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.