The Links Among Cumulative Ecological Risk and Smartphone Addiction, Sleep Quality in Chinese University Freshmen: A Two-Wave Study

Figures & data

Table 1 Description of Ecological Risk Factors and Definition of Cumulative Contextual Risk

Risk Factor	Risk Area	M (SD)	Items	Scoring Method				Criteria for Defining Risk		Percentage of Risk
1.Father’s emotional warmth	Family	2.93 (0.71)	7	1 (never) ~ 4 (always)				Below 25th percentile		22.51
2.Mother’s emotional warmth	Family	3.07 (0.67)	7	1 (never) ~ 4 (always)				Below 25th percent		20.67
3.Family functioning	Family	3.08 (0.47)	12	1 (strongly agree) ~ 4 (strongly disagree)				Below 25th percentile		19.60
4.Classmate support	School	3.81 (0.59)	4	1 (strongly disagree) ~ 5 (strongly agree)				Below 25th percentile		20.21
5.Teacher support	School	4.03 (0.57)	3	1 (strongly disagree) ~ 5 (strongly agree)				Below 25th percentile		17.76
6.School belonging	School	3.83 (0.66)	3	1 (strongly disagree) ~ 5 (strongly agree)				Below 25th percentile		15.47
7.Peer attachment	Peer	3.78 (0.53)	12	1 (almost never or never true) ~ 5 (almost always or always true)				Below 25th percentile		23.74
8.Friend support	Peer	3.96 (0.78)	4	1 (completely inconsistent) ~ 5 (fully consistent)				Below 25th percentile		17.30
9.Deviant peer affiliation	Peer	1.43 (0.52)	8	1 (never) ~ 5 (almost all)				Above 75th percentile		21.75
Number of risk factors	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Percentage	36.29	21.75	12.56	10.26	6.74	5.36	2.45	3.83	0.76	0.00

Figure 1 Comparison of smartphone addiction across different risk groups.

Figure 2 Comparison of sleep quality across different risk groups.

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix of Key Variables

	M±SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	1	2	3	4	5
1.Gender	—	—	—	1
2.Cumulative ecological risk (T1)	1.79±2.03	1.15	0.49	0.13***	1
3.Age (T2)	18.56±0.65	0.28	0.39	0.07	–0.02	1
4.Smartphone addiction (T2)	3.20±0.84	–0.37	0.14	–0.08*	0.14***	0.03	1
5.Sleep quality (T2)	5.98±2.90	0.42	0.13	–0.06	0.12**	0.01	0.39***	1

Notes: Gender: 0=Female, 1=Male; *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.

Table 3 Correlation Between Ecological Risk Factors

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1.Father’s emotional warmth	1
2.Mother’s emotional warmth	0.83***	1
3.Family functioning	0.65***	0.64***	1
4.Classmate support	0.24***	0.26***	0.30***	1
5.Teacher support	0.31***	0.28***	0.32***	0.48***	1
6.School belonging	0.30***	0.29***	0.36***	0.53***	0.66***	1
7.Peer attachment	0.35***	0.38***	0.39***	0.52***	0.35***	0.43***	1
8.Friend support	0.26***	0.27***	0.29***	0.42***	0.24***	0.27***	0.59***	1
9.Deviant peer affiliation	–0.09*	–0.07***	–0.14***	–0.19***	–0.12**	–0.11**	–0.28***	–0.23***	1

Note: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.

Table 4 Relationship Between Cumulative Ecological Risk and Smartphone Addiction

	R^2	ΔR^2	F	B	95% CI
Step 1	0.01	0.01	2.62
Gender				–0.18*	[–0.35, –0.01]
Age (T2)				0.04	[–0.06, 0.15]
Step 2	0.03	0.03	5.80***
Cumulative ecological risk (linear term)				0.06***	[0.03, 0.09]
Step 3	0.03	0.02	4.35**
Cumulative ecological risk (quadratic term)				0.01	[–0.02, 0.02]

Notes: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001; 95% confidence intervals with predictors were obtained by Bootstrap method.

Table 5 Relationship Between Cumulative Ecological Risk and Sleep Quality

	R^2	ΔR^2	F	B	95% CI
Step 1	0.01	0.01	1.17
Gender				–0.44	[–1.05, 0.11]
Age (T2)				0.05	[–0.35, 0.41]
Step 2	0.02	0.01	3.41*
Cumulative ecological risk (linear term)				0.18**	[0.04, 0.30]
Step 3	0.02	0.01	2.56*
Cumulative ecological risk (quadratic term)				0.01	[–0.06, 0.07]

Notes: *p<0.05, **p<0.01; 95% confidence intervals with predictors were obtained by Bootstrap method.

Figure 3 Mediating role of smartphone addiction.

Note: ***p<0.001.