| Literature DB >> 35814497 |
Abstract
Background: In recent years, the penetration rate of smartphones among Korean teenagers has increased, making it critical to clarify the influence of these devices on adolescents' lives. Objective: This study investigated the effects of smartphone dependence on peer relationships and life satisfaction among Korean adolescents.Entities:
Keywords: Korean adolescents; Life satisfaction; Longitudinal relationship; Peer relationships; Smartphone dependency
Year: 2022 PMID: 35814497 PMCID: PMC9253240 DOI: 10.1007/s10566-022-09703-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Child Youth Care Forum ISSN: 1053-1890
Participants’ Demographic Characteristics at the Three Time Points (n = 2,250)
| 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, | 15.01 (0.03) | 16.1 (0.03) | 17.1 (0.03) |
| Gender (male) | 1199 (53.4%) | - | - |
| Smartphone possession | |||
| Owned | 2203 (97.9%) | 2221 (98.7%) | 2230 (99.1%) |
| Using family member’s smartphone | 47 (2.1%) | 29 (1.3%) | 20 (0.9%) |
| Hours of Smartphone use | |||
| Weekdays | |||
| Never | 36 (1.6%) | 25 (1.1%) | 24 (1.1%) |
| < 30 min | 135 (6.0%) | 115 (5.1%) | 60 (2.7%) |
| 30 min–1 h | 351 (15.6%) | 362 (16.1%) | 335 (14.9%) |
| 1–2 h | 695 (30.9%) | 700 (31.1%) | 693 (30.8%) |
| 2–3 h | 563 (25.0%) | 563 (25.0%) | 504 (22.4%) |
| 3–4 h | 227 (10.1%) | 235 (10.5%) | 261 (11.6%) |
| > 4 h | 243 (10.8%) | 250 (11.1%) | 373 (16.6%) |
| Weekends | |||
| Never | 50 (2.2%) | 36 (1.6%) | 16 (0.7%) |
| < 30 min | 97 (4.3%) | 56 (2.5%) | 34 (1.5%) |
| 30 min − 1 h | 196 (8.7%) | 173 (7.7%) | 126 (5.6%) |
| 1 − 2 h | 394 (17.5%) | 414 (18.4%) | 493 (21.9%) |
| 2 − 3 h | 585 (26.0%) | 630 (28.0%) | 598 (26.6%) |
| 3 − 4 h | 412 (18.3%) | 423 (18.8%) | 333 (14.8%) |
| > 4 h | 516 (22.9%) | 518 (23.0%) | 650 (28.9%) |
Notes. M, mean; SD, standard deviation
Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables
| Smartphone | Negative Peer | Life | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | |||||||||||||
| SmD T1 | -- | ||||||||||||||||||||
| SmD T2 | 0.436*** | -- | |||||||||||||||||||
| SmD T3 | 0.356*** | 0.477*** | -- | ||||||||||||||||||
| NPR T1 | 0.285*** | 0.184*** | 0.180*** | -- | |||||||||||||||||
| NPR T2 | 0.150*** | 0.317*** | 0.174*** | 0.297*** | -- | ||||||||||||||||
| NPR T3 | 0.148*** | 0.187*** | 0.256*** | 0.192*** | 0.269*** | -- | |||||||||||||||
| LS T1 | − 0.318*** | − 0.210*** | − 0.170*** | − 0.327*** | − 0.179*** | − 0.147*** | -- | ||||||||||||||
| LS T2 | − 0.164*** | − 0.329*** | − 0.178*** | − 0.201*** | − 0.350*** | − 0.190*** | 0.440*** | -- | |||||||||||||
| LS T3 | − 0.166*** | − 0.180*** | − 0.260*** | − 0.182*** | − 0.188*** | − 0.308*** | 0.371*** | 0.459*** | -- | ||||||||||||
|
| 2.035 | 2.128 | 2.180 | 1.848 | 1.834 | 1.796 | 3.139 | 3.068 | 3.060 | ||||||||||||
|
| 0.488 | 0.467 | 0.492 | 0.514 | 0.561 | 0.562 | 0.541 | 0.476 | 0.455 | ||||||||||||
| Skewness | 0.227 | − 0.086 | − 0.101 | 0.408 | 0.432 | 0.575 | − 0.307 | 0.036 | − 0.074 | ||||||||||||
| Kurtosis | − 0.042 | − 0.098 | − 0.322 | 0.749 | 0.130 | 0.386 | 0.235 | 0.464 | 0.939 | ||||||||||||
Notes. M, mean; SD, standard deviation; T1: Time 1; T2: Time 2; T3: Time 3; SmD: smartphone dependence; NPR: negative peer relationships; LS: life satisfaction; ***p < .001
Model Fit Statistics for Autoregressive Cross Lagged Models
| Model | χ² |
| TLI | CFI | RMSEA | Δ χ² | Δ | Δ TLI | Δ CFI | ΔRMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 297.93*** | 41 | 0.896 | 0.926 | 0.064 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 2 | 304.21*** | 42 | 0.898 | 0.928 | 0.062 | 6.28 | 1 | 0.002 | 0.002 | − 0.002 |
| 3 | 307.20*** | 43 | 0.901 | 0.931 | 0.060 | 2.99 | 1 | 0.003 | 0.003 | − 0.002 |
| 4 | 311.22*** | 44 | 0.901 | 0.933 | 0.059 | 4.02 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.002 | − 0.001 |
| 5 | 312.92*** | 45 | 0.903 | 0.935 | 0.057 | 1.70 | 1 | 0.002 | 0.002 | − 0.002 |
| 6 | 313.25*** | 46 | 0.905 | 0.936 | 0.055 | 0.33 | 1 | 0.002 | 0.001 | − 0.002 |
| 7 | 318.16*** | 47 | 0.907 | 0.938 | 0.054 | 4.91 | 1 | 0.002 | 0.002 | − 0.001 |
| 8 | 319.32*** | 48 | 0.911 | 0.938 | 0.053 | 1.16 | 1 | 0.004 | 0.000 | − 0.001 |
| 9 | 321.48*** | 49 | 0.913 | 0.939 | 0.051 | 2.00 | 1 | 0.002 | 0.001 | − 0.002 |
Note: Model 1 = baseline model; Model 2 = structural weight invariance (autoregressive path coefficient of smartphone dependence); Model 3 = structural weight invariance (autoregressive path coefficient of negative peer relations); Model 4 = structural weight invariance (autoregressive path coefficient of life satisfaction); Model 5 = structural weight invariance (cross-lagged path from coefficient of smartphone dependence to negative relation); Model 6 = structural weight invariance (cross-lagged path coefficient from negative peer relation to life satisfaction); Model 7 = error covariance invariance; Model 8 = error covariance invariance; Model 9 = error covariance invariance. TLI: Tucker–Lewis index; CFI: comparative fit index; RMSEA: root mean squared error of approximation
Fig. 1Results of Autoregressive Cross-Lagged Model