| Literature DB >> 35457341 |
Yuyan Chen1, Lin Wu1, Zenghua Guo2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the advancement of the digital age, the links between mobile Internet use (MIU) and mental health have attracted the attention of scholars. This paper focuses on the relationship between MIU and depression across the entire distribution of young adults' depression.Entities:
Keywords: depression; mobile internet use; quantile regression
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35457341 PMCID: PMC9028916 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19084473
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Histogram for depression scale distribution, overlaid with a kernel density and a normal density.
Descriptive statistics.
| Variables | Mean | S.D. | N |
|---|---|---|---|
| depression | 32.67 | 6.890 | 10,499 |
| MIU | 0.87 | 0.337 | 10,499 |
| age | 29.45 | 6.185 | 10,499 |
| gender | 0.50 | 0.500 | 10,499 |
| current marital status | 0.68 | 0.468 | 10,499 |
| place of residence | 0.75 | 0.432 | 10,499 |
| employment | 0.86 | 0.346 | 10,499 |
| perceived wealth gap | 0.78 | 0.414 | 10,499 |
Correlation matrix of the variables.
| Depression | MIU | Age | Gender | Marital Status | Place of Residence | Employment | Perceived Wealth Gap | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| depression | 1 | −0.03 * | 0.07 * | −0.04 * | 0.01 | 0.05 * | −0.05 * | 0.01 |
| MIU | −0.04 * | 1 | −0.15 * | 0.03 * | −0.09 * | −0.13 * | 0.01 | 0.12 * |
| age | 0.07 * | −0.15 * | 1 | 0.03 * | 0.59 * | −0.07 * | 0.03 * | −0.02 |
| gender | −0.04 * | 0.03 * | 0.02 * | 1 | −0.13 * | −0.00 | 0.26 * | 0.01 |
| marital status | 0.01 | −0.09 * | 0.60 * | −0.13 * | 1 | 0.03 * | −0.12 * | −0.03 * |
| place of residence | 0.05 * | −0.13 * | −0.07 * | −0.00 | 0.03 * | 1 | −0.06 * | −0.08 * |
| employment | −0.05 * | 0.01 | 0.02 * | 0.26 * | −0.12 * | −0.06 * | 1 | 0.02 * |
| perceived wealth gap | 0.01 | 0.12 * | −0.02 | 0.01 | −0.03 * | −0.08 * | 0.02 * | 1 |
Note: * p < 0.05.
OLS regressions.
| Model 1 | Model 1 | |
|---|---|---|
| MIU | −0.843 *** | −0.424 ** |
| (−4.22) | (−2.06) | |
| age | 0.002 *** | |
| (9.15) | ||
| gender | −0.503 *** | |
| (−3.62) | ||
| place of residence | 0.559 *** | |
| (3.42) | ||
| marital status | −0.879 *** | |
| (−4.93) | ||
| employment | −1.010 *** | |
| (−5.01) | ||
| perceived wealth gap | 0.323 ** | |
| (2.00) | ||
| provincial dummies | No | Yes |
| Constant | 33.401 *** | 32.070 *** |
| (179.44) | (45.73) | |
| Observations | 10,499 | 10,499 |
| R2 | 0.002 | 0.033 |
Note: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Instrument variable regressions.
| Depression | Depression | MIU | MIU | MIU | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| attitude towards the Internet | −0.248 | 0.185 *** | |||
| (−1.59) | (25.82) | ||||
| household telecommunication charges | −0.127 | 0.032 *** | |||
| (−1.41) | (7.63) | ||||
| MIU | −1.526 * | ||||
| (−1.85) | |||||
| age | 0.002 *** | 0.002 *** | −0.000 *** | −0.000 *** | 0.002 *** |
| (9.25) | (9.41) | (−12.17) | (−14.54) | (7.29) | |
| gender | −0.513 *** | −0.515 *** | 0.024 *** | 0.023 *** | −0.481 *** |
| (−3.69) | (−3.70) | (3.73) | (3.49) | (−3.42) | |
| place of residence | 0.563 *** | 0.552 *** | −0.060 *** | −0.076 *** | 0.452 ** |
| (3.44) | (3.37) | (−7.95) | (−9.80) | (2.56) | |
| marital status | −0.883 *** | −0.844 *** | 0.011 | −0.003 | −0.878 *** |
| (−4.96) | (−4.63) | (1.39) | (−0.33) | (−4.91) | |
| employment | −1.003 *** | −1.014 *** | −0.006 | −0.003 | −1.023 *** |
| (−4.97) | (−5.01) | (−0.67) | (−0.36) | (−5.06) | |
| perceived wealth gap | 0.325 ** | 0.295 * | 0.049 *** | 0.074 *** | 0.404 ** |
| (2.00) | (1.82) | (6.55) | (9.64) | (2.34) | |
| provincial dummies | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Constant | 31.848 *** | 32.298 *** | 0.891 *** | 0.892 *** | 33.257 *** |
| (46.71) | (39.67) | (28.39) | (23.24) | (30.27) | |
| Observations | 10,499 | 10,443 | 10,499 | 10,443 | 10,443 |
| R2 | 0.033 | 0.033 | 0.142 | 0.092 | 0.031 |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2Quantile regression coefficient plot using mobile internet.
Quantile regression 1.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.9 | |
| MIU | −0.000 | −0.357 | −0.218 | −0.449 | −0.865 ** |
| (−0.00) | (−1.43) | (−0.83) | (−1.42) | (−2.14) | |
| age | 0.000 | 0.001 *** | 0.002 *** | 0.003 *** | 0.003 *** |
| (0.00) | (5.05) | (7.41) | (7.48) | (6.37) | |
| gender | 0.000 | −0.615 *** | −0.668 *** | −0.697 *** | −0.473 * |
| (0.00) | (−3.65) | (−3.75) | (−3.26) | (−1.74) | |
| place of residence | 0.000 | 0.307 | 0.670 *** | 0.579 ** | 0.734 ** |
| (0.00) | (1.55) | (3.20) | (2.30) | (2.29) | |
| marital status | −0.000 | −0.423 * | −0.779 *** | −1.192 *** | −1.152 *** |
| (−0.00) | (−1.96) | (−3.41) | (−4.34) | (−3.30) | |
| employment | −0.000 | −0.639 *** | −1.151 *** | −0.853 *** | −1.195 *** |
| (−0.00) | (−2.61) | (−4.46) | (−2.75) | (−3.02) | |
| perceived wealth gap | 0.000 | 0.575 *** | 0.218 | 0.275 | 0.198 |
| (0.00) | (2.92) | (1.05) | (1.10) | (0.62) | |
| provincial dummies | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Constant | 22.000 *** | 25.970 *** | 31.680 *** | 37.733 *** | 41.355 *** |
| (26.49) | (30.52) | (35.28) | (34.93) | (30.09) | |
| Observations | 10,499 | 10,499 | 10,499 | 10,499 | 10,499 |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Quantile regression 2.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.7 | 0.75 | 0.8 | 0.85 | 0.9 | 0.95 | |
| MIU | −0.311 | −0.449 | −0.837 ** | −0.839 ** | −0.865 ** | −1.949 *** |
| (−1.06) | (−1.42) | (−2.48) | (−2.25) | (−2.14) | (−3.32) | |
| age | 0.003 *** | 0.003 *** | 0.003 *** | 0.003 *** | 0.003 *** | 0.003 *** |
| (7.91) | (7.48) | (7.80) | (6.83) | (6.37) | (4.88) | |
| gender | −0.651 *** | −0.697 *** | −0.385 * | −0.300 | −0.473 * | −0.584 |
| (−3.28) | (−3.26) | (−1.69) | (−1.20) | (−1.74) | (−1.47) | |
| place of residence | 0.651 *** | 0.579 ** | 0.664 ** | 0.666 ** | 0.734 ** | 0.912 * |
| (2.79) | (2.30) | (2.47) | (2.25) | (2.29) | (1.96) | |
| marital status | −1.159 *** | −1.192 *** | −1.360 *** | −1.286 *** | −1.152 *** | −1.506 *** |
| (−4.56) | (−4.34) | (−4.65) | (−4.00) | (−3.30) | (−2.96) | |
| employment | −0.987 *** | −0.853 *** | −0.934 *** | −1.292 *** | −1.195 *** | −1.981 *** |
| (−3.43) | (−2.75) | (−2.82) | (−3.55) | (−3.02) | (−3.45) | |
| perceived wealth gap | 0.163 | 0.275 | 0.267 | 0.306 | 0.198 | 0.453 |
| (0.71) | (1.10) | (1.00) | (1.05) | (0.62) | (0.98) | |
| provincial dummies | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Constant | 36.096 *** | 37.733 *** | 39.419 *** | 40.326 *** | 41.355 *** | 44.153 *** |
| (36.08) | (34.93) | (34.24) | (31.83) | (30.09) | (22.09) | |
| Observations | 10,499 | 10,499 | 10,499 | 10,499 | 10,499 | 10,499 |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Heterogeneous effects 1.
| (1) | (2) | |
|---|---|---|
| 18–28 years old | 29–40 years old | |
| MIU | −1.667 | −1.738 * |
| (−0.94) | (−1.85) | |
| Constant | 33.160 *** | 35.862 *** |
| (16.35) | (24.01) | |
| Observations | 4524 | 5919 |
| R2 | 0.022 | 0.044 |
Note: * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
Heterogeneous effects 2.
| Female | Male | |
|---|---|---|
| MIU | −1.320 | −1.555 |
| (−1.24) | (−1.21) | |
| Constant | 31.937 *** | 34.334 *** |
| (21.57) | (20.56) | |
| Observations | 5264 | 5179 |
| R2 | 0.036 | 0.035 |
Note: *** p < 0.001.
Heterogeneous effects 3.
| Purpose of Use | Work | Social | Entertainment | Business |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| depression | −1.358 | −3.854 ** | −3.347 * | −1.360 |
| (−1.58) | (−2.01) | (−1.93) | (−1.55) | |
| Constant | 32.664 *** | 35.134 *** | 34.777 *** | 32.518 *** |
| (27.21) | (18.38) | (19.23) | (35.15) | |
| Observations | 7005 | 9222 | 9223 | 9223 |
| R2 | 0.023 | 0.013 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Benchmark regression results (16–40 years old).
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| MIU | −0.767 *** | −0.379 * |
| (−3.99) | (−1.92) | |
| age | 0.002 *** | |
| (9.59) | ||
| gender | −0.525 *** | |
| (−3.92) | ||
| place of residence | 0.586 *** | |
| (3.68) | ||
| marital status | −0.883 *** | |
| (−5.01) | ||
| employment | −1.085 *** | |
| (−5.51) | ||
| perceived wealth gap | 0.319 ** | |
| (2.04) | ||
| provincial dummies | No | Yes |
| Constant | 33.295 *** | 31.929 *** |
| (185.83) | (46.95) | |
| Observations | 11,177 | 11,177 |
| R2 | 0.001 | 0.033 |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Instrumental variable regression results (16–40 years).
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| depression | depression | MIU 2SLS—First stage | MIU | MIU | |
| attitude towards the Internet | −0.226 | 0.182 *** | |||
| (−1.52) | (26.25) | ||||
| household telecommunication charges | −0.102 | 0.032 *** | |||
| (−1.17) | (7.64) | ||||
| MIU | −1.413 * | ||||
| (−1.76) | |||||
| age | 0.002 *** | 0.002 *** | −0.000 *** | −0.000 *** | 0.002 *** |
| (9.69) | (9.79) | (−11.17) | (−12.97) | (7.98) | |
| gender | −0.533 *** | −0.535 *** | 0.024 *** | 0.024 *** | −0.501 *** |
| (−3.99) | (−3.98) | (3.91) | (3.74) | (−3.70) | |
| place of residence | 0.587 *** | 0.580 *** | −0.057 *** | −0.073 *** | 0.488 *** |
| (3.69) | (3.63) | (−7.68) | (−9.55) | (2.86) | |
| marital status | −0.886 *** | −0.859 *** | 0.014 * | 0.002 | −0.878 *** |
| (−5.03) | (−4.77) | (1.73) | (0.23) | (−4.96) | |
| employment | −1.080 *** | −1.089 *** | −0.005 | −0.004 | −1.097 *** |
| (−5.48) | (−5.51) | (−0.57) | (−0.40) | (−5.56) | |
| perceived wealth gap | 0.321 ** | 0.293 * | 0.050 *** | 0.074 *** | 0.394 ** |
| (2.05) | (1.88) | (6.80) | (9.94) | (2.36) | |
| provincial dummies | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Constant | 31.737 *** | 32.084 *** | 0.876 *** | 0.872 *** | 33.020 *** |
| (47.96) | (40.63) | (28.44) | (23.19) | (31.30) | |
| Observations | 11,177 | 11,116 | 11,177 | 11,116 | 11,116 |
| R2 | 0.033 | 0.034 | 0.134 | 0.085 | 0.031 |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Benchmark instrumental variable regression results.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| depression | depression | MIU | MIU | MIU | |
| use of stationary computer | −1.185 *** | −0.679 *** | −1.448 * | ||
| (−8.77) | (−4.56) | (−1.90) | |||
| attitude towards the Internet | 0.197 *** | ||||
| (19.65) | |||||
| household telecommunication charges | 0.042 *** | ||||
| (7.05) | |||||
| age | 0.002 *** | −0.000 *** | −0.000 *** | 0.002 *** | |
| (8.86) | (−11.56) | (−13.48) | (6.74) | ||
| gender | −0.472 *** | 0.061 *** | 0.060 *** | −0.428 *** | |
| (−3.39) | (6.80) | (6.60) | (−2.92) | ||
| place of residence | 0.413 ** | −0.242 *** | −0.259 *** | 0.191 | |
| (2.47) | (−22.95) | (−24.07) | (0.74) | ||
| marital status | −0.952 *** | −0.101 *** | −0.117 *** | −1.040 *** | |
| (−5.33) | (−8.80) | (−9.82) | (−5.34) | ||
| employment | −0.898 *** | 0.159 *** | 0.161 *** | −0.784 *** | |
| (−4.42) | (12.23) | (12.13) | (−3.31) | ||
| perceived wealth gap | 0.361 ** | 0.075 *** | 0.100 *** | 0.437 ** | |
| (2.23) | (7.15) | (9.41) | (2.44) | ||
| provincial dummies | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Constant | 33.184 *** | 32.151 *** | 0.602 *** | 0.570 *** | 32.776 *** |
| (371.84) | (47.56) | (13.70) | (10.69) | (36.64) | |
| Observations | 10,499 | 10,499 | 10,499 | 10,443 | 10,443 |
| R2 | 0.007 | 0.035 | 0.225 | 0.199 | 0.033 |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Statistics for the intermediates considered.
| Full Sample | User | Non-User | Diff. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| subjective well-being | 0.813 | 0.830 | 0.703 | −0.127 *** |
| Observations | 10,497 | 9129 | 1368 | |
| interpersonal self-assessment | 0.764 | 0.777 | 0.674 | −0.103 *** |
| Observations | 10,498 | 9130 | 1368 | |
| Subjective social-status | 0.187 | 0.177 | 0.251 | 0.074 *** |
| Observations | 10,485 | 9121 | 1364 | |
| subjective economic status | 0.178 | 0.168 | 0.239 | 0.071 *** |
| Observations | 9566 | 8257 | 1309 |
Note: *** p < 0.001.
Mediation effect 1.
| Subjective | Interpersonal | Subjective | Subjective | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIU | 0.093 *** | 0.063 *** | −0.044 *** | −0.056 *** |
| (8.05) | (4.95) | (−3.75) | (−4.72) | |
| Constant | 0.748 *** | 0.643 *** | 0.190 *** | 0.211 *** |
| (18.98) | (14.93) | (4.76) | (5.28) | |
| Observations | 10,497 | 10,498 | 10,485 | 9566 |
| R2 | 0.046 | 0.041 | 0.025 | 0.021 |
Note: *** p < 0.001.
Mediation effect 2.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| depression | depression | depression | |
| MIU | −1.413 * | −0.4873 ** | −0.466 ** |
| (−1.76) | (0.21) | (0.21) | |
| subjective social-status | −1.450 *** | −1.397 *** | |
| (0.17) | (0.18) | ||
| Constant | 33.257 *** | 37.327 *** | 38.084 *** |
| (30.27) | (2.79) | (2.61) | |
| Observations | 10,443 | 10,485 | 9566 |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3The influence of subjective social status and subjective ecnomic status on depression levels. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.