| Literature DB >> 34209642 |
Guang Zeng1, Lijin Zhang1, Sai-Fu Fung2, Jingwen Li3, Yi-Man Liu4,5, Zi-Ke Xiong5, Zhi-Quan Jiang5, Fang-Fang Zhu6, Zhen-Ting Chen7, Si-Ding Luo8,9, Ping Yu8,9, Qian Huang10.
Abstract
The aim of this cross-sectional study was to examine the mediating effects of individual affect and relationship satisfaction on the relationship between self-esteem and Problematic Internet Use (PIU). Affect was measured using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), relationship satisfaction was assessed using a positive and negative semantic dimension scale, self-esteem was measured using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and PIU was measured using the Problematic Internet Use scale with a sample of 507 Chinese university students (Mage = 20.41 years, SD = 2.49). The relationships between the variables were tested using structural equation modelling with a multiple mediation model. The results revealed that negative affect and the negative semantic dimensions of relationship satisfaction mediated the relationship between self-esteem and PIU. The implications of the results and the study's theoretical contributions are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: Internet addiction; cognitive–behavioural model; multiple mediation model; positive and negative affect schedule; self-esteem
Year: 2021 PMID: 34209642 PMCID: PMC8296993 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18136949
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Confirmatory factor analysis.
| Scales | CFI | TLI | SRMR | RMSEA | 90%CI of RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIUQ | 0.928 | 0.902 | 0.043 | 0.054 | (0.046, 0.062) |
| PANAS | 0.916 | 0.903 | 0.048 | 0.058 | (0.052, 0.065) |
| PN-SMD | 0.918 | 0.902 | 0.042 | 0.100 | (0.091, 0.109) |
| RSE | 0.942 | 0.913 | 0.053 | 0.066 | (0.051, 0.081) |
Correlation matrix of all variables (n = 507).
| Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. PIUQ | 47.945 | 9.828 | |||||
| 2. Positive_Affect | 29.892 | 5.833 | −0.003 | ||||
| 3. Negative_Affect | 24.022 | 7.267 | 0.471 ** | 0.191 ** | |||
| 4. Positive_SMD | 32.616 | 7.655 | −0.241 ** | 0.377 ** | −0.241 ** | ||
| 5. Negative_SMD | 20.448 | 8.376 | 0.369 ** | −0.131 ** | 0.451 ** | −0.502 ** | |
| 6. RSE | 26.667 | 3.935 | −0.296 ** | 0.275 ** | −0.454 ** | 0.420 ** | −0.443 ** |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Correlation matrix of all variables (split by gender).
| Male ( | Female ( | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| 1. PIUQ | ||||||||||
| 2. Positive_Affect | 0.015 | −0.007 | ||||||||
| 3. Negative_Affect | 0.526 ** | 0.205 | 0.465 ** | 0.187 ** | ||||||
| 4. Positive_SMD | −0.352 ** | 0.380 ** | −0.300 ** | −0.215 ** | 0.377 ** | −0.226 ** | ||||
| 5. Negative_SMD | 0.605 ** | −0.016 | 0.566 ** | −0.405 ** | 0.307 ** | −0.156 ** | 0.424 ** | −0.525 ** | ||
| 6. RSE | −0.218 | 0.159 | −0.418 ** | 0.277 * | −0.300 ** | −0.321 ** | 0.298 ** | −0.459 ** | 0.449 ** | −0.475 ** |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Standardised results of mediation effects.
| Path |
|
| 95% CI 1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| RSE-Positive Affect-PIUQ | −0.017 | 0.396 | (−0.095, 0.034) |
| RSE-Negative Affect-PIUQ |
|
|
|
| RSE-Positive SMD-PIUQ | −0.038 | 0.258 | (−0.139, 0.051) |
| RSE-Negative SMD-PIUQ |
|
|
|
1 95% confidence interval of bootstrapping procedure with 1000 bootstrap draws. Note: bold = significant mediation effect.
Figure 1Multiple mediation model. Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. The solid lines represent significant path coefficients, and the bold solid lines indicate the mediation effects. The dotted lines represent non-significant path coefficients.
Measurement invariance of RSE.
| Model | CFI | TLI | SRMR | RMSEA | 90%CI of RMSEA | ΔCFI | Pass? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Configural Invariance | 0.938 | 0.903 | 0.055 | 0.070 | (0.054, 0.086) | Yes | |
| Metric Invariance | 0.940 | 0.919 | 0.059 | 0.064 | (0.049, 0.079) | 0.002 | Yes |
| Scalar Invariance | 0.941 | 0.930 | 0.061 | 0.060 | (0.045, 0.075) | 0.001 | Yes |
Measurement Invariance of PIUQ.
| Model | CFI | TLI | SRMR | RMSEA | 90%CI of RMSEA | ΔCFI | Pass? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Configural Invariance | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | (0.000, 0.000) | Yes | |
| Metric Invariance | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.014 | 0.000 | (0.000, 0.069) | 0.000 | Yes |
| Scalar Invariance | 0.995 | 0.992 | 0.038 | 0.061 | (0.000, 0.125) | 0.005 | Yes |
Note: Due to the complexity of the model structure of PIUQ scale and the small sample size of the male group, the multigroup model did not converge. Therefore, we packaged the 18 observed variables of PIUQ scale and then conducted multigroup model for this scale.
Measurement invariance of PANAS.
| Model | CFI | TLI | SRMR | RMSEA | 90%CI of RMSEA | ΔCFI | Pass? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Configural Invariance | 0.907 | 0.891 | 0.058 | 0.063 | (0.056, 0.070) | Yes | |
| Metric Invariance | 0.903 | 0.893 | 0.065 | 0.062 | (0.055, 0.069) | 0.004 | Yes |
| Scalar Invariance | 0.899 | 0.894 | 0.065 | 0.062 | (0.055, 0.068) | 0.004 | Yes |
Measurement Invariance of PN-SMD.
| Model | CFI | TLI | SRMR | RMSEA | 90%CI of RMSEA | ΔCFI | Pass? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Configural Invariance | 0.925 | 0.910 | 0.045 | 0.096 | (0.087, 0.106) | Yes | |
| Metric Invariance | 0.925 | 0.917 | 0.048 | 0.093 | (0.084, 0.102) | 0.000 | Yes |
| Scalar Invariance | 0.920 | 0.920 | 0.048 | 0.090 | (0.082, 0.099) | 0.005 | Yes |
Standardised results of mediation effects (split by gender).
| Male | Female | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Path |
|
| 95% CI 1 |
|
| 95% CI 1 |
| 1. RSE-Positive Affect-PIUQ | −0.007 | 0.769 | (−0.170, 0.073) | −0.018 | 0.460 | (−0.070, 0.037) |
| 2. RSE-Negative Affect-PIUQ | −0.167 | 0.097 | (−0.838, 0.086) |
|
|
|
| 3. RSE-Positive SMD-PIUQ | −0.032 | 0.553 | (−0.286, 0.071) | −0.039 | 0.331 | (−0.123, 0.048) |
| 4. RSE-Negative SMD-PIUQ |
|
|
| −0.034 | 0.396 | (−0.130, 0.052) |
1 95% confidence interval of bootstrapping procedure with 1000 bootstrap draws. Note: bold = significant mediation effect.