Examining the Association Between Boredom Proneness and Bedtime Procrastination Among Chinese College Students: A Sequential Mediation Model with Mobile Phone Addiction and Negative Emotions

Figures & data

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations and the Bivariate Correlations of Studied Variables

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1 Gender^a	1.00
2 Grade	0.06	1.00
3 Age	0.03	0.79***	1.00
4 BP	−0.03	0.05	0.04	1.00
5 BPS	0.14***	−0.04	−0.04	0.23***	1.00
6 MPA	−0.08*	−0.18***	−0.25***	0.22***	0.22***	1.00
7 NE	−0.07	0.02	0.02	0.49***	0.23***	0.38***	1.00
8 DEP	−0.06	0.03	0.04	0.52***	0.21***	0.33***	0.95***	1.00
9 ANX	−0.09*	−0.01	−0.14	0.41***	0.19***	0.39***	0.96***	0.86***	1.00
10 STR	−0.06	0.04	0.03	0.47***	0.26***	0.37***	0.95***	0.84***	0.87***	1.00
Mean	–	–	20.36	43.48	3.35	48.56	16.03	4.98	5.15	5.91
SD	–	–	1.69	7.94	0.66	14.47	12.93	4.63	4.45	4.51

Notes: ^aMale = 0, Female = 1. *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.

Abbreviations: BP, boredom proneness; BPS, bedtime procrastination; MPA, mobile phone addiction; NE, negative emotions; DEP, depression; ANX, anxiety; STR, stress; SD, standard deviations.

Table 2 Regression Analysis of Mobile Phone Addiction and Negative Emotions in the Relation Between Boredom Proneness and Bedtime Procrastination

Outcome variable	Predictor variable	R^2	F	β	t	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI
Bedtime procrastination	Gender^a	0.077	13.735***	0.150	4.002***	0.076	0.223
	Age			−0.012	−0.198	−0.133	0.108
	Grade			−0.047	−0.770	−0.168	0.073
	Boredom proneness			0.235	6.281***	0.161	0.308
MPA	Gender^a	0.121	22.796***	−0.068	−1.860	−0.140	0.004
	Age			−0.294	−4.912***	−0.411	−0.176
	Grade			0.045	0.756	−0.072	0.163
	Boredom proneness			0.228	6.260***	0.157	0.300
Negative emotions	Gender^a	0.324	63.428***	−0.039	−1.218	−0.102	0.024
	Age			0.087	1.632	−0.018	0.192
	Grade			−0.011	−0.211	−0.114	0.092
	MPA			0.302	8.870***	0.235	0.369
	Boredom proneness			0.419	12.719***	0.354	0.484
Bedtime procrastination	Gender^a	0.117	14.667***	0.167	4.547***	0.095	0.239
	Age			0.035	0.566	−0.086	0.155
	Grade			−0.055	−0.910	−0.173	0.063
	Negative emotions			0.112	2.510*	0.024	0.199
	MPA			0.159	3.850***	0.078	0.240
	Boredom proneness			0.144	3.430**	0.062	0.227

Notes: ^aMale = 0, Female = 1. Boot LLCI, and Boot ULCI refer, respectively, to the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence interval of the indirect effects estimated by the percentile bootstrap method with deviation correction. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Figure 1 The chain mediation model for the association between boredom proneness and bedtime procrastination.

Note: (A) The total effect model; (B) The chain mediating effect of MPA and negative emotions. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Table 3 Bootstrap Analysis of the Standardized Indirect Effects Between the Main Variables

Pathways	Effect	Boot SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI	Relative Mediation Effect
Total effect	0.235	0.037	0.161	0.308	–
Direct effect	0.144	0.042	0.062	0.227	–
Total indirect effect	0.091	0.021	0.050	0.132	38.72%
Indirect effect 1 (Boredom proneness → MPA → Bedtime procrastination)	0.036	0.010	0.018	0.058	15.32%
Indirect effect 2 (Boredom proneness → Negative emotion → Bedtime procrastination)	0.047	0.019	0.011	0.084	20.00%
Indirect effect 3 (Boredom proneness → MPA → Negative emotion → Bedtime procrastination)	0.008	0.003	0.002	0.014	3.40%

Notes: BootSE, BootLLCI, and BootULCI refer to the standard error of indirect effect estimated by percentile Bootstrap method of deviation correction and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence interval of the indirect effects estimated by the percentile bootstrap method with deviation correction respectively.