| Literature DB >> 34703335 |
Jun Zhao1,2, Baojuan Ye1, Li Yu3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: COVID-19 has had a huge impact on the physical behavior and mental health of people. Long-term and strict isolation policies are widely used to ensure social distancing, which may cause excessive smartphone use and increase the risk of smartphone addiction. Previous researchers have identified that some factors that affect smartphone addiction, but there was little research conducted during COVID-19 pandemic. The present study aims to examine the effect of peer phubbing on smartphone addiction, how boredom proneness may mediate this effect, and lastly how refusal self-efficacy may moderate the indirect and direct pathways during COVID-19 pandemic.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Chinese college students; boredom proneness; peer phubbing; refusal self-efficacy; smartphone addiction
Year: 2021 PMID: 34703335 PMCID: PMC8536884 DOI: 10.2147/PRBM.S335407
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Psychol Res Behav Manag ISSN: 1179-1578
Figure 1The proposed theoretical model.
Bivariate Correlations of the Study Variables
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.Age | 20.48 | 0.44 | 1 | |||||
| 2.Gender | 0.49 | 1.08 | −0.04 | 1 | ||||
| 3.Peer phubbing | 3.21 | 0.18 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 1 | |||
| 4.Boredom proneness | 4.15 | 0.31 | 0.01 | −0.12 | 0.17 | 1 | ||
| 5.SA | 2.71 | 0.37 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.52 | 0.26 | 1 | |
| 6.RSE | 3.81 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.16 | 0.20 | 0.27 | −0.21 | 1 |
Notes: N =1396, ***p < 0.001. *p < 0.05; gender is a dummy variable, boy = 0, girl = 1, the average meant the proportion of girls.
Abbreviations: SA, smartphone addiction; RSE, refusal self-efficacy.
Linear Regression Models
| Predictors | Model 1 (Boredom Proneness) | Model 2(SA) | Model 3(SA) | Model 4 (SA) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.01 | 0.07 | −0.01 | −0.31 | −0.01 | −0.33 | –0.01 | −0.06 |
| Gender | –0.14 | -5.97 | –0.05 | −1.15 | 0.01 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 1.753 |
| Peer phubbing | 0.43 | 18.04*** | 0.59 | 27.43*** | 0.51 | 21.70*** | 0.52 | 22.61*** |
| Boredom proneness | 0.19 | 8.23* | 0.25 | 10.64*** | ||||
| RSE | -0.18 | −7.95 | ||||||
| Peer phubbing ×RSE | 0.06 | 2.92 | ||||||
| Boredom proneness × RSE | -0.05 | −2.51 | ||||||
| 0.20 | 0.35 | 0.38 | 0.41 | |||||
| 117.41 | 251.23 | 214.16 | 139.56 | |||||
Notes: N = 1396. Each column is a regression model that predicts the criterion at. The top of the column; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Abbreviation: SA, smartphone addiction.
Figure 2Association between boredom proneness and smartphone addiction at higher and lower levels of refusal self-efficacy (A); Association between peer phubbing and smartphone addiction at higher and lower levels of refusal self-efficacy (B). (A) Boredom Proneness × Refusal Self-Efficacy. (B) Peer Phubbing × Refusal Self-Efficacy.