4.4 Article

Comparison of risk and protective factors associated with smartphone addiction and Internet addiction

Journal

JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL ADDICTIONS
Volume 4, Issue 4, Pages 308-314

Publisher

AKADEMIAI KIADO ZRT
DOI: 10.1556/2006.4.2015.043

Keywords

smartphone addiction; Internet addiction; gender differences; character strengths; resilience

Categories

Funding

  1. Korea Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea [A120157]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and aims: Smartphone addiction is a recent concern that has resulted from the dramatic increase in worldwide smartphone use. This study assessed the risk and protective factors associated with smartphone addiction in college students and compared these factors to those linked to Internet addiction. Methods: College students (N = 448) in South Korea completed the Smartphone Addiction Scale, the Young's Internet Addiction Test, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, the Beck Depression Inventory I, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Trait Version), the Character Strengths Test, and the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale. The data were analyzed using multiple linear regression analyses. Results: The risk factors for smartphone addiction were female gender, Internet use, alcohol use, and anxiety, while the protective factors were depression and temperance. In contrast, the risk factors for Internet addiction were male gender, smartphone use, anxiety, and wisdom/knowledge, while the protective factor was courage. Discussion: These differences may result from unique features of smartphones, such as high availability and primary use as a tool for interpersonal relationships. Conclusions: Our findings will aid clinicians in distinguishing between predictive factors for smartphone and Internet addiction and can consequently be utilized in the prevention and treatment of smartphone addiction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available