Skip to main content

Table 4 Linear regression results for the associations between family factors and development of AIA/AIA symptoms a,b

From: Parent-adolescent interaction and risk of adolescent internet addiction: a population-based study in Shanghai

Potential risk factors

Total scorec

Seven subscale scoresc

  

Lack of Control

Socialization

Planning

Negative-Life-Consequences

Time-Consuming

Tolerance

Withdrawal

Parental attitude toward adolescent internet use

Agree

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Relatively agree

1.0(1.5)d

0.5(0.2)d

0.6(0.3)d

0.2(0.2) d

0.1(0.3)d

-0.2(0.2)d

-0.0(0.2)d

-0.2(0.5)d

General

0.7(1.5)

0.4(0.2)

0.6(0.3)

0.4(0.2)

0.4(0.3)

-0.2(0.2)

-0.3(0.2)

-0.6(0.6)

Relatively disagree

5.8(1.6)*** e

1.1(0.2)*** e

1.8(0.3)*** e

1.1(0.2)*** e

1.1(0.3)*** e

-0.1(0.2)

0.4(0.2)* e

0.5(0.6)

Strongly disagree

11.1(2.5)***

1.4(0.3)***

2.4(0.5)***

1.7(0.4)***

1.7(0.4)***

-0.3(0.4)

1.0(0.3)***

2.2(0.9)*

Mother-adolescent relationship

Very good

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Relatively good

5.3(0.9)***

0.4(0.2)

1.0(0.2)***

0.9(0.1)***

1.0(0.2)***

0.1(0.2)

0.6(0.1)***

0.7(0.4)

General

5.2(1.4)***

-0.1(0.2)

1.1(0.3)***

0.6(0.2)**

1.0(0.2)***

0.1(0.2)

0.6(0.2)***

1.0(0.6)

Relatively & very bad

12.0 (3.2)***

0.7(0.5)

2.4(0.7)***

1.4(0.5)**

1.5(0.6)**

1.0(0.5)

1.3(0.4)**

2.0(1.2)

Father-adolescent relationship

Very good

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Relatively good

2.6(1.1)

0.0(0.2)

0.5(0.2)

0.3(0.2)

0.4(0.2)

0.0(0.3)

0.5(0.3)

1.3(0.3)***

General

4.7(2.3)

0.3(0.2)

0.6(0.3)

0.5(0.2)

0.4(0.2)

0.2(0.2)

0.1(0.2)

2.2(0.4)***

Relatively & very bad

4.2(2.2)

0.1(0.3)

0.8(0.5)

0.4(0.3)

0.5(0.4)

0.2(0.1)

-0.3(0.2)

2.8(0.8)***

Parental marriage

Married-and-together

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Married-but-separated

8.4(3.4)*

1.1(0.5)*

1.3(0.7)

0.8(0.5)

0.5(0.6)

0.1(0.5)

0.8(0.4)

3.5(1.2)**

Divorced

0.9(2.4)

0.3(0.3)

0.0(0.5)

0.0(0.3)

-0.2(0.4)

0.3(0.3)

0.1(0.3)

0.1(0.9)

Widowed

1.4(4.3)

0.1(0.6)

0.1(0.9)

0.4(0.6)

-0.3(0.8)

0.5(0.6)

-0.1(0.5)

0.7(1.6)

Remarried

-0.0(2.3)

0.2(0.4)

-0.2(0.5)

0.2(0.4)

-0.3(0.5)

0.2(0.4)

-0.5(0.3)

0.9(1.0)

Family structure

Nuclear family

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

Three-generation family

-1.7(1.0)

-0.2(0.1)

-0.3(0.2)

-0.2(0.1)

-0.3(0.2)*

-0.0(0.1)

-0.3(0.1)*

-0.4(0.4)

Single parent family

0.8(2.6)

-0.1(0.4)

0.2(0.5)

0.0(0.4)

0.4(0.5)

0.1(0.4)

0.2(0.3)

-0.1(1.0)

Left-behind adolescents

-0.3(2.3)

-0.1(0.3)

-0.5(0.5)

-0.1(0.3)

0.3(0.4)

0.9(0.3)**

-0.3(0.3)

-0.7(0.8)

Weekend parents

1.9(2.4)

0.5(0.3)

0.7(0.5)

0.1(0.4)

-0.4(0.4)

0.0(0.4)

0.1(0.3)

1.0(0.9)

  1. aAIA = adolescent internet addiction.
  2. bLinear regressions were used to model the relationship between family factors and AIA and between family factors and symptoms of 7 subscales. Total scores and subscale scores of DRM-52 Scale were respectively taken as dependent variables. Adjusted R squares for these models were around 0.3.
  3. cIn these models, adolescent gender, age, grade, the type of school, monthly consumption expenditure, academic achievement levels and family social economic status were adjusted. Two variables including family structure and marital status were forced.
  4. dResults are reported as Coefficient Estimate (SE).
  5. e***indicated p < 0.001, **indicated p < 0.01, *indicated p < 0.05.