Non-social features of smartphone use are most related to depression, anxiety and problematic smartphone use
Non-social features of smartphone use are most related to depression, anxiety and problematic smartphone use
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.023
复制
发表时间：
2017-04-01
影响因子：
9.9
通讯作者：
Hall, Brian J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Elhai, Jon D.;Levine, Jason C.;Hall, Brian J.
人们对智能手机功能的机制知之甚少，这些功能用于密封精神病理学和有问题的智能手机使用之间的关系。我们的目的是调查两种特定的智能手机使用类型的过程中使用和社交使用与抑郁症和焦虑症的关联，并在会计焦虑/抑郁症和有问题的智能手机使用之间的关系。社交智能手机使用涉及社交功能参与（例如，社交网络、消息传送），而过程使用涉及非社交特征参与（例如，新闻消费、娱乐、放松）。来自亚马逊土耳其机器人网络劳动力市场的308名参与者回答了关于他们抑郁和焦虑症状的问卷，以及智能手机使用问题沿着流程和社交智能手机使用维度。根据年龄和性别进行统计调整后，我们发现焦虑症状与过程与社交智能手机使用之间的关联更强。抑郁症状的严重程度与更多的社交智能手机使用呈负相关。过程智能手机的使用与有问题的智能手机使用更密切相关。最后，过程智能手机的使用占焦虑的严重程度和有问题的智能手机使用之间的关系。(C)2016爱思唯尔有限公司版权所有
Little is known about the mechanisms of smartphone features that are used in sealing relationships between psychopathology and problematic smartphone use. Our purpose was to investigate two specific smartphone usage types process use and social use for associations with depression and anxiety; and in accounting for relationships between anxiety/depression and problematic smartphone use. Social smartphone usage involves social feature engagement (e.g., social networking, messaging), while process usage involves non-social feature engagement (e.g., news consumption, entertainment, relaxation). 308 participants from Amazon's Mechanical Turk intemet labor market answered questionnaires about their depression and anxiety symptoms, and problematic smartphone use along with process and social smartphone use dimensions. Statistically adjusting for age and sex, we discovered the association between anxiety symptoms was stronger with process versus social smartphone use. Depression symptom severity was negatively associated with greater social smartphone use. Process smartphone use was more strongly associated with problematic smartphone use. Finally, process smartphone use accounted for relationships between anxiety severity and problematic smartphone use. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.