Storing, Not Reading: Investigating the Link Between Upward Social Comparison via Social Media and Digital Hoarding Behavior in Chinese Youth

Figures & data

Figure 1 The hypothesized moderated mediation model.

Table 1 Statistical Table of Basic Information of Effective Samples

Statistical Items	Specific Content	Statistical Value	Percentage
Gender	Male	410	44.2%
	Female	517	55.8%
Age	14–20	277	29.9%
	21–25	348	37.5%
	26–30	197	21.3%
	31–3 5	105	11.3%
Educational background	Middle school and below	151	16.3%
	High school or vocational school	198	21.4%
	College or Bachelor	369	39.8%
	Master and above	209	22.5%

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Variables

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1.Upward social comparison	3.50	0.74	1.00
2.FoMO	3.00	0.82	0.50**	1.00
3.Mindfulness	1.86	0.72	−0.49**	−0.46**	1.00
4.Digital hoarding behavior	3.40	0.76	0.54**	0.53**	−0.54**	1.00

Note: **p <0 0.01.

Table 3 Mediator Variable (FoMO) Model

Regression Equation		Fitness Index			Significance of Regression Coefficients
Outcome Variables	Predictor Variables	R	R^2	F	β	SE	LLCI	ULCI
Digital hoarding		0.56	0.31	103.20
	Gender				0.11***	0.06	0.00	0.22
	Age				0.12***	0.03	0.06	0.18
	Education level				0.03	0.03	−0.03	0.09
	Upward social comparison				0.50***	0.03	0.45	0.56
FoMO		0.56	0.31	104.20
	Gender				0.49***	0.06	0.38	0.59
	Age				−0.01	0.03	−0.07	0.06
	Education level				0.06	0.03	−0.01	0.12
	Upward social comparison				0.47***	0.03	0.41	0.52
Digital hoarding		0.63	0.40	121.07
	Gender				−0.06	0.05	−0.17	0.04
	Age				0.12***	0.03	0.06	0.18
	Education level				0.01	0.03	−0.05	0.06
	Upward social comparison				0.34***	0.03	0.28	0.40
	FoMO				0.36***	0.03	0.30	0.42

Note: ***p <0 0.001.

Table 4 Decomposition of Total, Direct and Indirect Effects

Effect Type	Effect	BootSE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
Total effect	0.51	0.04	0.44	0.57
Direct effect	0.33	0.04	0.29	0.43
Indirect effect	0.17	0.02	0.13	0.21

Table 5 Moderated Mediation Model

Regression Equation		Fitness Index			Significance of Regression Coefficients
Outcome Variables	Predictor Variables	R	R^2	F	β	SE	LLCI	ULCI
FoMO		0.61	0.37	90.27
	Gender				0.43***	0.05	0.32	0.53
	Age				−0.04	0.03	−0.10	0.02
	Education level				0.06*	0.03	0.00	0.11
	Upward social comparison				0.37***	0.03	0.31	0.43
	Mindfulness				−0.22***	0.03	−0.28	−0.16
	Upward social comparison × Mindfulness				−0.10***	0.02	−0.15	−0.06
Digital hoarding		0.67	0.45	109.22
	Gender				−0.08	0.05	−0.18	0.02
	Age				0.09**	0.03	0.03	0.15
	Education level				0.02	0.03	−0.04	0.07
	Upward social comparison				0.26***	0.03	0.20	0.32
	FoMO				0.27***	0.03	0.21	0.33
	Mindfulness				−0.27***	0.03	−0.33	−0.21
	Upward social comparison × Mindfulness				−0.05*	0.02	−0.09	−0.01

Notes: *p < 0.05, **p <0 0.01, ***p <0 0.001.

Table 6 Conditional Effects of the Predictor Considering the Moderator  = M ± SD

	Mindfulness	Effect	BootSE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
	M-1SD	0.31	0.04	0.23	0.39
Direct effect	M	0.26	0.03	0.20	0.32
	M+1SD	0.21	0.03	0.14	0.28
	M-1SD	0.13	0.02	0.09	0.17
Indirect effect	M	0.10	0.02	0.07	0.14
	M+1SD	0.07	0.02	0.04	0.11

Figure 2 The effect of the two-way interaction between upward social comparison via social media and mindfulness on digital hoarding behavior.

Figure 3 The effect of the two-way interaction between upward social comparison via social media and mindfulness on FoMO.