4.7 Article

Who overuses Smartphones? Roles of virtues and parenting style in Smartphone addiction among Chinese college students

期刊

COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR
卷 65, 期 -, 页码 92-99

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.027

关键词

Parenting style; Virtues; Smartphone addiction; College students

资金

  1. Key Projects of Philosophy and Social Sciences Research, Ministry of Education [11JZD044]
  2. Specialized Research for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education [20130202110014]
  3. Education Department of Shaanxi Provincial Government [2013JK0031]
  4. Shaanxi Science and Technology Department [2015KTZDSF02-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several empirical studies have linked negative parenting style (i.e., parental rejection and overprotection) with a higher degree of Smartphone addiction. However, few studies have analyzed the potential protective factors (e.g., virtues) that may prevent addiction and promote effective Smartphone addiction interventions. Therefore, we examined if virtues (i.e., relationship, vitality, and conscientiousness) mediated the association between parenting style and Smartphone addiction among college students. Moreover, we examined whether these relationships were moderated by gender. Chinese college students (N = 742) ages 16-25 years completed the: 1) short-Egna Minnen av Barndoms Uppfostran-Chinese measure of parenting style, 2) 96-item Chinese Virtues Questionnaire, and the 3) Mobile Phone Addiction Index of Smartphone addiction. The results showed that negative parenting style significantly influenced college students' Smartphone addiction. Furthermore, virtues acted as a cognitive mechanism that mediated the association between negative parenting style and Smartphone addiction. Moreover, male virtues may be more sensitive to negative parenting style than female virtues. Relevant suggestions for college administrators, educators, parents, and future researchers are offered. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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