The Relationship of Parent-Child Technoference and Child Problematic Smartphone Use: The Roles of Parent-Child Relationship, Negative Parenting Styles, and Children’s Gender

Figures & data

Figure 1 The hypothesized model.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Between Variables

	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1 Parent-child technoference	2.39	1.01	-
2 Parent-child relationship	3.87	0.88	−0.54**	–
3 Negative parenting styles	2.83	1.19	0.69**	−0.58**	–
4 Child problematic smartphone use	2.66	1.31	0.70**	−0.72**	0.76**	–

Note:**p<0.01.

Figure 2 The chain mediation model.

Notes: The solid black line is significant, not shown covariates in the model diagram. *p<0.05, ***p<0.001.

Table 2 Bias-Corrected Bootstrap Test on the Mediating Effects

Path	Standardized β	95% CI
		BootLLCI	BootULCI
X1→M1→Y	0.214	0.184	0.217
X1→M2→Y	0.218	0.185	0.228
X1→M1→M2→Y	0.064	0.051	0.069
Indirect effects	0.496	0.445	0.489
Total effect	0.746	–	–

Notes: X1 = Parent-child technoference, M1 = Parent-child relationship, M2 = Negative parenting styles, Y = Child problematic smartphone use.

Table 3 Fitting Results of Model Comparison

Model	χ^2	df	χ^2/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	Δχ^2	Δdf	Δχ^2/Δdf	P
Unrestricted model	121.64	24	5.07	0.99	0.98	0.04
Restricted model	164.71	33	4.99	0.98	0.98	0.04	43.07	9	4.79	0.000

Figure 3 Boys/girls multiple group comparison model.

Notes: Thin black solid lines indicate significant paths, and thick black solid lines indicate significant gender differences between paths. ***p<0.001.