| Literature DB >> 36011810 |
Xiao-Pan Xu1,2, Qing-Qi Liu3,4, Zhen-Hua Li4, Wen-Xian Yang5.
Abstract
Mobile social media addiction has been a pressing issue in adolescents. The present study examined the mediation of loneliness between peer phubbing and mobile social media addiction among Chinese adolescents and tested whether gender could moderate the direct and indirect effects of peer phubbing. A total of 830 adolescents between 11 and 18 years of age (Mage = 14.480, SDage = 1.789) completed an anonymous self-report survey. The results showed that peer phubbing was positively associated with mobile social media addiction. Loneliness partially mediated peer phubbing and adolescent mobile social media addiction. There were significant gender differences in the direct and indirect effects of peer phubbing on mobile social media addiction. The direct effect of peer phubbing and the indirect effect through loneliness were relatively higher in girls than in boys. The results highlight the critical role of loneliness in linking peer phubbing to adolescent mobile social media addiction and the vital role of gender in moderating the direct and indirect impacts of peer phubbing. The findings promote a better understanding of how peer phubbing is associated with adolescent mobile phone addiction and for whom the effect of peer phubbing is potent.Entities:
Keywords: adolescents; gender; loneliness; mobile social media addiction; peer phubbing
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36011810 PMCID: PMC9407745 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191610176
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Test for the gender differences in the core variables.
| Variables | Group |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peer phubbing | Boys | 2.728 | 0.895 | −0.723 | 0.470 |
| Girls | 2.773 | 0.917 | |||
| Loneliness | Boys | 1.890 | 0.569 | −4.411 | <0.001 |
| Girls | 2.089 | 0.734 | |||
| Mobile social media addiction | Boys | 2.409 | 1.213 | −2.415 | <0.01 |
| Girls | 2.707 | 1.295 |
Intercorrelations between variables.
| Variables |
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Peer phubbing | 2.753 | 0.907 | — | 0.343 *** | 0.154 *** |
| 2. Loneliness | 1.999 | 0.671 | 0.548 *** | — | 0.245 *** |
| 3. Mobile social media addiction | 2.571 | 1.267 | 0.508 *** | 0.433 *** | — |
Note. *** p < 0.001. Values above and below the diagonal represent girl and boy samples, respectively.
Mediation analysis of the role of loneliness.
| Outcome Variables | Independent Variables | β |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mobile social media addiction | Constant | 0.001 | 0.032 | 0.001 | 0.999 |
| Age | −0.097 ** | 0.031 | −3.154 | <0.01 | |
| Daily mobile phone use time | 0.170 *** | 0.037 | 4.575 | <0.001 | |
| Peer phubbing | 0.339 *** | 0.035 | 9.828 | <0.001 | |
| Loneliness | Constant | 0.001 | 0.031 | 0.001 | 0.999 |
| Age | −0.091 ** | 0.031 | −2.954 | <0.01 | |
| Daily mobile phone use time | 0.017 | 0.033 | 0.534 | 0.594 | |
| Peer phubbing | 0.453 *** | 0.037 | 12.375 | <0.001 | |
| Mobile social media addiction | Constant | 0.001 | 0.031 | 0.001 | 0.999 |
| Age | −0.074 * | 0.030 | −2.483 | <0.05 | |
| Daily mobile phone use time | 0.166 *** | 0.035 | 4.684 | <0.001 | |
| Peer phubbing | 0.225 *** | 0.037 | 6.033 | <0.001 | |
| Loneliness | 0.252 *** | 0.039 | 6.533 | <0.001 |
Note. N = 830. Bootstrap sample size = 5000. LL = low limit, CI = confidence interval, UL = upper limit. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Moderated mediation analysis.
| Regression Models | β |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mediator variable model for predicting loneliness | ||||
| Constant | −0.004 | 0.030 | −0.125 | 0.901 |
| Age | −0.078 | 0.031 | −2.525 | 0.012 |
| Daily mobile phone use time | 0.015 | 0.031 | 0.488 | 0.626 |
| Gender | 0.256 *** | 0.060 | 4.259 | <0.001 |
| Peer phubbing | 0.448 *** | 0.034 | 13.021 | <0.001 |
| Peer phubbing × Gender | 0.300 *** | 0.069 | 4.336 | <0.001 |
| Dependent variable model for predicting mobile social media addiction | ||||
| Constant | −0.004 | 0.031 | −0.121 | 0.904 |
| Age | −0.071 | 0.030 | −2.380 | 0.018 |
| Gender | 0.147 * | 0.064 | 2.302 | <0.05 |
| Peer phubbing | 0.238 *** | 0.035 | 6.732 | <0.001 |
| Loneliness | 0.212 *** | 0.040 | 5.293 | <0.001 |
| Peer phubbing × Gender | 0.296 *** | 0.066 | 4.465 | <0.001 |
| Conditional direct effect analysis at values of the moderator (gender) | β | Boot SE | BootLLCI | BootULCI |
| Boys | 0.077 | 0.051 | −0.023 | 0.176 |
| Girls | 0.373 *** | 0.046 | 0.282 | 0.464 |
| Conditional indirect effect analysis at values of the moderator (gender) | β | Boot SE | BootLLCI | BootULCI |
| Boys | 0.060 ** | 0.015 | 0.035 | 0.095 |
| Girls | 0.124 *** | 0.025 | 0.078 | 0.178 |
Note. N = 830. Bootstrap sample size = 5000. LL = low limit, CI = confidence interval, UL = upper limit. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Figure 1The relationship between peer phubbing and loneliness in girls and boys.
Figure 2The relationship between peer phubbing and mobile social media addiction in girls and boys.