The Impact of Smartphone Addiction on Chinese University Students’ Physical Activity: Exploring the Role of Motivation and Self-Efficacy

Figures & data

Figure 1 Hypothetical model diagram.

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of the Participants

Variable	Type	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	628	35.1
	Female	1159	64.9
Age	18	747	41.8
	19	669	37.4
	20	289	16.2
	21	59	3.3
	22	14	1
	22+	4	0.4
Year of study	1st	1244	69.6
	2nd	482	27
	3rd	44	2.5
	4th or more	17	1
Birthplace	Urban	892	49.9
	Rural	895	50.1
Years of cell-phone usage	Less than 1 year	159	8.9
	0–3 years	429	24
	3.1–5 years	577	32.2
	5.1–7 years	413	23.1
	7.1–9 years	165	9.3
	Over 9 years	44	2.5
Average daily duration of smartphone usage (hour)	0–3	191	10.7
	3.1–6	873	48.9
	6.1–9	446	25
	More than 9	277	15.5
Average number of smartphone checks per day	Less than 50	1375	76.9
	51–100	215	12
	101–150	69	3.9
	More than 150	128	7.2

Table 2 Correlation Matrix, Means, and Standard Deviations

Constructs	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
SUH	6.35	3.25	1
UST	49.33	51.27	0.219**	1
SA	3.33	0.79	0.280**	0.164**	1
IM	4.30	1.45	−0.105**	−0.013	−0.058*	1
BRM	4.81	1.28	−0.064**	0.013	−0.023	0.803**	1
SM	3.65	1.14	−0.050*	0.033	0.065**	0.683**	0.645**	1
SE	5.57	1.92	−0.140**	−0.02	−0.102**	0.632**	0.562**	0.450**	1
PA	4548.46	2995.22	−0.060*	−0.002	−0.153**	0.295**	0.208**	0.145**	0.281**	1

Note: *ҏ < 0.05, **ҏ < 0.01.

Abbreviations: SUH, smartphone usage hours; UST, unlock smartphone times; SA, smartphone addiction; IM, intrinsic motivation; BRM, body-related motivation; SM, social motivation; SE, physical activity self-efficacy; PA, weekly physical activity (MET- minutes); SD, standard deviation.

Table 3 SEM Results for the Three Models

Construct/Item	Model 1					Model 2					Model 3
	SL	R^2	p	CR	AVE	SL	R^2	p	CR	AVE	SL	R^2	p	CR	AVE
Smartphone usage (SU)				0.45	0.30				0.45	0.30				0.45	0.30
SUH	0.63	0.40	***			0.63	0.41	***			0.63	0.41	***
UST	0.44	0.19	***			0.44	0.19	***			0.44	0.19	***
Smartphone addiction (SA)				0.84	0.34				0.84	0.34				0.84	0.34
SA 1	0.50	0.25	***			0.50	0.25	***			0.50	0.25	***
SA 2	0.56	0.31	***			0.56	0.31	***			0.56	0.31	***
SA 3	0.57	0.33	***			0.57	0.32	***			0.58	0.33	***
SA 4	0.63	0.40	***			0.63	0.40	***			0.63	0.40	***
SA 5	0.67	0.45	***			0.67	0.45	***			0.67	0.44	***
SA 6	0.49	0.24	***			0.49	0.24	***			0.49	0.24	***
SA 7	0.70	0.49	***			0.70	0.49	***			0.70	0.49	***
SA 8	0.51	0.26	***			0.51	0.26	***			0.52	0.27	***
SA 9	0.65	0.43	***			0.65	0.42	***			0.65	0.43	***
SA 10	0.54	0.29	***			0.54	0.29	***			0.54	0.29	***
Intrinsic motivation (IM)				0.88	0.79
MEM	0.90	0.81	***
MMT	0.88	0.77	***
Body-related motivation (BRM)									0.84	0.64
MHB						0.92	0.85	***
MSM						0.84	0.71	***
MAR						0.60	0.37	***
Social motivation (SM)														0.76	0.45
MAA											0.70	0.50	***
MOE											0.57	0.33	***
MPI											0.55	0.30	***
MCT											0.83	0.68	***
Physical activity self-efficacy (SE)														0.90	0.75
Internal	0.88	0.78	***	0.90	0.75	0.88	0.78	***	0.90	0.75	0.88	0.77	***
Competition	0.90	0.82	***			0.91	0.82	***			0.90	0.81	***
Situational	0.81	0.66	***			0.81	0.65	***			0.82	0.67	***

Note: ***p < 0.001.

Abbreviations: SL, standardized loading; β, path coefficient; CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted; SUH, smartphone usage hours; UST, unlock smartphone times; MEM, enjoyment motivation; MMT, mastery motivation; MHB, health benefit; MSM, stress management; MAR, appearance motivation; MAA, affiliation motivation; MOE, others’ expectations; MPI, policy intervention; MCT, competition motivation; Internal, internal feeling; Competition, competing demands; Situational, situational/interpersonal.

Figure 2 Smartphone addiction, intrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy affects on physical activity.

Figure 3 Smartphone addiction, body-related motivation, and self-efficacy affects on physical activity.

Figure 4 Smartphone addiction, social motivation, and self-efficacy affects on physical activity.

Table 4 Summary of SEM Hypothesis Testing

Hypotheses	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
	β	C.R.	p	β	C.R.	p	β	C.R.	p	Results
H1: SU→SA	0.52	9.00	***	0.52	9.00	***	0.52	8.99	***	Supported
H2: SA→SE	−0.15	−5.41	***	−0.15	−5.41	***	−0.15	−5.39	***	Supported
H3: SA→IM	0.01	0.67	0.50							Rejected
H4: SA→BRM				0.03	1.50	0.13				Rejected
H5: SA→SM							0.16	5.91	***	Supported
H6: IM→PA	0.22	5.85	***							Supported
H7: BRM→PA				0.09	2.63	*				Rejected
H8: SM→PA							0.04	1.31	0.09	Rejected
H9: SE→PA	0.11	3.085	***	0.20	7.05	***	0.26	8.05	***	Supported
H10: SE→IM	0.71	28.58	***							Supported
H11: SE→BRM				0.64	20.53	***				Supported
H12: SE→SM							0.60	21.90	***	Supported
H13: SA→ PA	−0.12	−4.83	***	−0.12	−4.77	***	−0.12	−4.78	***	Supported

Note: ***p < 0.001, *p < 0.05.

Abbreviations: SU, smartphone usage; SA, smartphone addiction; IM, intrinsic motivation; BRM, body-related motivation; SM, social motivation; PS, physical activity self-efficacy; PA, physical activity; β, path coefficient; C.R., critical ratios.

Table 5 Mediation of the Effect of Smartphone Addiction on Physical Activity Through Self-Efficacy, Intrinsic Motivation, Body-Related Motivation, and Social Motivation

	Point	Product of Coefficients		Bias-Corrected CI
	Estimation	Standard Error	Z	Lower	Upper
		Direct effect (Model 1)
SA→PA	−0.265	0.056	−4.732***	−0.496	−0.218
		Indirect effect
SA→SE→PA (Path 1)	−0.044	0.016	−2.75**	−0.016	−0.003
SA→IM→PA (Path2)	0.007	0.011	0.636	−0.003	0.007
SA→SE→IM→PA (Path 3)	−0.051	0.014	−3.642***	−0.019	−0.006
		Total indirect effect
path1+path2+path3	−0.088	0.023	−3.826***	−0.027	−0.009
		Total effect
SA→PA	−0.353	0.059	−5.983***	−0.112	−0.062
		Difference
path1-path3	−0.006	0.021	−0.285	−0.005	0.014
		Ratio
Path1/Total	0.125	0.048	2.604**	0.033	0.193
Path3/Total	0.143	0.042	3.404***	0.074	0.222
		Direct effect (Model 2)
SA→PA	−0.265	0.057	−4.649***	−0.370	−0.148
		Indirect effect
SA→SE→PA (Path 1)	−0.077	0.019	−4.052***	−0.119	−0.044
SA→BRM→PA (Path2)	0.007	0.006	1.166	−0.001	0.021
SA→SE→BRM→PA (Path 3)	−0.018	0.008	−2.250*	−0.036	−0.005
		Total indirect effect
path1+path2+path3	−0.088	0.021	−4.190***	−0.132	−0.049
		Total effect
SA→PA	−0.353	0.059	−5.983***	−0.466	−0.236
		Difference
path1−path3	−0.058	0.021	−2.761**	−0.107	−0.025
		Ratio
Path1/Total	0.217	0.061	3.557***	0.126	0.368
Path3/Total	0.051	0.023	2.217*	0.016	0.109
		Direct effect (Model 3)
SA→PA	−0.273	0.058	−4.706***	−0.380	−0.156
		Indirect effect
SA→SE→PA (Path 1)	−0.086	0.021	−4.095***	−0.132	−0.050
SA→SM→PA (Path2)	0.015	0.012	1.250	−0.006	0.044
SA→SE→SM→PA (Path 3)	−0.009	0.007	−1.285	−0.025	0.003
		Total indirect effect
path1+path2+path3	−0.079	0.024	−3.451***	−0.129	−0.033
		Total effect
SA→PA	−0.353	0.059	−6.324***	−0.466	−0.235
		Ratio
Path1/Total	0.244	0.066	3.723***	0.144	0.405

Notes: The number of bootstrap samples was 5000. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. CIs (confidence intervals) not containing zero were considered significant at the 0.05 level.

Abbreviations: SA, smartphone addiction; IM, intrinsic motivation; BRM, body-related motivation; SM, social motivation; SE, physical activity self-efficacy; PA, physical activity.