
Year: 2019 PMID: 31798471 PMCID: PMC6865207 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00816
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 4.157
Figure 1Conceptual model.
Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations between variables.
| Variable | Not addicted/depressive | Addicted/depressive | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||||
| 1. IA | 327(79.56%) | 84(20.44%) | 1.54 | 2.18 | – | |||
| 2. PYD | – | – | 5.01 | 0.72 | −0.33** | – | ||
| 3. Mindfulness | – | – | 27.40 | 8.14 | −0.39** | 0.31** | – | |
| 4. Depression | 375(71.84%) | 147(28.16%) | 12.42 | 9.21 | 0.42** | −0.50** | −0.49** | – |
N = 522, IA, internet addiction; PYD = positive youth development, **p < 0.01.
Mediation analysis.
| Outcome variables | Independent variables |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Depression | Constant | 0.0001 | 0.04 | 0.0001 | 1.00 |
| Internet addiction | 0.46*** | 0.04 | 10.42 | <0.001 | |
| PYD | Constant | 0.0001 | 0.04 | 0.0001 | 1.00 |
| Internet addiction | −0.33*** | 0.04 | −8.09 | <0.001 | |
| Depression | Constant | 0.0001 | 0.04 | 0.0001 | 1.00 |
| Internet addiction | 0.28*** | 0.04 | 7.32 | <0.001 | |
| PYD | −0.40*** | 0.04 | −10.37 | <0.001 |
N = 522, bootstrap sample size = 5000; all data is standardized, the beta values are standardized coefficients, thus they can be compared to determine the relative strength of different variables in the model; ***p < 0.001.
Bootstrapping indirect effect and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mediation model.
| Indirect path | Estimated effect | 95% CI | Ratio to total effect on depression | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LL | UL | |||
| Internet addiction→ PYD→ depression | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.18 | 32.21% |
N = 522, bootstrap sample size = 5000, LL, low limit; CI, confidence interval; UL, upper limit; all data is standardized.
Conditional process analysis.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Constant | −0.01 | 0. 04 | −0.18 | 0.86 |
| Internet addiction | −0.27*** | 0.05 | −5.57 | <0.001 |
| Mindfulness | 0.20*** | 0.04 | 4.57 | <0.001 |
| Internet addiction x Mindfulness | −0.02 | 0.04 | −0.55 | 0.58 |
|
| ||||
| Constant | −0.07 | 0.04 | −2.07 | 0.04 |
| Internet addiction | 0.12** | 0.04 | 3.02 | <0.01 |
| Positive youth development | −0.33*** | 0.04 | −9.13 | <0.001 |
| Mindfulness | −0.31*** | 0.04 | −8.43 | <0.001 |
| Internet addiction x Mindfulness | −0.08* | 0.03 | −2.24 | <0.05 |
| Positive youth development x Mindfulness | 0.15*** | 0.04 | 4.11 | <0.001 |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Conditional direct effect analysis at values of the moderator | ||||
| M − 1SD | 0.20*** | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.28 |
| M | 0.12*** | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.20 |
| M + 1SD | 0.05 | 0.06 | −0.07 | 0.17 |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Conditional indirect effect analysis at values of the moderator | ||||
| M − 1SD | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.18 |
| M | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.14 |
| M + 1SD | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.12 |
N = 522, bootstrap sample size = 5000, LL, low limit; CI, confidence interval; UL, upper limit; all data is standardized, the beta values are standardized coefficients, thus they can be compared to determine the relative strength of different variables in the model; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Figure 2The moderating role of mindfulness in the relation between Internet addiction and depression. The moderating effect is graphed for two levels of mindfulness: (1) low mindfulness (1 SD below the mean) and (2) high mindfulness (1 SD above the mean).
Figure 3The moderating role of mindfulness in the relation between positive youth development and depression. The moderating effect is graphed for two levels of mindfulness: (1) low mindfulness (1 SD below the mean) and (2) high mindfulness (1 SD above the mean).