4.4 Article

Smartphone addiction proneness in relation to sleep and morningness-eveningness in German adolescents

期刊

JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL ADDICTIONS
卷 5, 期 3, 页码 465-473

出版社

AKADEMIAI KIADO ZRT
DOI: 10.1556/2006.5.2016.056

关键词

adolescents; circadian preference; morningness-eveningness; smartphone addiction proneness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Mobile phones are an important part of adolescents' life. In this study, the relationships among smartphone addiction, age, gender, and chronotype of German adolescents were examined. Materials and methods: Two studies focused on two different measures of smartphone addiction. The Smartphone Addiction Proneness Scale (SAPS) was applied to 342 younger adolescents (13.39 +/- 1.77; 176 boys, 165 girls, and 1 not indicated) in Study 1 and the Smartphone Addiction Scale was applied to 208 older adolescents (17.07 +/- 4.28; 146 girls and 62 boys) in Study 2, both samples in southwest Germany. In addition, a demographic questionnaire and the Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM) and sleep measures were implemented. Results: The most remarkable result of this study was that morningness-eveningness (as measured by CSM scores) is an important predictor for smartphone addiction; even stronger than sleep duration. Evening oriented adolescents scored higher on both smartphone addiction scales. In addition, gender is an important predictor for smartphone addiction and girls are more prone to become addicted. In addition, while sleep duration on weekdays negatively predicted SAPS, age, sleep duration on weekends, and midpoint of sleep on weekdays and weekends did not predicted smartphone addiction in both scales. The analysis of covariance revealed statistically significant effects of the covariates gender and age in both studies, as well as the main effect of chronotype. According to the t-test results, girls had higher scores than boys in smartphone addiction. Conclusion: Evening types and girls are more prone to become smartphone addicted.

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