4.4 Article

Smartphone addiction in students: A qualitative examination of the components model of addiction using face-to-face interviews

期刊

JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL ADDICTIONS
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 780-793

出版社

AKADEMIAI KIADO ZRT
DOI: 10.1556/2006.8.2019.57

关键词

smartphone addiction; behavioral addiction; component model; directed content analysis; social factors; contextual factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims: Smartphone use has increased markedly over the past decade and recent research has demonstrated that a small minority of users experience problematic consequences, which in extreme cases have been contextualized as an addiction. To date, most research have been quantitative and survey-based. This study qualitatively examined the components model of addiction for both addicted and non-addicted users. Methods: A screening tool comprising 10 dichotomous items was administered to 40 college students. Of these, six addicted and six non-addicted participants were identified on the basis of their score on the screening tool and were asked to participate in a semi-structured interview. The interview questions were based on the components model of addiction comprising six domains (i.e., salience, withdrawal, conflict, relapse and reinstatement, tolerance, and mood modification). Directed content analysis was used to analyze the transcribed data and subthemes as well as emerging themes for the study as a whole were established. Results: There was some evidence of demarcation between smartphone addicts on the dimensions of salience, tolerance, withdrawal, and conflict. Mood modification was not much different in either group, and no participant reported relapse. Conclusions: The non-addicted group had much greater control over their smartphone usage than the addicted group on four (of six) aforementioned dimensions of behavioral addiction. Consequently, the main findings of this study provided good support for the components model of behavioral addiction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据