9796-11

196

The path model of parenting style, attachment style, self-regulation

and Smartphone addiction

H. C. Kwan and M. T. Leung

by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 11/13/17. For personal use only.

Counselling and psychologt,Hong Kong Shue Yan University,

Hong Kong, 000, Hong Kong
†
E-mail: marthakwanhc@gmail.com
Applied Psychology Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

metleung@hksyu.edu
www.hksyu.edu.hk

Technological addiction is a common issue worldwide that has seldomly been

investigated; this research has developed a possible path model on further
acknowledgment of the problematic use of technology. Present study (N = 211 Chinese
adults) has investigated the relationships of parenting styles (PS), attachment style (AS),
self-regulation, self-esteem and Smartphone addiction (SA). Results show that PS
considerably predicts different types of AS. Secure and anxious AS was desirably
predicted self-regulation and self-esteem. Under self-regulation, higher impulse control
also successfully predicts less SA, while goal setting negatively predicted SA. The model
helps explore new relationships between Smartphone addiction and other constructs in an
educational psychology aspect. It also helps gain insight on how parenting and self-
regulation influences Smartphone usage. Programs which promote parenting skills and
correct regulating skills are suggested.

Keywords: Smartphone Addiction, Self-Regulation, Self-Esteem, Impulse Control,

Parenting Style, Attachment Style.

1. Introduction
In the present day, the mobile phone is not just simply a convenient and efficient
communication device. It also establishes people’s identity and prestige, offers
entertainment, is a way of autonomy and most importantly provides the feeling
of “being connected with others” [1,2,3]. More and more surveys have pointed
out the damage or possible danger of smartphone usage is already beyond our
imagination. With the rising public awareness, more and more researchers have
started to develop different evaluation tools, discover comorbidity with other
psychological problems or develop anti-addiction plans [2,4,5]. Unfortunately,
just a handful of research concentrates on how cell phones cause dependence
and addiction related behaviour or provides a possible framework to explain
correlations between factors.
 9796-11

197

The present research aims to explore the possible cause of smartphone

addiction in order to provide a comprehensive framework on technological
dependence. This study can raise interest or awareness for further exploration in
this area, and offers valuable insights for educators to develop more programs
on preventing technology dependence. This research may also give supporting
evidence on phone addiction or raise interest in investigating the effects of this
new type of non-substance dependence.

1.1. Smartphone addiction

by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 11/13/17. For personal use only.

Smartphone addiction is a media and behavioural (non-substance) addiction, or

cyber-disorder, which includes excessive and uncontrollable smartphone usage,
Applied Psychology Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

and also interferes with daily life function [6,7]. Studies conducted in Korea and
American colleges has supported that mobile phone show signs of heavy
dependence and significant relationship with real-life problems [8,9,10,11].
Beard and Wolf [12] also argued that mobile phone dependence could be
incorporated into the spectrum of other technological addictions, such as
Internet addiction [5].
This study focused on five types of smartphone addiction symptom based
on the Cho et al. [13] study of smartphone addiction scale. Those factors are:
daily-life disturbance (missing planned work, difficulty in concentrating on
specific tasks or caused physical pain), positive anticipation (feeling excited or
stress relief with smartphone use and feeling empty without a smartphone),
withdrawal (intolerable without a smartphone, irritated when bothered),
cyberspace-oriented relationship (feeling more intimate with virtual friendship
or constant phone-checking behaviour) and overuse (uncontrollable habit and
urge to check and use smartphone).

1.2. Parenting style

Parenting style is a consistent method or attitude with which primary caregivers
interact and communicate with their children.
This research was based on Diana Baumrind’s parenting styles [14] to
explore the relationship with smartphone addiction. According to Baumrind
parenting styles are categorized by their level of parental demandingness and
responsiveness [14,15]. Demandingness mean strict control, while
responsiveness mean parental support among children. Based on the degree of
responsivensess and demandingness in primary caregivers, parenting can be
differentiated into authoritarian, authoritative and permissive style [16].
 9796-11

198

Different parenting has tested to be highly associated with children’s

development, delinquency, behaviour problems and psychological adjustment
[17,18]. Positive parenting style can also enhance children’s academic
achievement and relationship with others, most importantly less probability on
substance use and addiction.

1.3. Attachment style

Attachment style is a way to describe the attachment bond and pattern with
by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 11/13/17. For personal use only.

significant others, which help shape people’s image of self and others. The two
most well-known attachment theories were established by Bowlby, who focused
on infants; and Bartholomew, who focused on the older population.
Applied Psychology Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

This research is based on Bowlby’s attachment theory, which focused on

the close bonding between children and their primary caregiver. Attachment
style can separate into 4 categories according to their consistency of caring, as
well as the view of self and other: secure, preoccupied, dismissing and fearful.
With different attachment styles, people will maintain different behaviour
outcomes. Positive style might result in higher chances of survival and better
communication skills with others in later life.
Collins and Feeney [19] believed attachment will link to people’s way of
response to distress, and also psychological related behaviour. Another study
also points out that secure attachment contributed to the positive behaviour
outcome, for example, lower chance of being addicted to alcohol or drugs, and
dismissive results in having higher self-esteem [20]. Also parenting style is
positively linked to attachment.

1.4. Self-regulation
Self-regulation is a person’s ability to be independent (emotionally and
psychologically) and flexibility in regulating their behaviour or emotions under
different circumstances to achieve one’s goal over time [21,22]. To simplify,
self-regulation is a way people have full control of themselves physiologically
and emotionally. Adolescent or young adults in the critical period of prefrontal
cortex development are responsible for evaluating cause, effect of actions and
future planning [23,24]; and then toward self-regulation.
In this study self-regulation is divided into degree of impulse control and
goal setting behaviours. Impulse control will allow person to delay gratification
in the short term to achieve desired outcomes in the future, while goal setting
means a subsume goal-directed behaviour [25].
 9796-11

199

Children who lack self-regulate schema may also experience low levels of
self-regulation in adolescent and adulthood, which contributed to committing
risky behaviour - for example, drug abuse, aggression and antisocial behaviour
[15,24].

1.5. Self-esteem
Self-esteem is an individual’s self appraisal that demonstrated either favourable
or unfavourable attitudes about his or her own worth and the feelings connected
by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 11/13/17. For personal use only.

with those judgments [26]. Parent, environment and personal experience are all
contributed to self-esteem. Good parental support and interaction will help
children develop a positive view of self and vice versa. Studies and research
Applied Psychology Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

believed that self-esteem is significantly linked to depression, addictive

behaviour, delinquency, behavioural problem (e.g. eating disorder). Studies
point out that self-esteem are negatively related to Internet addiction and other
addiction like symptoms [5,27].

2. Research Hypotheses
Referring to the above literature, it was hypothesized that there are significant
relationships between parenting style and attachment style, and subsequently to
self-regulation and smartphone addiction.
H1: Parenting style (authoritative, authoritarian and permissive style) is a
significant predictor with attachment style (secure, preoccupied, fearful and
dismissing style), and attachment style (secure, preoccupied, fearful and
dismissing style) is a significant predictor with self-esteem.
H2: Parenting style (authoritative, authoritarian and permissive style) is a
significant predictor with attachment style (secure, preoccupied, fearful and
dismissing style), and attachment style (secure, preoccupied, fearful and
dismissing style) is a significant predictor with self-regulation (impulse control
and goal-setting).
H3: Self-regulation (impulse control and goal-setting) is a significant predictor
with smartphone addiction (daily-life disturbance, positive anticipation,
withdrawal, overuse, cyberspace-oriented relationship).
H4: Self-esteem is a significant predictor with smartphone addiction (daily-life
disturbance, positive anticipation, withdrawal, overuse, cyberspace-oriented
relationship).
 9796-11

200

3. Methods

3.1. Participants
Two hundred and eleventy university students (138 females and 74 males) in
Hong Kong participated (Age: M = 2.24, SD = .86) in this study. All of them
were recruited by convenient sampling and under the criteria of being Chinese
and using a smartphone on a daily bases. Most of them were studied in the
department of counselling and psychology, accounting and business.
by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 11/13/17. For personal use only.

3.2. Instrumentations
As three in five of the original questionnaires were in English, the English
Applied Psychology Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

version questionnaires were translated into Chinese in order to fit the participant
in Hong Kong. Backward translation was applied to enhance the quality and
accuracy of the Chinese version questionnaire [28]. The original version was
translated by the author and back-translated twice into English by two scholars
who studied Chinese and English as their major.

3.2.1. The Chinese Parental Authority Questionnaire (CPAQ)

Parenting style was measured by 30 items in the Chinese Parental Authority
Questionnaire. CPAQ has been established based on two western parenting
scales: Parental Nuturance Scale and Parental Authority Questionnaire. For
testing reliability and validity, 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used for rating on each item. The subscales,
number of items and sample items are shown in Table 1.

3.2.2. Chinese Relationship Styles Questionnaire (CRSQ)

Attachment style was measured by 24 items in the Chinese Relationship Styles
Questionnaire. The CRSQ has been established based on Relationship Scales
Questionnaire [29]. For testing reliability and validity of the questionnaires, 6-
point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) was
used for rating on each item. The subscales, number of items and sample items
are shown in Table 1.

3.2.3. Short Self-regulation Questionnaire (SSRQ)

Self-regulation was measured by 21 items in the Short Self-regulation
Questionnaire [30]. The SSRQ has been developed based on Self-Regulation
Questionnaire [31,32]. For testing reliability and validity of the questionnaires,
 9796-11

201

5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was
used for rating on each item. The subscales, number of items and sample items
are shown in Table 1.

3.2.4. Improved version of Chinese Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale

General self-esteem was measured by 10 items in the Improved version of
Chinese Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale. For testing reliability and validity of the
questionnaires, 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 3
by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 11/13/17. For personal use only.

(strongly agree) was used for rating on each item. The subscales, number of
items and sample items are shown in Table 1.
Applied Psychology Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

3.2.5. Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS)

Degree of smartphone dependences was measured by 30 items in the
Smartphone Addiction Scale [33]. For testing reliability and validity of the
questionnaires, 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6
(strongly agree) was used for rating on each item. The subscales, number of
items and sample items are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Number of Items and Sample Items of the Five Scales

Scale and Subscales No. of Sample Item

Items
Chinese Parental Authority Questionnaire
1. Authoritative Style 10 When I was growing up, my parents
will discuss the reasons of the new
practice or regulations with me.
2. Authoritarian Style 10 When I was growing up, my parents do
not allow any question on their decision.
3. Permissive Style 10 When I was growing up, my parents
seldom give advice or specific
expectations on my actions.
Chinese Relationship Styles Questionnaire
4. Secure 7 I easily involve into a close relaitonship.
5. Anxious 5 I worried other don’t want to be close
with me.
6. Dismissive 6 Without any intimate relationship, I still
feel good about myself.
7. Fearful 6 I feel uncomfortable when get close to
people.
Short Self-regulation Questionnaire
8. Impulse Control 11 I don’t notice the effects of my actions
until it’s too late.
9. Goal-setting 10 I set a goal of myself and keep track of
my progress.
 9796-11

202

Scale and Subscales No. of Sample Item

Items
Chinese Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale
10. Self-esteem
Smartphone Addiction Scale
11. Dailylife Disturbance
12. Positive Anticipation
13. Withdrawal
by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 11/13/17. For personal use only.
10 On the whole, I am satisfied with
myself.
5 I miss planned work due to smartphone
use.
8 I feel pleasant or excited while using a
smartphone.
6 I am getting irritated when bothered

while using my smartphone.

14. Cyberspace Relationship 7 Feeling that my smartphone buddies
understand me better than my real-life
friends.
Applied Psychology Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

15. Overuse 4 I use my smartphone longer than I had

intended.

4. Result

4.1. Descriptive statistics and correlational analysis

The mean, standard deviations, sample size and the correlations between the 15
observed variables from the study are shown in Table 2, sixty out of one
hundred and five correlations were statistically significant and were greater than
or equal to .12. The size of the aforementioned correlations successfully
demonstrates a pattern consistent with the hypotheses.
 Applied Psychology Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 11/13/17. For personal use only.

203

9796-11
 9796-11

204

4.2. Reliability analysis

The reliability analysis with Cronbach’s alpha was also conducted for the scales
of five questionnaires in the final study (see Table 3). In CPAQ, 3 scales
indicated satisfactory reliabilities, Į > .60. In, CRSQ, 4 scales indicated good
reliabilities, Į > .70. In SSRQ, 2 scales indicated good reliabilities, Į > .80. In
CRSS, 1 scale indicated good reliabilities, Į > .80. In SAS, 5 scales indicated
satisfactory reliabilities, Į > .80.
by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 11/13/17. For personal use only.

Table 3 Coefficient Alphas and Items Comprising the Scale of Five Questionnaires in Study

Scale Cronbach’s Alpha (Į)

Applied Psychology Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

Chinese Parental Authority Questionnaire

1. Authoritative Style .845
2. Authoritarian Style .635
3. Permissive Style .765
Chinese Relationship Styles Questionnaire
4. Secure .722
5. Anxious .806
6. Dismissive .760
7. Fearful .794
Short Self-regulation Questionnaire
8. Impulse Control .731
9. Goal-setting .825
Chinese Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale
10. Self-esteem .825
Smartphone Addiction Scale
11. Dailylife Disturbance .774
12. Positive Anticipation .823
13. Withdrawal .850
14. Cyberspace Relationship .831
15. Overuse .729

4.3. Confirmatory factor analysis

With satisfying results on each tool’s correlations and Cronbach’s alpha,
confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine the validity of the
instruments. All scales were parcelled and deviant items were deleted in order to
reduce the noise and make a best fit model. The Chi-square (Ȥ2) degree of
freedom (df), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI) and root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) are listed in Table 4.
After item parcelling and deletion, the confirmatory factor analysis was
conducted as below. For CPAQ, X2(74) = 159.69, GFI = .90, CFI = .97,
RMSEA = .075. All factor loading were significant and the average factor
loading was .71. For RSQ , X2(164) = 473.1, GFI = .82, CFI = .87, RMSEA
 9796-11

205

= .095. All factor loading were significant and the average factor loading
was .63. For SSRQ, X2(26) = 76.83, GFI = .92, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .97. All
factor loading were significant and the average factor loading was .66. For SAS,
X2(179) = 421, GFI = .96, CFI = .83, RMSEA = .08. All factor loading were
significant and the average factor loading was .73.
The results showed that the scales of all questionnaire except RSQ had good
fit to the data concerning CFI or GFQ is higher than .90.

Table 4 Goodness of fit indicator for CPAQ, RSQ, SSRQ, SAS

by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 11/13/17. For personal use only.

Questionnaires df Ȥ2 Ȥ2/df GFI CFI RMSEA

CPAQ 74 159.69 2.16 .90 .97 .079
CRSQ 164 473.06 2.88 .81 .87 .095
Applied Psychology Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

SSRQ 26 76.83 2.96 .92 .96 .097

SAS 179 421.04 2.35 .83 .96 .080

4.4. Path Analysis of parenting style, attachment style, self-regulation,

self-esteem and smartphone addiction
Figures 1.1 and 1.2 have exhibited the relationship between parenting style,
attachment style, self-regulation, self-esteem and Smartphone addiction. For the
relationship between parenting style and attachment, authoritative parenting
style was significantly positive (p < .01) associated with secure attachment (ȕ
= .26), authoritarian parenting style was significantly positive (p < .01)
associated with anxious (ȕ = .20) and fearful attachment style (ȕ = .26); and
permissive parenting style was significantly positive (p < .01) associated with
dismissive attachment (ȕ = .27).
For the relationship between attachment style and self-regulation, secure
attachment was significant and positive (p < .001) associated with impulse
control (ȕ = .29) and goal-setting (ȕ = .40). Anxious attachment was significant
and negative (p < .001) associated with impulse control (ȕ = -.28). Dismissive
and fearful attachment style had no significant relationship with either impulse
control and goal-setting.
For the relationship between attachment style self-esteem, secure
attachment was significant and positive (p < .001) associated with self-esteem (ȕ
= .59). While, anxious attachment style was also significant and negative (p
< .001) associated with self-esteem (ȕ = -.26). Dismissive and fearful attachment
style had no significant relationship with self-esteem.
For the relationship between self-regulation and smartphone addiction,
impulse control was significant and negative (p < .001) associated with dailylife
disturbance (ȕ = -.40), positive anticipation (ȕ = -.42), withdrawal (ȕ = -.36) and
 9796-11

206

cyberspace relationship (ȕ = -.34). Goal-setting was significant and positive

associated with dailylife disturbance (p < .001, ȕ = .29) and positive anticipation
(p < .05, ȕ = .16). For self-esteem there was no significant relationship with any
smartphone addiction quality.
by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 11/13/17. For personal use only.
Applied Psychology Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

Figure 1.1. The path model showing the effect of parenting style on attachment style, self-regulation,
self-esteem and smartphone addiction. Dot line - no significance *p<.05 **p<.01***p<.001

Figure 1.2. The path model showing the effect of parenting style on attachment style, self-regulation,
self-esteem and smartphone addiction. Dot line - no significance *p<.05 **p<.01***p<.001

4.5. Result summary of path analysis

In the path model, the result showed that parenting style was a significant
predictor to attachment style. Only secure attachment style has a significant
positive relationship with impulse control, goal-setting and self-esteem. Anxious
attachment style was the only one with significant negative relationship with
 9796-11

207

impulse control and self-esteem, but no significant relationship with goal-setting.

Impulse control was a stronger predictor than goal-setting in smartphone
addiction. Impulse control had a significant negative relationship with all
smartphone addiction qualities, while goal-setting only has significant positive
relationship with daily-life disturbance and positive anticipation. Furthermore,
there was no significant relationship between self-esteem to smartphone
addiction.

5. Discussion
by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 11/13/17. For personal use only.

It was confirmed that there was a significant relationship of different parenting

style with different attachment style. In the view of attachment, secure style was
Applied Psychology Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

the strongest predictor to predict a person’s self-regulation (both impulse control

and goal-setting) and self-esteem, while the anxious attachment style only
predicts impulse control and self-esteem. Based on present results, the study
indicates that authoritative parenting would be the best style to prevent
smartphone addiction as authoritative parenting predicts secure attachment, then
self-regulation, and self-regulation was the strongest factor in influencing
Smartphone addiction.

5.1. The relationship between parenting style and attachment style to

self-regulation
In the view of parenting style and attachment style, it would affect our long-term
development of self-regulation. Based on Bowlby’s [34,35] caregiving system
and classical secure-based system, young age care pattern would influence
people’s development of maternal behaviour. For example, differences in
parent-child communication style was associated with dopaminergic reward
process system and changes levels of neuroactive hormone, which changes a
person’s emotions and social behaviours. Thus affectting the ability of impulse
control in self-regulation which develops in young adolescence to young
adulthood.
Addtionally, research also supports that attachment would indicate different
regulation skills [36]. People in secure attachment were more calm and
confident in solving problems, and developing a more effective plan. Hence,
high self-regulation results in more rational behaviour. In contrast, people in
anxious attachment were more emotionally disturbed by threats, and more easily
depend on others. Therefore, the low self-regulation schema has been
established. The main difference found was that an anxious attached person has
the tendency to avoid being abandoned and tries to maintain high intimacy. The
 9796-11

208

urge to maintain the relationship would override their other needs, and less
rational thought was conducted. This leads to low ability in self-regulation to
addiction.

5.2. Impulse-control in smartphone addiction

Looking at smartphone addiction with self-regulation, it was interesting that
impulse control was the strongest negative mediator to smartphone addictions,
while goal-setting only has a positive effect on daily-life disturbance and
by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 11/13/17. For personal use only.

positive anticipation. The results might give the insight that self-regulation
would positively and negativity predict smartphone addiction at the same time.
As smartphone use is a reward-based behaviour and contains immediate
Applied Psychology Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

pleasure pathway responses, higher impulse control was successful in predicting

less tendency to cause daily-life disturbance, positive anticipation and
cyberspace relationship. Impulse control represents a person’s ability to have
adequate inhibitory control, planned reaction and concern around the
consequence of actions. To simplify, this means being less affected by the
emotion and making more rational decisions. High impulse control abilities
would help people delay gratification, assess more on the goal or plan. When
people value the ultimate outcome rather than short term achievement, less
tendency to depend on the smartphone and less addictive behaviour would result.
According to the research, impulse control also negatively predicts
withdrawn behaviour and recent research might help to explain. According to
Broos [37], a research on self-regulation to addiction prevention supported that,
while teaching people with better impulse control skills, it would have unique
and independent contribution to separate the stage of the addiction cycle. Which
means a higher ability of impulse control, less tendency to be addicted or may
stop the dependence more easily.

5.3. Goal setting behaviour in smartphone addiction

In the view of goal setting, the result shows positive correlation with daily-life
disturbance and positive anticipation. This is explained below.
There are various goals in a person’s decision making process, but the aim
of the goal is to achieve or obtain person conscious desires [38,39]. The
interesting point is that goals would only motivate people when there are
positive rewards and is referenced by experiences [40]. The result of negative
relation between goal setting and smartphone addiction is that, goals might
narrow people’s attentions and overlook other important features affecting
dependence behaviour. Some research supported that overly high goal setting
 9796-11

209

behaviour would have the tendency of neglecting those non-goal areas and less
motivation for using alternative methods [41,42]. Too empathize goal might
cause inattentional blindness, which results in reducing intrinsic motivation,
corrosion of culture and more distorted risk preference [43]. Therefore, overly
focusing on a goal would result in loss of independent thinking, hence larger
chances of daily-life disturbance and positive anticipation would result.
The result might also explain by theory of operant conditioning as it is
already commonly use in media addiction research (e.g. [44,45,46]).
Smartphone usage is known to be a high immediate positive reward behaviour,
by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 11/13/17. For personal use only.

and it may gain higher priority than other normally important behaviour and
result in being more easily addicted. Firstly, as the high attraction of short term
Applied Psychology Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

achievement will easily be conditioned, therefore a classical and learning

process for goal-directed behaviours are established [47]. Second, based on the
above literature, goal setting only favours positive outcome. When people try to
set “stop using phone” as a goal, this is categorized as a performance avoidance
goal. This negative goal is emotionally unattractive because normally the brain
favours positive rewards, avoids discomfort and resists change. Under the effect
of conditioning, people might fail to achieve the goal and create discomfort.
These feelings of failure would de-motivate people to achieve the goal and cause
a return to the comfortable patterns. Hence, the cycle of addiction remains.
Moreover, the conflict between the unconscious goal and conscious goal
under classical conditioning also affects people’s tendency of addiction [48]. An
unconscious goal of “using smartphone” was established when a stimulus-
response association was formed during conditioning [47]. On the other hand,
people trying to get rid of smartphone dependence would consciously establish a
goal of “stop using the phone”. The conflict between the conscious goal and
unconscious goal causes the normal goal setting mechanism to lose its control.
Under high goal setting behaviour, goal of “using smartphone” might have a
higher power based on the above addiction cycle. It weakens the influence of
conscious goal and also further encourages the smartphone use mechanisms (the
unconscious goal). Therefore, the higher goal setting behaviour results in being
the easiest to become addicted to the phone and even more stay on the addiction
cycle.

6. Limitations
For further study, several limitations should be aware of. The ability to
generalize might be limited because of small sample size (N= 211), and the
sample was mostly collected in Hong Kong Shue Yan University and under
Chinese culture. Additionally, some errors on path model was quite high and
 9796-11

210

might also interfere with the final result, for example fearful attachment ( .94)
and anxious attachment (.92). Furthermore, this research also fails to explore the
direction of correlation between variables and find the cause and effect between
variables. Further investigation is needed.

7. Implications
Theoretical and practical implications are also present in this research. One new
model was formed to examine the relationship of a student’s parenting style,
by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 11/13/17. For personal use only.

attachment style, self-regulation and smartphone addiction. The model and

research on discovering the cause of smartphone addiction was lacking. Hence,
this research has developed a persuasive model and provide brand new vision
Applied Psychology Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

for further investigation on the cause of addictive behaviour, especially

technological dependence. The relationship on goal setting and impulse control
to addiction also need to be highlighted. In practical application, the result can
offer inspiration and helpful insight for educators. For practical perspective,
parents and educator can be more aware of the influence of parenting style to
children’s deviant behaviour. Programs which empathize healthy parenting style
and self-regulation skills are suggested.

8. Conclusion
This study has proven the relationship between parenting style, attachment style,
self-regulation and smartphone addiction. The main findings were that one
structural equation model and one path model was formulated and validated.
One mentioned that authoritative parenting style can be a persuasive
predictor on attachment style and self-regulation to smartphone addictions.
While self-regulation (especially impulse-control) play a dominant role in
smartphone addiction.

References
1. Chóliz, M. (2010). Mobile Phone Addiction in Adolescence: Evaluation
and Prevention of Mobile Addiction in Teenagers. Saarbrücken: Lambert
Academic Publishing
2. Chóliz, M. (2012). Mobile-phone addiction in adolescence: The test of
mobile phone dependence (TMD). Progress in Health Sciences, 2(1).
3. Oksman, V., & Turtiainen, J. (2004). Mobile communication as a social
stage meanings of mobile communication in everyday life among
teenagers in Finland. New Media & Society, 6(3), 319-339.
 9796-11

211

4. Bianchi, A., & Phillips, J. G. (2005). Psychological predictors of problem

mobile phone use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8(1), 39-51.
5. Khang, H., Kim, J. K., & Woo, H. (2011). Can you hear me now?
Exploring the Self as an Antecedent of Mobile Phone Addiction.
International Communication Association, TBA, Boston. Retrieved from:
http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p490471_index.html
6. Eastin, M. S., LaRose, R., & Lin, C. A. (2003). Unregulated Internet
usage: Addiction, habit, or deficient self-regulation? Media Psychology,
5(3), 225-253.
by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 11/13/17. For personal use only.

7. Freixa-Blanxart, M., Gibson, W., Honrubia-Serrano, L., & Lopez-

Fernandez, O. (2014). Prevalence of problematic mobile phone use in
Applied Psychology Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

British adolescents. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,

17(2), 91-98.
8. Lee, D. J. (2002). College students’ hand-phone usage culture survey.
University Culture Newspaper.
9. Heurtin, J. P., & Licoppe, C. (2001). Managing one’s availability to
telephone communication through mobile phones: a French case study of
development dynamics of mobile phone use. Personal and Ubiquitous
Computing, 5, 99–108.
10. Park, W. K. (2005). Mobile phone addiction. Mobile Communications (pp.
253-272). Springer London.
11. Wikle, T. A. (2001). America’s cellular telephone obsession: New
geographies of personal communication. Journal of American and
Comparative Cultures, 24(12), 123–128.
12. Beard, K. W., & Wolf, E. M. (2001). Modification in the proposed
diagnostic criteria for Internet addiction. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4,
377-383.
13. Cho, H., Kim, D. J., Kwon, M., & Yang, S. (2013). The Smartphone
Addiction Scale: Development and Validation of a Short Version for
Adolescents. PloS one, 8(12)
14. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority.
Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4, 1-103.
15. Asgari, P., Enayati, M., Pasha, G., Sharifi, H., & Zeinali, A. (2011). The
mediational pathway among parenting styles, attachment styles and self-
regulation with addiction susceptibility of adolescents. Journal of Research
in Medical Sciences: The Official Journal of Isfahan University of Medical
Sciences, 16(9), 1105.
16. Karimpour, M. & Zakeri, H. (2011). Parenting styles and self-esteem.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 758-761.
 9796-11

212

17. Al-Bahrani, M., Aldhafri, S., Alkharusi, H., Alzubiadi, A., & Kazem, A.
(2011). Development and validation of a short version of the Parental
Authority Questionnaire. Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, 39(9), 1193-1208.
18. Betts, L. R., Chiverton, L., Stanbridge, A., Stephens, J., & Trueman, M.
(2013). Parental rearing style as a predictor of attachment and psychosocial
adjustment during young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 30(6), 675-693.
19. Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: an attachment theory
by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 11/13/17. For personal use only.

perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships.

Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(6), 1053.
Applied Psychology Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

20. Huntsinger, E. T., & Luecken, L. J. (2004). Attachment relationships and

health behavior: The mediational role of self-esteem. Psychology &
Health, 19(4), 515-526.
21. Mazzucchelli, T. G., & Sanders, M. R. (2013). The promotion of self-
regulation through parenting interventions. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review, 16(1), 1-17.
22. Ibáñez, M. I., Marqués, M. J., Moya, J., Ortet, G., & Ruipérez, M. A.
(2005). The Self-Regulation Inventory (SRI): Psychometric properties of a
health related coping measure. Personality and Individual Differences,
39(6),1043-1054.
23. Barkley, R.A. (1997). ADHD and the Nature of Self-control. Guildford,
New York
24. Moilanen, K. L. (2007). The adolescent self-regulatory inventory: The
development and validation of a questionnaire of short-term and long-term
self-regulation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(6), 835-848.
25. Carey, K.B., Collins, S. E., & Neal, D. J. (2004). A psychometric analysis
of the self-regulation questionnaire. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 253-260.
26. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and Adolescent Self-image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University.
27. Kim, D., & Yea, J. (2003). Effects of the Internet uses and gratifications,
flow, dispositional orientation on the Internet addiction. Korean Journal of
Consumer Studies, 14(2), 45-83.
28. Lee, D. T, Woo, J., & Yu, D. S. (2004). Issues and challenges of
instrument translation. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 26(3), 307-
320.
29. Hudson, S., Siegert, R. J., & Ward, T., (1995). The structure of romance: A
factor-analytic examination of the Relationship Scales Questionnaire. New
Zealand Journal of Psychology.
 9796-11

213

30. Carey, K. B., Collins, S. E., & Neal, D. J. (2004). A psychometric analysis
of the self-regulation questionnaire. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 253-260.
31. Carey, K. B., & Neal, D. J. (2005). A follow-up psychometric analysis of
the self-regulation questionnaire. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,
19(4), 414.
32. Carey, K. B., & Neal, D. J. (2005). A follow-up psychometric analysis of
the self-regulation questionnaire. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,
19(4), 414.
33. Hahn, C., Kim, D. J., Kwon, M., Lee, J. Y., Min, J. A., Park, J. W., &
by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 11/13/17. For personal use only.

Won, W. Y. (2013). Development and validation of a smartphone

addiction scale (SAS). PloS one, 8(2)
Applied Psychology Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

34. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New
York: Basic Books.
35. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Vol 2: Separation: Anxiety and
anger. New York: Basic Books (reissued in 1999).
36. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2010). Attachment in Adulthood:
Structure, Dynamics, and Change. Guilford Press.
37. Broos, N., Goudriaan, A. E., Joos, L., Pattij, T., & Schmaal, L. (2013).
Impulse control in addiction: a translational perspective. Tijdschrift voor
psychiatrie, 55(11), 823-831.
38. Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Enhancing the benefits and
overcoming the pitfalls of goal setting. Organizational Dynamics, 35(4),
332-340.
39. Latham, G. P., & Locke, E.A. (2002). Building a practically useful theory
of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American
Psychologist, 57, 705–717.
40. Daniels, L. M., Haynes, T. L., Newall, N. E., Pekrun, R., Perry, R. P., &
Stupnisky, R. H., (2009). A longitudinal analysis of achievement goals:
From affective antecedents to emotional effects and achievement
outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 948.
41. Bargh, J. A., & Huang, J. Y. (2014). The Selfish Goal: Autonomously
operating motivational structures as the proximate cause of human
judgment and behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(02), 121-135.
42. Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy
of Management journal, 18(4), 769-783.
43. Bazerman, M. H., Galinsky, A. D., Ordóñez, L. D., & Schweitzer, M. E.
(2009). Goals gone wild: The systematic side effects of overprescribing
goal setting. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 23 (1), 6-16.
 9796-11

214

44. Davis, R. A. (2001). A cognitive–behavioral model of pathological Internet

use. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 187–195.
45. Putnam, D. E. (2000). Initiation and maintenance of online sexual
compulsivity: Implications for assessment and treatment. CyberPsychology
and Behavior, s3, 553-564.
46. Young, K. S. (1999). Evaluation and treatment of Internet addiction. In L.
VandeCreek & T. Jackson (Eds.), Innovations in Clinical Practice: A
Sourcebook, 17, 19–31.
47. Müller, C. P. & Schumann, G. (2011) Drugs as instruments: A new
by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 11/13/17. For personal use only.

framework for non-addictive psychoactive drug use. Behavioural Brain

Research 34(6), 293-347.
Applied Psychology Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

48. Müller, C. P., & Amato, D. (2014). Winner takes it all: Addiction as an
example for selfish goal dominance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
37(02), 152-152.
49. Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., Ormston, R., & Ritchie, J., (Eds.). (2013).
Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and
Researchers. Sage.
50. Chiu, S. I. (2014). The relationship between life stress and smartphone
addiction on taiwanese university student: A mediation model of learning
self-Efficacy and social self-Efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 34,
49-57.
51. Shih, T. W. (2002). Assessing parenting styles in Chinese culture. Journal
of Ilan Institute of Technology, 9, 341-369.
52. Wang, C. F., Lin, H. & Chang, T. J. (2003). Rating of attachment style,
intimacy competence and sex role orientation. Taiwan Social Sciences
Citation Index, 44, 2. 277-240