Social-emotional model of internet addiction

Figures & data

Figure 1. Social-emotional model of internet addiction.

Table 1. Goodness of fit indices and acceptable limits.

Indices	Acceptable limits
χ^2/df	≤5 Acceptable fit, ≤3 perfect fit (Kline, 2005; Sumer, 2000)
RMSEA	≤0.10 Weak fit, ≤0.08 good fit, ≤0.05 perfect fit (Sumer, 2000; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001)
GFI	≥0.90 good fit (Sumer, 2000)
CFI	≥0.90 acceptable fit, ≥0.95 good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Sumer, 2000)
IFI	≥0.90 acceptable fit, ≥0.95 good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999)
TLI (NNFI)	≥0.90 acceptable fit, ≥0.95 good fit (Hu & Bentler, 2001; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001)

Note: As cited in Savci and Aysan [46].

Table 2. Correlations between the variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Self-monitoring total	1
2. Willingness to self-censor	−0.20**	1
3. Social anxiety total	−0.25**	0.47**	1
4. Negative affect	−0.10	0.22**	0.38**	1
5. Internet use	0.11*	−0.02	0.10	0.20**	1
6. Internet addiction	−0.03	0.16**	0.43**	0.43**	0.51**	1

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

Figure 2. The path diagram related to the social-emotional model of internet addiction.

Table 3. Proposed hypothetical model’s standardized regression values, t values and explained variance.

	λ	t		R^2
Social anxiety ← self-monitoring	−0.20	−30.359***		0.26
Social anxiety ← willingness to self-censor	0.47	80.879***
Negative affect ← social anxiety	0.41	70.377***		0.17
Internet use ← negative affect	0.20	30.64***		0.04
Internet addiction ← negative affect	0.34	70.534***		0.37
Internet addiction ← internet use	0.45	100.053***
SM_F_2 ← self-monitoring	0.86			0.74
SM_F_1 ← self-monitoring	0.87	40.670***		0.75
SA_F_1 ← social anxiety	0.89			0.79
SA_F_2 ← social anxiety	0.78	160.767***		0.69
SA_F_3 ← social anxiety	0.86	190.047***		0.75

***p < .001

Savci M, Aysan F. Relationship between impulsivity, social media usage and loneliness. Educ Process: Int J. 2016;5(2):106–115.

 Google Scholar