Perceived Social Mobility and Smartphone Dependence in University Students: The Roles of Hope and Family Socioeconomic Status

Figures & data

Figure 1 Hypothesized model.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Variables

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Age	–
2. Gender^a	0.20***	–
3. Perceived social mobility	0.01	0.05	–
4. Hope	−0.12**	−0.01	0.25***	–
5. Smartphone dependence	0.02	−0.02	−0.15***	−0.12**	–
6. Family socioeconomic status	−0.02	−0.14***	−0.09*	−0.04	0.04	–
M	19.19	0.70	4.23	3.77	2.92	0
SD	1.29	0.46	1.14	0.67	0.74	2.49
Skewness	0.72	−0.89	−0.10	−0.44	0.17	0.41
Kurtosis	0.13	−1.22	0.21	−0.05	−0.37	−0.51

Notes: ^aGender is dummy coded such that 0 = men and 1 = women. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

Figure 2 Moderated mediation model.

Notes: The control variables age and gender are not presented to simplify the model; the values shown are unstandardized coefficients. *p < 0.05. ***p < 0.001.

Table 2 Moderated Mediation Effect of Perceived Social Mobility on Smartphone Dependence Through Hope at Various Levels of Family SES

	Family SES	Effect	SE	95% CI
+2SD	1.65	0	0.02	[−0.04, 0.05]
+1SD	0.83	−0.02	0.01	[−0.05, 0.01]
Mean	0	−0.03	0.02	[−0.07, −0.01]
−1SD	−0.83	−0.05	0.02	[−0.11, −0.01]
−2SD	−1.65	−0.07	0.03	[−0.16, −0.02]

Figure 3 Unstandardized effects of perceived social mobility on hope at various levels of family SES.

Notes: 95% CI Lo=lower limit of bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval; 95% CI Hi=upper limit of bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval.