CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 196Impact of Technology on AdolescentsChild Development and Digital TechnologySexuality, Behavior, and Technology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Problematic Mobile Phone Use and Addiction Across Generations: the Roles of Psychopathological Symptoms and Smartphone Use

Open access
Kuss, Daria J., Kanjo, Eiman, Crook-Rumsey, Mark, Kibowski, Fraenze, Wang, Grace Y., Sumich, Alex·2018·Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science
DOI 10.1007/s41347-017-0041-3PMC PMC6133055
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Contemporary technological advances have led to a significant increase in using mobile technologies. Recent research has pointed to potential problems as a consequence of mobile overuse, including addiction, financial problems, dangerous use (i.e. whilst driving) and prohibited use (i.e. use in forbidden areas). The aim of this study is to extend previous findings regarding the predictive power of psychopathological symptoms (depression, anxiety and stress), mobile phone use (i.e. calls, SMS, time spent on the phone, as well as the engagement in specific smartphone activities) across Generations X and Y on problematic mobile phone use in a sample of 273 adults. Findings revealed prohibited use and dependence were predicted by calls/day, time on the phone and using social media. Only for dependent mobile phone use (rather than prohibited), stress appeared as significant. Using social media and anxiety significantly predicted belonging to Generation Y, with calls per day predicted belonging to Generation X. This finding suggests Generation Y are more likely to use asynchronous social media-based communication, whereas Generation X engage more in synchronous communication. The findings have implications for prevention and awareness-raising efforts of possibly problematic mobile phone use for educators, parents and individuals, particularly including dependence and prohibited use.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s41347-017-0041-3

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 The mediator model
Fig. 1 The mediator modelCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 49 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Bedford, A., & Foulds, G. A. (1978). Delusions symptoms states inventory: state of anxiety and depression (manual). Berkshire: NFER.
  2. Gafni, R., & Geri, N. (2013). Generation Y vs Generation X: differences in smartphone adaptation. In Y. Eshet-Alkalai, A. Caspi, S. Eden, N. Geri, Y. Kalman, & Y. Yair (Eds.), Proceedings of the Chais Conference on Instructional Technologies Research 2013: learning in the technological era (pp. 18–23). Raanana: Open University of Israel.
  3. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2011). Mplus user’s guide (Sixth ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–194 of 194

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kuss, D. J., Kanjo, E., Crook-Rumsey, M., Kibowski, F., Wang, G. Y., & Sumich, A.
Affiliations
  • Nottingham Trent University (GB)
  • Auckland University of Technology (NZ)
Corresponding author
Kuss, Daria J.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-01-08
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
141-149
ISSN
2366-5963 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1007/s41347-017-0041-3
PMC
PMC6133055
OpenAlex
W2772395238
Cited by
196
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 7
FWCI
107.62
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Queensland ePrints (University of Southern Queensland) (acceptedVersion)
  • Nottingham Trent University's Institutional Repository (Nottingham Trent Repository) (acceptedVersion)
  • Tuwhera (Auckland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
British Academy (SG162119)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Keywords
problematic mobile phone use, mobile phone addiction, smartphone addiction, Generation X, millennials, psychiatric symptoms, depression, anxiety, stress, social media use, synchronous communication, asynchronous communication, mobile phone calls

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review