| Literature DB >> 35910898 |
Xinwei Li1,2, Weijian Li1,2, Mengxian Liu3, Weilong Xiao1,2, Hui Zhou4.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Mobile phone addiction among college students has gained considerable research attention because of its adverse effects on their health and academic performance. However, little is known about the mechanisms underlying the relationship between shyness and mobile phone addiction among college students.Entities:
Keywords: college students; mobile phone addiction tendency; self-control; shyness; social anxiety
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35910898 PMCID: PMC9326250 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.902425
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1A conceptual model of multiple mediator framework in which social anxiety and self-control mediate the relationship between shyness and mobile phone addiction tendency.
Confirmatory factor analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4-factor modela | 5260.00 (1056) | 4.981 | 0.035 | 0.951 | 0.946 | 0.042 | |
| 3-factor modelb | 7828.00 (1059) | 7.391 | 2568.01*** | 0.045 | 0.921 | 0.913 | 0.051 |
| 2-factor modelc | 9178.66 (1061) | 8.651 | 3918.67*** | 0.049 | 0.906 | 0.895 | 0.056 |
| 1-factor modeld | 11796.38 (1062) | 11.108 | 6536.39*** | 0.056 | 0.875 | 0.862 | 0.064 |
N = 3,189.
aHypothesized 4-factor model.
bCombining SC and SA into one factor.
cCombining Shy, SC, SA into one factor.
dAll factors were combined into a single factor. ***p < 0.001.
Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of all variables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 19.00 | 3.70 | – | ||||
| Shyness | 2.47 | 0.64 | 0.01 | – | |||
| Social anxiety | 1.94 | 0.81 | −0.02 | 0.70** | – | ||
| Self-control | 3.35 | 0.65 | 0.02 | −0.47** | −0.52** | – | |
| MPAT | 2.01 | 0.71 | −0.01 | 0.50** | 0.50** | −0.57** | – |
N = 3,189. MPAT, Mobile Phone Addiction Tendency. **p < 0.01.
Results of mediation analysis of social anxiety.
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| X: shyness | 0.90*** | 0.02 | 0.86, 0.93 | 0.34*** | 0.02 | 0.29, 0.38 |
| M: SA | – | – | – | 0.25*** | 0.02 | 0.21, 0.28 |
| age | −0.01 | 0.02 | −0.04, 0.04 | −0.01 | 0.00 | −0.01, 0.00 |
| gender | −0.01 | 0.02 | −0.04,0.04 | −0.01 | 0.02 | −0.05,0.04 |
| Constant | −0.17* | 0.07 | −0.32, −0.03 | 0.71*** | 0.08 | 0.57,0.86 |
SA, Social Anxiety; MPAT, Mobile Phone Addiction Tendency. .
Results of mediation analysis of self-control.
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| X: shyness | −0.48*** | 0.02 | −0.51, −0.45 | 0.33*** | 0.02 | 0.29, 0.37 |
| M: SC | – | – | – | −0.47*** | 0.02 | −0.51, −0.44 |
| age | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00,0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | −0.01,0.01 |
| gender | −0.01 | 0.02 | −0.05,0.03 | −0.01 | 0.02 | −0.05,0.03 |
| Constant | 4.54*** | 0.05 | 4.44, 4.63 | 2.77*** | 0.10 | 2.58, 2.96 |
SC, Self-control; MPAT, Mobile Phone Addiction Tendency. ***p < 0.001.
Testing the pathways of the multiple mediation model.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Shyness → social anxiety | 0.90*** | 0.02 | 0.86 | 0.93 |
| Shyness → self-control | −0.21*** | 0.02 | −0.26 | −0.17 |
| Social anxiety → self-control | −0.30*** | 0.02 | −0.33 | −0.27 |
| Shyness → mobile phone addiction tendency | 0.24*** | 0.02 | 0.20 | 0.29 |
| Social anxiety → mobile phone addiction tendency | 0.12*** | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.15 |
| Self-control → mobile phone addiction tendency | −0.43*** | 0.02 | −0.47 | −0.40 |
|
| ||||
| Shyness → social anxiety → mobile phone addcition tendency | 0.10 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.13 |
| Shyness → self-control → mobile phone addcition tendency | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.10 |
| Shyness → social anxiety → self-control → mobile phone addiction tendency | 0.10 | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.12 |
N = 3,189. ***p < 0.001.