Maartje Boer

CHAPTER 3 68 Table 3.1 Prevalence Problematic SMU Symptoms (n = 222,532 in 44 Countries) During the past year, have you… Item % Min. % 1 Max. % 2 …regularly found that you can’t think of anything else but the moment that you will be able to use social media again? Preoccupation 22.07% 14.16% 34.73% …regularly felt dissatisfied because you wanted to spend more time on social media? Tolerance 18.89% 7.33% 35.34% …often felt bad when you could not use social media? Withdrawal 21.30% 11.63% 48.21% …tried to spend less time on social media, but failed? Persistence 30.66% 22.46% 42.10% …regularly neglected other activities (e.g., hobbies, sport) because you wanted to use social media? Displacement 15.73% 7.03% 26.13% …regularly had arguments with others because of your social media use? Problem 18.86% 11.87% 39.64% …regularly lied to your parents or friends about the amount of time you spend on social media? Deception 14.56% 8.76% 26.75% …often used social media to escape from negative feelings? Escape 30.74% 11.42% 47.02% …had serious conflict with your parents, brother(s) or sister(s) because of your social media use? Conflict 14.38% 4.67% 32.23% Problematic SMU (six or more symptoms) 7.64% 3.20% 16.41% Note. SMU = social media use. 1 Lowest observed prevalence across all 44 countries. 2 Highest observed prevalence across all 44 countries. Multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to investigate whether problematic SMU differed by survey mode, gender, age, and socioeconomic status within each country. In none of the countries, problematic SMU differed by survey mode (Table 3.2). In multiple countries, gender, age, and socioeconomic status were associated with problematic SMU, although the direction of these associations was not consistent. Structural Validity As a preliminary step, EFAs were conducted prior to the CFAs. Details regarding the EFAs can be found in the Appendix (Tables A3.3 and A3.4). Overall, 34 out of 44 countries consistently showed that a one-factor model was preferred over a two- and three-factor model. In the 10 other countries, findings were inconsistent. However, the model fit of the one-factor model was good in all countries, as well as the quality of the factor. Thus, we consider the factor structure as unidimensional. As such, testing a one-factor model using CFA was considered justified.