| Literature DB >> 35978789 |
Mindan Zhou1,2, Jianfei Zhu3, Zhibo Zhou4, Huiqi Zhou3, Guoping Ji2.
Abstract
The Internet plays a crucial part in the adolescent life. However, as a product of modernization, the Internet has brought a lifestyle different from that of our parents who tend to regard excessive exposure to the Internet as a manifestation of the adolescent Internet addiction. The cognitive bias against the Internet seem to have been arisen among the parents. Under the theoretical framework of self-efficacy and empathy, this study adopts PLS-SEM to analyze the contributing factors of the adolescent Internet addiction from the perspective of self-affirmation consciousness of parents. The result demonstrates that self-affirmation consciousness has a significant positive effect on the empathy process; the empathy process and self-affirmation have a significant positive effect on cognitive bias; and the empathy process acts as a mediator between self-affirmation and cognitive bias. To sum up, through the investigation of the causes of adolescent Internet addiction, this study explores the formation process of parents' cognitive bias toward the Internet under the influence of self-affirmation consciousness, verifying the practical effects of empathy in the process of promoting rational thinking of parents toward the Internet and adolescent Internet use, and at the same time promoting the harmonious development of parent-child relationships to a certain extent.Entities:
Keywords: Internet; adolescent Internet addiction; cognitive bias; empathy; self-affirmation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35978789 PMCID: PMC9376473 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.891473
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Research hypotheses model.
Construct reliability and validity.
| Cronbach’s alpha | rho_ | Composite reliability | Average variance extracted (AVE) | |
| Self-affirmation | 0.862 | 0.864 | 0.901 | 0.646 |
| Cognitive empathy | 0.915 | 0.921 | 0.932 | 0.663 |
| Affective empathy | 0.868 | 0.870 | 0.901 | 0.603 |
| Affective bias | 0.880 | 1.319 | 0.853 | 0.540 |
| Cognitive bias | 0.816 | 0.816 | 0.878 | 0.644 |
FIGURE 2Measurement model diagram.
Descriptive statistical analysis.
| Item | Demographic characteristics | Number | Percentage |
| Gender | Male | 177 | 43.50% |
| Female | 230 | 56.50% | |
| Age | Below 30 | 145 | 35.60% |
| 30–39 | 177 | 43.50% | |
| 40–50 | 77 | 18.90% | |
| Above 50 | 8 | 2.00% | |
| Occupation | Corporate employees | 87 | 21.40% |
| Party and government personnel | 66 | 16.20% | |
| Public institution employees | 109 | 26.80% | |
| Self-employed | 77 | 18.90% | |
| Others | 68 | 16.70% | |
| Educational background | Junior high school and below | 37 | 9.10% |
| Senior high school | 76 | 18.70% | |
| Undergraduate | 252 | 61.90% | |
| Postgraduate or above | 42 | 10.30% | |
| Item | Demographic characteristics | Number | Percentage |
| Gender | Male | 177 | 43.50% |
Scale items of adolescent Internet addiction.
| Study scale | Items’ tags | Measurement question items |
| Self-affirmation | ZK1 | I can solve the problem if I try my best. |
| ZK2 | It is easy for me to stick to my ideal and reach my goal. | |
| ZK3 | I am confident that I can deal effectively with anything unexpected. | |
| ZK4 | I trust I can handle the problem and face the difficulty calmly. | |
| ZK5 | When faced with problems, I can usually find several solutions. | |
| Affective empathy | QG1 | I’m happy when my child needs my help. |
| QG2 | When I think what I do is beneficial to my child, I will not worry much whether the relationship between my child and me will be affected. | |
| QG3 | When I think what I do is good for my child, I will not be affected by the opinions of others. | |
| QG4 | I think in most cases I can understand what my child thinks and does. | |
| QG5 | When I notice that what I do causes negative emotion in my child, I will stop immediately. | |
| QG6 | When my children are perplexed and upset, I often try my best to make them feel better. | |
| Cognitive empathy | RG1 | I can figure out the circumstances when the child is scared. |
| RG2 | I can tell at a glance when the child pretends to be happy. | |
| RG3 | I can generally understand why the child thinks this way about something. | |
| RG4 | I think it hard to figure out how the child feels about something. | |
| RG5 | I can generally predict the feelings of the child when something happens. | |
| RG6 | When the child gets angry, I can usually guess the reasons. | |
| RG7 | When the children are sad, I can notice the sadness from their faces. | |
| Affective bias | QP1 | I am delighted with a sense of accomplishment when the child succeeds after following my arrangement and instruction. |
| QP2 | I am frustrated when my child does not follow my instruction. | |
| QP3 | I hope the children can understand and recognize my care and efforts to them. | |
| QP4 | I hope my child can behave as I expect. | |
| QP5 | Since I’d not like to be thought irrational by the children, I will stop my action that they are against. | |
| Cognitive bias | AP1 | I find that the children use the Internet more for entertainment (like games). |
| AP2 | I don’t understand why the children are so dependent on the Internet. | |
| AP3 | When the children use the Internet, I can’t help paying attention to what they are doing. | |
| AP4 | In order to ensure children have a safer environment for their growing up, I will be wary of their exposure to the Internet. |
Construct reliability and validity.
| Cronbach’s alpha | rho_ | Composite reliability | Average variance extracted (AVE) |
|
| |
| Self-affirmation | 0.857 | 0.859 | 0.898 | 0.637 | – | – |
| Cognitive empathy | 0.849 | 0.849 | 0.886 | 0.526 | 0.521 | 0.186 |
| Affective empathy | 0.811 | 0.814 | 0.864 | 0.515 | 0.572 | 0.279 |
| Affective bias | 0.795 | 0.795 | 0.859 | 0.549 | 0.531 | 0.235 |
| Cognitive bias | 0.744 | 0.743 | 0.839 | 0.566 | 0.698 | 0.285 |
Model factor loads and collinear VIF values.
| Cognitive bias | Affective empathy | Affective bias | Cognitive empathy | Self-affirmation | VIF | |
| AP1 | 0.778 | 1.548 | ||||
| AP2 | 0.753 | 1.520 | ||||
| AP3 | 0.756 | 1.419 | ||||
| AP4 | 0.72 | 1.310 | ||||
| QG1 | 0.65 | 1.547 | ||||
| QG2 | 0.702 | 1.720 | ||||
| QG3 | 0.703 | 1.684 | ||||
| QG4 | 0.762 | 1.705 | ||||
| QG5 | 0.71 | 1.517 | ||||
| QG6 | 0.771 | 1.896 | ||||
| QP1 | 0.735 | 1.576 | ||||
| QP2 | 0.763 | 1.739 | ||||
| QP3 | 0.698 | 1.436 | ||||
| QP4 | 0.753 | 1.636 | ||||
| QP5 | 0.756 | 1.614 | ||||
| RG1 | 0.75 | 1.808 | ||||
| RG2 | 0.742 | 1.677 | ||||
| RG3 | 0.737 | 1.711 | ||||
| RG4 | 0.652 | 1.375 | ||||
| RG5 | 0.785 | 1.957 | ||||
| RG6 | 0.698 | 1.551 | ||||
| RG7 | 0.702 | 1.595 | ||||
| ZK1 | 0.808 | 1.942 | ||||
| ZK2 | 0.839 | 2.187 | ||||
| ZK3 | 0.789 | 1.813 | ||||
| ZK4 | 0.808 | 1.851 |
Model path coefficients.
| ( | Original sample ( | Mean | Standard deviation (STDEV) | ||
| Affective bias mediates → Cognitive bias | 0.396 | 0.396 | 0.05 | 7.958 | 0 |
| Affective empathy → Cognitive bias | 0.311 | 0.306 | 0.069 | 4.509 | 0 |
| Self-affirmation → Affective bias mediates | 0.656 | 0.656 | 0.047 | 14.067 | 0 |
| Self-affirmation → Affective empathy | 0.757 | 0.756 | 0.042 | 17.832 | 0 |
| Self-affirmation → Cognitive empathy | 0.722 | 0.722 | 0.045 | 16.071 | 0 |
| Cognitive empathy → Cognitive bias | 0.206 | 0.213 | 0.078 | 2.652 | 0.008 |
Table of test results for specific indirect effects.
| Original sample | Mean (M) | Standard deviation (STDEV) | Lower | Upper | |||
| Self-affirmation → Affective empathy → Cognitive bias | 0.235 | 0.232 | 0.055 | 4.262 | 0 | 0.135 | 0.335 |
| Self-affirmation → Affective bias mediates → Cognitive bias | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.039 | 6.728 | 0 | 0.186 | 0.338 |
| Self-affirmation → Cognitive empathy → Cognitive bias | 0.148 | 0.154 | 0.059 | 2.525 | 0.012 | 0.034 | 0.267 |