Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Boredom Proneness on Chinese College Students’ Phubbing during the COVID-19 Outbreak: The Mediating Effects of Self-Control and Bedtime Procrastination

Boredom Proneness on Chinese College Students’ Phubbing during the COVID-19 Outbreak: The... Hindawi Journal of Healthcare Engineering Volume 2023, Article ID 4134283, 8 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/4134283 Research Article Boredom Proneness on Chinese College Students’ Phubbing during the COVID-19 Outbreak: The Mediating Effects of Self-Control and Bedtime Procrastination 1 1,2 Fan Meng and Bin Xuan School of Educational Science, Anhui Normal University, Wuhu, Anhui, China Institute of Artifcial Intelligence, Hefei Comprehensive National Science Center, Hefei, China Correspondence should be addressed to Bin Xuan; xuanbin@ahnu.edu.cn Received 23 May 2022; Revised 2 November 2022; Accepted 28 January 2023; Published 8 February 2023 Academic Editor: Nadeem Sarwar Copyright © 2023 Fan Meng and Bin Xuan. Tis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Objective. To analyze the relationship between boredom proneness and phubbing among Chinese college students and examine how self-control and bedtime procrastination mediate this relationship during the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods. A total of 707 Chinese college students were voluntarily surveyed. Tey completed the Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP), Short Boredom Proneness Scale (SBPS), Bedtime Procrastination Scale (BPS), and Self-Control Scale (SCS). Results. (1) Te results revealed that men scored higher on boredom than women. (2) Te analysis revealed signifcant associations between each of the variables. Boredom proneness was positively correlated with bedtime procrastination (r �0.318; P<0.001) and phubbing (r �0.418; P<0.001) and negatively correlated with self-control (r � −0.518; P<0.001). (3) Mediation analysis suggested that self-control and bedtime procrastination mediate the relationship between boredom proneness and phubbing (efect of self-control �0.094, P<0.001, 95% CI [0.062∼0.128]; efect of bedtime procrastination �0.025, P<0.001, 95% CI [0.011∼0.042]; and efect of self-control and bedtime procrastination �0.032, P<0.001, 95% CI [0.020∼0.046]). Conclusion. Self-control and bedtime procrastination mediate the association between boredom proneness and phubbing among Chinese college students during the COVID-19 pandemic. and phubbing, which is the primary signifcance and reason for 1. Introduction conducting this research. Te COVID-19 outbreak greatly infuences society by afecting Phubbing refers to the behavior of individuals engaging both global economies and our lives as individuals. In addition with their phones during face-to-face conversations instead to its impact on physical health, its efects on psychological of talking to or paying attention to others [2]. As phubbing is health must be considered. To most, boredom is a ubiquitous a new area that has become a normalized part of everyday experience and a unique situation for college students living and interactions, communication quality and satisfaction in learning at home during the COVID-19 outbreak [1]. In such relationships have decreased [3]. Limited but growing re- a setting, it is difcult for college students to avoid electronic use search into phubbing has focused on two aspects. First, for many reasons, such as a lack of face-to-face communication phubbing negatively impacts people on relationship satis- withpeers,takingclasses,andbrowsingtheInternet.Individuals faction and personal well-being [4]. Second, predictors of with a high level of boredom may be at risk for higher levels of phubbing are discussed, including smartphone addiction phubbing during the COVID-19 outbreak because they need to [5], lack of self-control [6], fear of missing out [7], social change their behavior to reduce boredom. Based on the liter- anxiety [8], trait anxiety [9], and boredom [10]. Despite this, ature searches conducted nationally and internationally, there is the causes of phubbing remain largely unknown. Tis study less empirical evidence on the relationship between boredom examined existing fndings to understand factors such as 2 Journal of Healthcare Engineering circumstances preventing one from doing so” and is a type of boredom, self-control, and bedtime procrastination that predict phubbing. Ten, a model was developed and tested unhealthy behavior related to sleep habits [31]. Te annual sleep report of China (2022) shows that only 6.41% of college to explain these factors. Trait boredom can predict one’s phubbing frequency students never experience bedtime procrastination [32]. [11], and a positive correlation has been found between However, 61.53% of them habitually play games on boredom and phubbing [12]. Trait boredom has traditionally smartphones before going to sleep. Previous studies have been described as a negative experience—a negative emotion shown that, instead of sleeping, up to 66.67% of college frequently linked with difculty sustaining attention and students shop on their phones, play games, chat with friends, related impulse control difculties [13, 14]. According to the or read novels [33]. meaning-and-attention-component (MAC) model, bore- dom occurs when one cannot successfully engage in an Hypothesis 3. Boredom proneness and phubbing are me- activity and/or when the current activity is perceived as diated by bedtime procrastination. meaningless [15]. As a result of the previous studies, Bedtime procrastination has been recognized as a self- boredom is positively correlated with several problematic control failure and a signifcant factor in sleep defciency behaviors, such as bedtime procrastination [16] and prob- during the COVID-19 outbreak [34] and is strongly nega- lematic smartphone use (PSU) [17, 18]. Terefore, it is of tively related to self-control [35]. Individuals with a high practical signifcance to explore the relationship between level of boredom proneness will fnd goal achievement more boredom and phubbing and which factors afect the challenging, and low self-control may impair their ability to relationship. handle these challenges [36]. Tey always give in to temp- tation and then delay sleep during the COVID-19 outbreak Hypothesis 1. Boredom proneness has a positive correlation [37]. Self-control plays an essential role in PSU [38] and with phubbing. bedtime procrastination [39], which facilitates interpreting A recent study analyzing how boredom and self-control the relationship between boredom, bedtime procrastination, interact to guide behavior toward goals emphasizes the and phubbing. Tis study aimed to analyze the mediating psychological challenges under pandemic prevention and efects of self-control and bedtime procrastination on this control measures [19]. When stimulation is low during the relationship. mandatory quarantine, boredom can challenge confned college students. High levels of boredom are associated with Hypothesis 4. Self-control and bedtime procrastination se- breaking habitual behavior, such as deliberately delaying quentially mediate the relationship between boredom going to bed and more phubbing behaviors. Self-control proneness and phubbing. plays a vital role in the relationship between boredom and phubbing. Self-control facilitates goal achievement by 2. Methods volitionally directing attention toward goal-directed be- havior, aiming to override prepotent impulses or urges of 2.1.Participants. A random sample of adult college students thoughts, actions, and emotions to serve long-term goals by was collected from three colleges in Henan Province. All resisting inner desires and external temptations to adapt participants have no history of psychiatric or neurological appropriately to the environment, which is of great societal disease. Questionnaires, including the informed consent, relevance [20]. Self-control is positively associated with were distributed through the online class community, and individuals’ health, adaptive behavior, and well-being, 713 questionnaires were returned. We removed the par- whereas it is negatively associated with bedtime pro- ticipants’ data from the dataset if they completed the crastination [21] and phubbing [22]. Individuals who lack questionnaires too quickly (<5min). Ultimately, there were self-control are more prone to addictive behaviors such as 707 valid subjects with an efective rate of 99.16%, of which alcohol abuse [23], Internet addiction [24], and PSU [25]. 211 were males (29.84%) and 496 were females (70.16%), all participating anonymously and voluntarily. Te participants Hypothesis 2. Self-control mediates the relationship be- were between 18 and 24years. Te study was conducted in tween boredom proneness and phubbing. accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Te results Boredom proneness predicts bedtime procrastination were analyzed anonymously. [26]. Bored individuals seek activities that stimulate them more than sleeping. Trait boredom includes the concept of fdgeting, whereas fdgeting, a coping mechanism for 2.2. Measures boredom, leads to a delay in bedtime. According to the attentional theory of boredom [27], when procrastinators 2.2.1. Short Boredom Proneness Scale (SBPS). Te scale was ignore the present moment, they are distracted from sleep translated into Chinese and tested to measure the trait and tempted to fnd something interesting to do, resulting in propensity for experiencing boredom for college students delayed bedtime [28]. Bedtime procrastination is positively with excellent validity and reliability [40]. It was revised related to PSU [29]. A cross-lagged analysis revealed sig- based on the original by Struk et al. [41]. It consists of eight nifcant bidirectional relationships between PSU and bed- items rated on a seven-point Likert scale. Total scores range time procrastination [30]. Bedtime procrastination is from 8 to 56. High scores refect general proneness to “failing to go to bed at the intended time with no external boredom. Te Chinese version of the scale’s Cronbach’s Journal of Healthcare Engineering 3 bootstraps with 95% confdence intervals (CIs) was es- alpha coefcient was 0.870. In this study, the value of Cronbach’s alpha was 0.844. timated. Bootstrapping creates an empirical represen- tation of the population by resampling from the empirical sample to mimic the original sampling 2.2.2. Te Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP). Te Chinese process [50]. version of GSP among college students was revised from the original by Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas to measure the 3. Results extent to which people focus on their smartphones and ignore others in social settings [42]. It is a four-factor, 15- 3.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis of the item assessment with a seven-point Likert scale. Te Chinese Variables. All items were constrained in the analysis, and version of the scale’s Cronbach’s alpha coefcient was 0.840 the frst principal factor explained only 22.14% of the var- [43]. In this study, the value of Cronbach’s alpha was 0.870. iance, suggesting that common method bias is not a problem in this study. According to the results, male students had signifcantly higher boredom proneness than female stu- 2.2.3. Bedtime Procrastination Scale (BPS). Te Chinese dents (t �2.541; P<0.05) in this study. version of the BPS was revised from the original by Kroese Partial correlations were found between boredom et al. [44] to measure the sleep-related behaviors and habits proneness, bedtime procrastination, self-control, and that could indicate levels of bedtime procrastination among phubbing (Table 1). Boredom proneness was positively Chinese undergraduates. It consists of nine items rated on ∗∗∗ correlated with bedtime procrastination (r = 0.318 ) a fve-point Likert scale. Four items (2, 3, 7, and 9) are ∗∗∗ and phubbing (r = 0.418 ) but negatively correlated reverse scored. Te Chinese version of the scale’s Cronbach’s ∗∗∗ with self-control (r = −0.518 ). Bedtime procrastination alpha coefcient was 0.910 [45]. In this study, the value of ∗∗∗ was negatively correlated with self-control (r = −0.414 ) Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.868. ∗∗∗ and positively correlated with phubbing (r = 0.402 ). Self-control was negatively correlated with phubbing ∗∗∗ 2.2.4. Self-Control Scale (SCS). Te Chinese version of the (r = −0.448 ). SCS was revised based on the original by Tangney et al. [46] to measure self-control among Chinese college students 3.2. Mediating Efect Analysis. Te mediation analysis of [47], including impulse control, healthy habits, resisting gender and age demonstrated that neither variable sig- temptation, work focus, and temperance entertainment. It nifcantly impacted the relationship between boredom consists of 19 items rated on a fve-point Likert scale. Except proneness and phubbing. Te bootstrapping tests for items 1, 5, 11, and 14, all items are reverse scored, and the revealed that self-control and bedtime procrastination scores are summed to yield a total. Te Chinese version of mediate the relationship between boredom proneness the scale’s Cronbach’s alpha coefcient was 0.862. In this and phubbing (Table 2). Te results indicated an efect of study, the value of Cronbach’s alpha was 0.849. boredom proneness on mediating variables, −0.225 for self-control (P<0.001) and 0.088 for bedtime pro- 2.3. Procedure. Te original data were collected through crastination (P<0.001). Additionally, concerning the an online survey among Chinese college students. Par- infuence of mediators’ variables on the outcome, the ticipants were asked to complete the online survey by efect of self-control was −0.416 for phubbing and the using Sojump (http://www.sojump.com), one of China’s efect of bedtime procrastination was 0.290 for phubbing most professional online survey websites, within (P<0.001 in both cases). 20 minutes. Tis study was approved by the Anhui A mediation analysis was conducted to determine the Normal University Institutional Review Board. Te extent to which the change in phubbing was brought about survey began on March 12, 2020, and ended on March by self-control and bedtime procrastination. Direct efects 24, 2020. showed that boredom proneness had a direct positive efect SPSS software (version 26.0) was used for statistical on phubbing of 0.167 (P<0.001), whereby the 95% bias- analysis. First, potential common method bias was corrected CI did not include zero [0.111–0.224]. In addition checked, and Harman’s single factor test was calculated to the direct path, there are three indirect paths: (1) the frst to determine the data for common method variance [48]. path coefcient �a (−0.225)✕b (−0.416) �0.094, 95% CI 1 1 Second, descriptive statistics such as the means (X) and [0.062–0.128]; (2) the second path coefcient �a (0.088) standard deviations (SD) for each variable were reported, ✕b (0.290) �0.025, 95% CI [0.011–0.042]; and (3) the third followed by the correlations among focal study variables. path coefcient �a (−0.225)✕d(−0.484)✕b (0.290) � 1 2 Tird, mediation analyses assessed whether self-control 0.032, 95% CI [0.020–0.046]. Te total indirect efects of and bedtime procrastination mediated the relationship boredom proneness on phubbing were signifcant at 0.151 between boredom proneness and phubbing. A mediation (P<0.001). Zero was not included in the bootstrap interval, analysis can use bootstrap analysis to evaluate the sig- 95% CI [0.115–0.190], suggesting that self-control and nifcance of indirect efects by using macro Process 3.3 bedtime procrastination partially mediate the relationship from SPSS (version 26.0) developed by Hayes (Model 6) between boredom proneness and phubbing (Table 3). [49]. Te lowest possible signifcance level was used, and the bootstrapping procedure with 10,000 bias-corrected 4 Journal of Healthcare Engineering Table 1: Correlations between boredom proneness, bedtime procrastination, self-control, and phubbing. Bedtime M±SD Boredom proneness Self-control Phubbing procrastination Boredom proneness 3.455±0.953 1 ∗∗∗ Self-control 3.179±0.414 −0.518 1 ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ Bedtime procrastination 2.969±0.587 0.318 −0.414 1 ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ Phubbing 2.744±0.728 0.418 −0.448 0.402 1 ∗∗∗ Notes: P< 0.001; M �mean; SD �standard deviation. Table 2: Results of regression analysis in the chain mediation model. Variables Model ftting indicator Efect value 95% CI Outcome variable Predictor variable R R F B t LLCI ULCI ∗∗∗ Self-control Boredom proneness 0.518 0.269 86.132 −0.225(a ) −15.994 −0.253 −0.198 ∗∗∗ Boredom proneness 0.432 0.187 40.249 0.088(a ) 3.562 0.039 0.136 Bedtime procrastination ∗∗∗ Self-control −0.484(d) −8.583 −0.595 −0.373 ∗∗∗ Boredom proneness 0.541 0.292 57.939 0.167(c) 5.826 0.111 0.224 ∗∗∗ Phubbing Self-control −0.416(b ) −6.056 −0.551 −0.281 ∗∗∗ Bedtime procrastination 0.290(b ) 6.642 0.204 0.376 ∗∗∗ Note. P<0.001; C �constant; CI �confdence interval; LLCI �low limit confdence interval; ULCI �upper limit confdence interval. Table 3: Results of the mediation test using bootstrap analysis. Bootstrap 95% CI Type Mediation paths Estimate Std. err Lower Upper Indirect 1 Boredom proneness—self-control—phubbing 0.094 0.172 0.062 0.128 Indirect 2 Boredom proneness—bedtime procrastination—phubbing 0.025 0.008 0.011 0.042 Indirect 3 Boredom proneness—self-control—bedtime procrastination—phubbing 0.032 0.007 0.020 0.046 Total indirect 0.151 0.019 0.115 0.190 Direct Boredom proneness—phubbing 0.167 0.029 0.111 0.224 Total 0.318 0.026 0.267 0.370 activity in the impulsive system to choose hedonic behaviors, 4. Discussion such as bedtime procrastination and phubbing. Accordingly, Tis study explored the efect of boredom proneness on boredom among Chinese college students positively predicts college students' phubbing and the mediating role of self- their phubbing behaviors [57]. In contrast, the refective control and bedtime procrastination. Te fndings showed system inhibits or overrides prepotent responses. In line statistically signifcant gender diferences in boredom with previous research, correlation analysis shows that self- proneness, consistent with the previous research [51]. A lack control is negatively related to bedtime procrastination [58], of external stimulation greatly afected men [52]. Tey phubbing [59], and boredom [60]. In contrast, phubbing is appeared to experience greater boredom than women be- positively associated with boredom and bedtime pro- cause men were more likely to attribute boredom to the crastination. Results are consistent with previous studies that home environment, being relatively isolated from the ex- the higher the individual’s trait of boredom is, the higher the ternal world during the COVID-19 outbreak. However, level of phubbing is [61]. Boredom is positively related to women were more likely to attribute boredom to a lack of bedtime procrastination, consistent with earlier fndings that internal stimulation [53]. Furthermore, male college stu- the high bedtime procrastination group spends 451% more dents experience greater boredom when they perceive their time (about 61minutes) per day on their smartphones before environment as lacking in activities to pursue, slow time bedtime than the low bedtime procrastination group passage, and feelings of impatience [54]. Accordingly, fur- [62, 63]. ther research would include a more specifc exploration of Te second proposition was to test the prediction that how segmentation dimensions of boredom infuence self-control and bedtime procrastination would mediate the phubbing. relationship between boredom proneness and phubbing. According to the dual systems model of self-control [55], Te results of the current study can be explained according when faced with temptation, the refective system prompts to the theorizing on the potential interplay between bore- rational behavior for long-term goals, whereas the impulsive dom and self-control in guiding goal-directed behavior [64]; system prompts individuals to do what pleasure dictates boredom proneness and self-control play essential roles in [56]. Boredom proneness may be more likely to evoke goal-directed behavior (Figure 1). On the one hand, Journal of Healthcare Engineering 5 mixed-method approaches. Furthermore, as phubbing and Bedtime Self-Control bedtime procrastination are increasing research attention, Procrastination researchers need to dive deeper into the causal relationship. Future research could be extended by studies that further – + explain the cognitive mechanisms, particularly the cognitive + – mechanisms of self-control on phubbing. Boredom Phubbing Tese results contribute theoretically and empirically to the Proneness literature on phubbing and highlight many worthwhile ques- Figure 1: Te infuence of boredom proneness on phubbing in the tions with the hope of inspiring future research. First, based on current study. the fndings of this study, we suggested some strategies that reduce boredom, bedtime procrastination, and phubbing by training college students’ self-control, time management, and boredom proneness, as a signal to engage in a diferent commitment. Second, intervening strategies, such as the online activity (change behavior), should make adherence to application of mental contrast with implementation intentions containment measures more complicated, thus afecting [67], can reduce bedtime procrastination and phubbing, pro- bedtime procrastination and positively impacting phubbing. viding critical practical implications for reducing college failure. It indirectly afects bedtime procrastination through the Tird, metacognitive strategies enable college students to use an mediating efect of self-control. High levels of boredom app to record how often they phub, rethink why they phub, and proneness can increase phubbing levels, and self-control can go to bed later than they intended. As mentioned above, these reduce phubbing and bedtime procrastination. Self-control results provide ideas and methods for college students to carry is an essential intermediary variable between boredom out home-based learning. From the perspective of home-school proneness and phubbing. When boredom proneness limits cooperation, online training in mindfulness and home-based refective self-control, it increases PSU [65]. Mu’s reported mindfulness practice can decrease college students’ boredom that self-control negatively predicts bedtime procrastination [68], bedtime procrastination [69], and phubbing [70]. Fur- [66]. Mediating efect analysis also shows that boredom thermore, mindfulness can promote college students’ self- proneness can indirectly afect phubbing through the chain control [71] during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mindfulness mediation of self-control and bedtime procrastination. A can also work against negative emotions and problematic be- high level of boredom proneness tends to cause negative and haviors, help students work and rest regularly, and improve the impulsive emotions, which increase bedtime procrastination efciency of home-based learning for college students. From the behavior among college students. Tus, they may show more perspective of college students, the promotion function of phubbing behavior. However, improving self-control and classmate friendship can reduce boredom, and students can reducing bedtime procrastination can reduce phubbing in beneft from forming an online study group to study and live college students. Concretizing existing models for the cur- regularly. In the group, students will share their home-based rent study allows us to shed new light on how self-control learning progress and achievements to monitor and encourage and bedtime procrastination mediate the relationship be- each other’s progress. tween boredom proneness and phubbing. In conclusion, boredom proneness, self-control, and Te study has certain limitations that need to be con- bedtime procrastination are essential factors that afect sidered. First, causal directions cannot be interpreted be- college students’ phubbing, while self-control and bedtime cause the data are cross-sectional. A longer temporal procrastination are mediating variables afecting phubbing. dimension would reveal the evolution of self-control and bedtime procrastination and their relationship with bore- dom proneness and phubbing. Second, only unmarried Data Availability college students participated in this research, limiting the Te datasets used and analyzed during the current study are fndings’ generalizability. Tird, this research relied on self- available from the corresponding author upon reasonable reported data, often biased by social desirability and com- request. mon method bias. Fourth, the current study cannot provide clear support for the reverse causal relationship between bedtime procrastination and phubbing. Finally, this model Conflicts of Interest does not expound on the concrete cognitive mechanisms of phubbing. Te authors declare that they have no conficts of interest. In the future, longitudinal models need to assess the evolution of conditions in college students to understand the Acknowledgments causal directions between phubbing and its infuencing factors. Te sample needs to be extended to other population Tis study was supported by the Anhui Topnotch Talents of groups, such as clinical or enterprise employees. In addition, Disciplines in Universities and Colleges (gxbjZD2020002), the to increase the diversity of participants, we encourage future University Synergy Innovation Program of Anhui Province research to use multi-informant approaches (such as (GXXT-2021-003), and the Humanities and Social Science parent reports, teacher reports, and friend reports) and Research Project of Henan Province (2020-ZZJH-473). 6 Journal of Healthcare Engineering depression and anxiety with problematic smartphone use,” References Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, vol. 2, no. 1, [1] Z. Liang, Q. Zhao, Z. Zhou, Q. Yu, S. Li, and S. Chen, “Te pp. 61–70, 2020. efect of ‘novelty input’ and ‘novelty output’ on boredom [18] Y. Wang, H. Yang, C. Montag, and J. D. Elhai, “Boredom during home quarantine in the COVID-19 pandemic: the proneness and rumination mediate relationships between moderating efects of trait creativity,” Frontiers in Psychology, depression and anxiety with problematic smartphone use vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 1–10, 2020. severity,” Current Psychology, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 5287–5297, [2] Y. Al-saggaf and B. O. Sarah, “Phubbing: perceptions, reasons behind, predictors, and impacts,” Human Behavior and [19] W. Wolf, C. S. Martarelli, J. Schuler, ¨ and M. Bieleke, “High Emerging Technologies, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 132–140, 2019. boredom proneness and low trait self-control impair ad- [3] V. Chotpitayasunondh and K. M. Douglas, “How ‘phubbing’ herence to social distancing guidelines during the COVID-19 becomes the norm: the antecedents and consequences of pandemic,” International Journal of Environmental Research snubbing via smartphone,” Computers in Human Behavior, and Public Health, vol. 17, no. 15, p. 5420, 2020. vol. 63, pp. 9–18, 2016. [20] A. L. Duckworth, J. L. Taxer, L. Eskreis-Winkler, B. M. Galla, [4] J. A. Roberts and M. E. David, “My life has become a major and J. J. Gross, “Self-control and academic achievement,” distraction from my cell phone: partner phubbing and re- Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 70, no.1, pp. 373–399, 2019. lationship satisfaction among romantic partners,” Computers [21] Y. Geng, J. Gu, J. Wang, and R. Zhang, “Smartphone addiction in Human Behavior, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 134–141, 2016. and depression, anxiety: the role of bedtime procrastination [5] J. H. Han, S. J. Park, and Y. Kim, “Phubbing as a millennials’ and self-control,” Journal of Afective Disorders, vol. 293, new addiction and relating factors among nursing students,” pp. 415–421, 2021. Psychiatry Investigation, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 135–145, 2022. [22] K. S. Sansevere and N. Ward, “Linking phubbing behavior to [6] V. Chotpitayasunondh and K. M. Douglas, “Te efects of self-reported attentional failures and media multitasking,” ‘phubbing’ on social interaction,” Journal of Applied Social Future Internet, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 100, 2021. Psychology, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 304–316, 2018. [23] K. J. Walters, J. S. Simons, and R. M. Simons, “Self-control [7] J. D. Elhai, H. Yang, J. Fang, X. Bai, and B. J. Hall, “Depression demands and alcohol-related problems: within- and between- and anxiety symptoms are related to problematic smartphone person associations,” Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, use severity in Chinese young adults: fear of missing out as vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 573–582, 2018. a mediator,” Addictive Behaviors, vol. 101, no. 57, Article ID [24] R. Servidio, “Self-control and problematic smartphone use 105962, 2020. among Italian University students: the mediating role of the [8] X. Chu, S. Ji, X. Wang, J. Yu, Y. Chen, and L. Lei, “Peer fear of missing out and of smartphone use patterns,” Current phubbing and social networking site addiction: the mediating Psychology, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 4101–4111, 2021. role of social anxiety and the moderating role of family f- [25] J. Zhu, Y. Jiang, Y. Chen, L. Huang, Z. Bao, and W. Zhang, nancial difculty,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 12, Article ID “High impulsivity, low self-control and problematic mobile 670065, 2021. phone use: the efect of poor sleep quality,” Current Psy- [9] A. Guazzini, M. Duradoni, A. Capelli, and P. Meringolo, “An chology, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 3265–3271, 2021. explorative model to assess individuals’ phubbing risk,” Fu- [26] A. N. Teoh, E. Y. E. Ooi, and A. Y. Chan, “Boredom afects ture Internet, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 21–13, 2019. sleep quality: the serial mediation efect of inattention and [10] E. Capilla Garrido, T. Issa, P. Guti´errez Esteban, and S. Cubo bedtime procrastination,” Personality and Individual Difer- Delgado, “A descriptive literature review of phubbing be- ences, vol. 171, Article ID 110460, 2021. haviors,” Heliyon, vol. 7, no. 5, Article ID e07037, 2021. [27] A. Hunter and J. D. Eastwood, “Does state boredom cause [11] Y. Al-Saggaf, R. Macculloch, and K. Wiener, “Trait Boredom failures of attention? Examining the relations between trait is a predictor of phubbing frequency,” Journalof Technology in boredom, state boredom, and sustained attention,” Experi- Behavioral Science, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 245–252, 2019. mental Brain Research, vol. 236, no. 9, pp. 2483–2492, 2018. [12] Y. Al-Saggaf, “Phubbing, fear of Missing out and boredom,” [28] S. Nauts, B. A. Kamphorst, W. Stut, D. T. D. De Ridder, and Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, vol. 6, no. 2, J. H. Anderson, “Te explanations people give for going to bed pp. 352–357, 2021. late: a qualitative study of the varieties of bedtime pro- [13] J. D. Eastwood, A. Frischen, M. J. Fenske, and D. Smilek, “Te crastination,” Behavioral Sleep Medicine, vol. 17, no. 6, unengaged mind: defning boredom in terms of attention,” pp. 753–762, 2019. Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 482– [29] M. X. Zhang, H. Zhou, H. M. Yang, and A. M. S. Wu, “Te 495, 2012. prospective efect of problematic smartphone use and fear of [14] E. Malkovsky, C. Merrifeld, Y. Goldberg, and J. Danckert, missing out on sleep among Chinese adolescents,” Current “Exploring the relationship between boredom and sustained Psychology, pp. 1–9, 2021. attention,” Experimental Brain Research, vol. 221, no. 1, [30] G. Cui, Y. Yin, S. Li et al., “Longitudinal relationships among pp. 59–67, 2012. problematic mobile phone use, bedtime procrastination, sleep [15] E. C. Westgate and T. D. Wilson, “Boring thoughts and bored quality and depressive symptoms in Chinese college students: minds: the MAC model of boredom and cognitive engage- a cross-lagged panel analysis,” BMC Psychiatry, vol. 21, no. 1, ment,” PsychologicalReview, vol.125, no. 5, pp. 689–713, 2018. p. 449, 2021. [16] V. M. Hill, A. L. Rebar, S. A. Ferguson, A. E. Shriane, and [31] K. Bernecker and V. Job, “Too exhausted to go to bed: implicit G. E. Vincent, “Go to bed! A systematic review and meta- theories about willpower and stress predict bedtime pro- analysis of bedtime procrastination correlates and sleep outcomes,” Sleep Medicine Reviews, vol. 66, Article ID 101697, crastination,” British Journal of Psychology, vol. 111, no. 1, 2022. pp. 126–147, 2020. [17] C. A. Wolniewicz, D. Rozgonjuk, and J. D. Elhai, “Boredom [32] J. X. Wang, Y. Zhang, Y. Y. Liu, and S. R. I. Xilinmen, “Sleep proneness and fear of missing out mediate relations between status of college students and its infuencing factors,” Te Journal of Healthcare Engineering 7 Annual Sleep Report of China 2022, pp. 75–88, Social Science [49] A. F. Hayes, Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Academic Press, Beijing, China, 2022. Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, [33] L. Li and H. Sun, “Review of research on bedtime pro- Guilford Press, New York, NY, USA, 2017. crastination,” China Journal of Health Psychology, vol. 28, [50] Z. Wen and B. Ye, “Analyses of mediating efects: the de- no. 2, pp. 316–320, 2020. velopment of methods and models,” Advances in Psycho- [34] C. D. Mah, E. J. Kezirian, B. M. Marcello, and W. C. Dement, logical Science, vol. 22, no. 5, p. 731, 2014. “Poor sleep quality and insufcient sleep of a collegiate [51] J. Oxtoby, R. Schroeter, D. Johnson, and S. A. Kaye, “Using student-athlete population,” Sleep Health, vol. 4, no. 3, boredom proneness to predict young adults’ mobile phone use in the car and risky driving,” Transportation Research Part pp. 251–257, 2018. [35] X. Ma, D. Meng, L. Zhu et al., “Bedtime procrastination F: Trafc Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 457– predicts the prevalence and severity of poor sleep quality of 468, 2019. Chinese undergraduate students,”Journal ofAmericanCollege [52] J. Boylan, P. Seli, A. A. Scholer, and J. Danckert, “Boredom in Health, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 1104–1111, 2022. the COVID-19 pandemic: trait boredom proneness, the desire [36] W. Wolf, M. Bieleke, C. Englert, A. Bertrams, J. Schuler, ¨ and to act, and rule-breaking,” Personality and Individual Dif- C. S. Martarelli, “A single item measure of self- ferences, vol. 171, Article ID 110387, 2021. control–validation and location in a nomological network [53] C. M. Studak and J. E. Workman, “Fashion groups, gender, of self-control, boredom, and if-then planning,” Social Psy- and boredom proneness,” International Journal of Consumer Studies, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 66–74, 2004. chological Bulletin, vol. 17, pp. 1–22, 2022. [37] Y. Lin, S. Liu, S. Li, H. Zuo, and B. Zhang, “Relationships [54] S. J. Vodanovich, S. J. Kass, F. Andrasik, W. D. Gerber, U. Niederberger, and C. Breaux, “Culture and gender dif- between the changes in sleep patterns and sleep quality among Chinese people during the 2019 coronavirus disease out- ferences in boredom proneness,” North American Journal of break,” Sleep Medicine, vol. 91, pp. 154–160, 2022. Psychology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 221–230, 2011. [38] R. West, C. Ash, A. Dapore, B. Kirby, K. Malley, and S. Zhu, [55] A. Diamond, “Executive functions,” Annual Review of Psy- “Problematic smartphone use: the role of reward processing, chology, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 135–168, 2013. depressive symptoms and self-control,” Addictive Behaviors, [56] W. Forrest, C. Hay, A. O. Widdowson, and M. Rocque, vol. 122, Article ID 107015, 2021. “Development of impulsivity and risk-seeking: implications [39] F. M. Sirois, S. Nauts, and D. S. Molnar, “Self-compassion and for the dimensionality and stability of self-control,” Crimi- bedtime procrastination: an emotion regulation perspective,” nology, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 512–543, 2019. [57] J. Zhao, B. Ye, and L. Yu, “Peer phubbing and Chinese college Mindfulness, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 434–445, 2019. [40] J. Peng, W. Guo, L. Zhao, X. Han, and S. Wu, “Short Boredom students’ smartphone addiction during COVID-19 pandemic: Proneness Scale: adaptation and validation of a Chinese the mediating role of boredom proneness and the moderating version with college students,” Social Behavior and Person- role of refusal self-efcacy,” Psychology Research and Behavior ality: International Journal, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 1–8, 2020. Management, vol. 14, pp. 1725–1736, 2021. [41] A. A. Struk, J. S. A. Carriere, J. A. Cheyne, and J. Danckert, “A [58] J. Kuhnel, C. J. Syrek, and A. Dreher, “Why don’t you go to short boredom proneness scale: development and psycho- bed on time? A daily diary study on the relationships between metric properties,” Assessment, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 346–359, chronotype, self-control resources and the phenomenon of 2017. bedtime procrastination,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 9, [42] V. Chotpitayasunondh and K. M. Douglas, “Measuring phone no. 77, p. 77, 2018. snubbing behavior: development and validation of the generic [59] A. Cebollero-Salinas, J. Cano-Escoriaza, and S. Orejudo, “Are scale of phubbing (GSP) and the generic scale of being emotional e-competencies a protective factor against habitual phubbed (GSBP),” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 88, digital behaviors (media multitasking, cybergossip, phubbing) pp. 5–17, 2018. in Spanish students of secondary education?” Computers & [43] L. Zhang and L. Zhang, “Revision of the Chinese version of Education, vol. 181, Article ID 104464, 2022. generic scale of phubbing,” Chinese Journal of Clinical Psy- [60] M. Bieleke, L. Barton, and W. Wolf, “Trajectories of boredom in self-control demanding tasks,” Cognition & Emotion, chology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 29–36, 2020. [44] F. M. Kroese, D. T. D. de Ridder, C. Evers, and vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 1018–1028, 2021. [61] X. J. Yang, Q. Q. Liu, S. L. Lian, and Z. K. Zhou, “Are bored M. A. Adriaanse, “Bedtime procrastination: introducing a new area of procrastination,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 5, minds more likely to be addicted? Te relationship between pp. 611–618, 2014. boredom proneness and problematic mobile phone use,” [45] X. Ma, L. Zhu, J. Guo, Y. Zhao, Y. Fu, and L. Mu, “Reliability Addictive Behaviors, vol. 108, Article ID 106426, 2020. and validity of the bedtime procrastination scale in Chinese [62] S. J. Chung, H. An, and S. Suh, “What do people do before college students,” Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, going to bed? A study of bedtime procrastination using time vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 717–720, 2021. use surveys,” Sleep, vol. 43, no. 4, p. zsz267, 2020. [46] J. P. Tangney, R. F. Baumeister, and A. L. Boone, “High self- [63] R. Rubin, “Matters of the mind—bedtime procrastination, control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better relaxation-induced anxiety, lonely tweeters,” JAMA, vol. 323, no. 1, pp. 15-16, 2020. grades, and interpersonal success,” Journal of Personality, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 271–324, 2004. [64] C. S. Martarelli and W. Wolf, “Too bored to bother? Boredom as a potential threat to the efcacy of pandemic containment [47] S. Tan and Y. Guo, “Revision of self-control scale for Chinese college students,” Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, measures,” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 468–470, 2008. vol. 7, no. 1, p. 24, 2020. [48] S. Tehseen, T. Ramayah, and S. Sajilan, “Testing and con- [65] L. Exelmans and J. Van den Bulck, “Glued to the tube”: the trolling for common method variance: a review of available interplay between self-control, evening television viewing, methods,” Journal of management sciences, vol. 4, no. 2, and bedtime procrastination,” Communication Research, pp. 142–168, 2017. vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 594–616, 2021. 8 Journal of Healthcare Engineering [66] D. Meng, Y. Zhao, J. Guo et al., “Te relationship between bedtime procrastination, future time perspective, and self- control,” Current Psychology, 2021. [67] T. J. Valshtein, G. Oettingen, and P. M. Gollwitzer, “Using mental contrasting with implementation intentions to reduce bedtime procrastination: two randomised trials,” Psychology and Health, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 275–301, 2019. [68] A. N. Teoh and J. W. K. Wong, “Mindfulness is associated with better sleep quality in young adults by reducing boredom and bedtime procrastination,” Behavioral Sleep Medicine, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 61–71, 2022. [69] H. Liu, Y. Ji, and S. B. Dust, “‘Fully recharged’ evenings? Te efect of evening cyber leisure on next-day vitality and per- formance through sleep quantity and quality, bedtime pro- crastination, and psychological detachment, and the moderating role of mindfulness,” Journal of Applied Psy- chology, vol. 106, no. 7, pp. 990–1006, 2021. [70] F. M. Schneider and S. Hitzfeld, “I ought to put down that phone but I phub nevertheless: examining the predictors of phubbing behavior,” Social Science Computer Review, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1075–1088, 2021. [71] N. K. Canby, I. M. Cameron, A. T. Calhoun, and G. M. Buchanan, “A brief mindfulness intervention for healthy college students and its efects on psychological distress, self-control, meta-mood, and subjective vitality,” Mindfulness, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 1071–1081, 2015. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Healthcare Engineering Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Boredom Proneness on Chinese College Students’ Phubbing during the COVID-19 Outbreak: The Mediating Effects of Self-Control and Bedtime Procrastination

Journal of Healthcare Engineering , Volume 2023 – Feb 8, 2023

Loading next page...
 
/lp/hindawi-publishing-corporation/boredom-proneness-on-chinese-college-students-phubbing-during-the-8i0g0MN2Ph

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
ISSN
2040-2295
eISSN
2040-2309
DOI
10.1155/2023/4134283
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Hindawi Journal of Healthcare Engineering Volume 2023, Article ID 4134283, 8 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/4134283 Research Article Boredom Proneness on Chinese College Students’ Phubbing during the COVID-19 Outbreak: The Mediating Effects of Self-Control and Bedtime Procrastination 1 1,2 Fan Meng and Bin Xuan School of Educational Science, Anhui Normal University, Wuhu, Anhui, China Institute of Artifcial Intelligence, Hefei Comprehensive National Science Center, Hefei, China Correspondence should be addressed to Bin Xuan; xuanbin@ahnu.edu.cn Received 23 May 2022; Revised 2 November 2022; Accepted 28 January 2023; Published 8 February 2023 Academic Editor: Nadeem Sarwar Copyright © 2023 Fan Meng and Bin Xuan. Tis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Objective. To analyze the relationship between boredom proneness and phubbing among Chinese college students and examine how self-control and bedtime procrastination mediate this relationship during the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods. A total of 707 Chinese college students were voluntarily surveyed. Tey completed the Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP), Short Boredom Proneness Scale (SBPS), Bedtime Procrastination Scale (BPS), and Self-Control Scale (SCS). Results. (1) Te results revealed that men scored higher on boredom than women. (2) Te analysis revealed signifcant associations between each of the variables. Boredom proneness was positively correlated with bedtime procrastination (r �0.318; P<0.001) and phubbing (r �0.418; P<0.001) and negatively correlated with self-control (r � −0.518; P<0.001). (3) Mediation analysis suggested that self-control and bedtime procrastination mediate the relationship between boredom proneness and phubbing (efect of self-control �0.094, P<0.001, 95% CI [0.062∼0.128]; efect of bedtime procrastination �0.025, P<0.001, 95% CI [0.011∼0.042]; and efect of self-control and bedtime procrastination �0.032, P<0.001, 95% CI [0.020∼0.046]). Conclusion. Self-control and bedtime procrastination mediate the association between boredom proneness and phubbing among Chinese college students during the COVID-19 pandemic. and phubbing, which is the primary signifcance and reason for 1. Introduction conducting this research. Te COVID-19 outbreak greatly infuences society by afecting Phubbing refers to the behavior of individuals engaging both global economies and our lives as individuals. In addition with their phones during face-to-face conversations instead to its impact on physical health, its efects on psychological of talking to or paying attention to others [2]. As phubbing is health must be considered. To most, boredom is a ubiquitous a new area that has become a normalized part of everyday experience and a unique situation for college students living and interactions, communication quality and satisfaction in learning at home during the COVID-19 outbreak [1]. In such relationships have decreased [3]. Limited but growing re- a setting, it is difcult for college students to avoid electronic use search into phubbing has focused on two aspects. First, for many reasons, such as a lack of face-to-face communication phubbing negatively impacts people on relationship satis- withpeers,takingclasses,andbrowsingtheInternet.Individuals faction and personal well-being [4]. Second, predictors of with a high level of boredom may be at risk for higher levels of phubbing are discussed, including smartphone addiction phubbing during the COVID-19 outbreak because they need to [5], lack of self-control [6], fear of missing out [7], social change their behavior to reduce boredom. Based on the liter- anxiety [8], trait anxiety [9], and boredom [10]. Despite this, ature searches conducted nationally and internationally, there is the causes of phubbing remain largely unknown. Tis study less empirical evidence on the relationship between boredom examined existing fndings to understand factors such as 2 Journal of Healthcare Engineering circumstances preventing one from doing so” and is a type of boredom, self-control, and bedtime procrastination that predict phubbing. Ten, a model was developed and tested unhealthy behavior related to sleep habits [31]. Te annual sleep report of China (2022) shows that only 6.41% of college to explain these factors. Trait boredom can predict one’s phubbing frequency students never experience bedtime procrastination [32]. [11], and a positive correlation has been found between However, 61.53% of them habitually play games on boredom and phubbing [12]. Trait boredom has traditionally smartphones before going to sleep. Previous studies have been described as a negative experience—a negative emotion shown that, instead of sleeping, up to 66.67% of college frequently linked with difculty sustaining attention and students shop on their phones, play games, chat with friends, related impulse control difculties [13, 14]. According to the or read novels [33]. meaning-and-attention-component (MAC) model, bore- dom occurs when one cannot successfully engage in an Hypothesis 3. Boredom proneness and phubbing are me- activity and/or when the current activity is perceived as diated by bedtime procrastination. meaningless [15]. As a result of the previous studies, Bedtime procrastination has been recognized as a self- boredom is positively correlated with several problematic control failure and a signifcant factor in sleep defciency behaviors, such as bedtime procrastination [16] and prob- during the COVID-19 outbreak [34] and is strongly nega- lematic smartphone use (PSU) [17, 18]. Terefore, it is of tively related to self-control [35]. Individuals with a high practical signifcance to explore the relationship between level of boredom proneness will fnd goal achievement more boredom and phubbing and which factors afect the challenging, and low self-control may impair their ability to relationship. handle these challenges [36]. Tey always give in to temp- tation and then delay sleep during the COVID-19 outbreak Hypothesis 1. Boredom proneness has a positive correlation [37]. Self-control plays an essential role in PSU [38] and with phubbing. bedtime procrastination [39], which facilitates interpreting A recent study analyzing how boredom and self-control the relationship between boredom, bedtime procrastination, interact to guide behavior toward goals emphasizes the and phubbing. Tis study aimed to analyze the mediating psychological challenges under pandemic prevention and efects of self-control and bedtime procrastination on this control measures [19]. When stimulation is low during the relationship. mandatory quarantine, boredom can challenge confned college students. High levels of boredom are associated with Hypothesis 4. Self-control and bedtime procrastination se- breaking habitual behavior, such as deliberately delaying quentially mediate the relationship between boredom going to bed and more phubbing behaviors. Self-control proneness and phubbing. plays a vital role in the relationship between boredom and phubbing. Self-control facilitates goal achievement by 2. Methods volitionally directing attention toward goal-directed be- havior, aiming to override prepotent impulses or urges of 2.1.Participants. A random sample of adult college students thoughts, actions, and emotions to serve long-term goals by was collected from three colleges in Henan Province. All resisting inner desires and external temptations to adapt participants have no history of psychiatric or neurological appropriately to the environment, which is of great societal disease. Questionnaires, including the informed consent, relevance [20]. Self-control is positively associated with were distributed through the online class community, and individuals’ health, adaptive behavior, and well-being, 713 questionnaires were returned. We removed the par- whereas it is negatively associated with bedtime pro- ticipants’ data from the dataset if they completed the crastination [21] and phubbing [22]. Individuals who lack questionnaires too quickly (<5min). Ultimately, there were self-control are more prone to addictive behaviors such as 707 valid subjects with an efective rate of 99.16%, of which alcohol abuse [23], Internet addiction [24], and PSU [25]. 211 were males (29.84%) and 496 were females (70.16%), all participating anonymously and voluntarily. Te participants Hypothesis 2. Self-control mediates the relationship be- were between 18 and 24years. Te study was conducted in tween boredom proneness and phubbing. accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Te results Boredom proneness predicts bedtime procrastination were analyzed anonymously. [26]. Bored individuals seek activities that stimulate them more than sleeping. Trait boredom includes the concept of fdgeting, whereas fdgeting, a coping mechanism for 2.2. Measures boredom, leads to a delay in bedtime. According to the attentional theory of boredom [27], when procrastinators 2.2.1. Short Boredom Proneness Scale (SBPS). Te scale was ignore the present moment, they are distracted from sleep translated into Chinese and tested to measure the trait and tempted to fnd something interesting to do, resulting in propensity for experiencing boredom for college students delayed bedtime [28]. Bedtime procrastination is positively with excellent validity and reliability [40]. It was revised related to PSU [29]. A cross-lagged analysis revealed sig- based on the original by Struk et al. [41]. It consists of eight nifcant bidirectional relationships between PSU and bed- items rated on a seven-point Likert scale. Total scores range time procrastination [30]. Bedtime procrastination is from 8 to 56. High scores refect general proneness to “failing to go to bed at the intended time with no external boredom. Te Chinese version of the scale’s Cronbach’s Journal of Healthcare Engineering 3 bootstraps with 95% confdence intervals (CIs) was es- alpha coefcient was 0.870. In this study, the value of Cronbach’s alpha was 0.844. timated. Bootstrapping creates an empirical represen- tation of the population by resampling from the empirical sample to mimic the original sampling 2.2.2. Te Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP). Te Chinese process [50]. version of GSP among college students was revised from the original by Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas to measure the 3. Results extent to which people focus on their smartphones and ignore others in social settings [42]. It is a four-factor, 15- 3.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis of the item assessment with a seven-point Likert scale. Te Chinese Variables. All items were constrained in the analysis, and version of the scale’s Cronbach’s alpha coefcient was 0.840 the frst principal factor explained only 22.14% of the var- [43]. In this study, the value of Cronbach’s alpha was 0.870. iance, suggesting that common method bias is not a problem in this study. According to the results, male students had signifcantly higher boredom proneness than female stu- 2.2.3. Bedtime Procrastination Scale (BPS). Te Chinese dents (t �2.541; P<0.05) in this study. version of the BPS was revised from the original by Kroese Partial correlations were found between boredom et al. [44] to measure the sleep-related behaviors and habits proneness, bedtime procrastination, self-control, and that could indicate levels of bedtime procrastination among phubbing (Table 1). Boredom proneness was positively Chinese undergraduates. It consists of nine items rated on ∗∗∗ correlated with bedtime procrastination (r = 0.318 ) a fve-point Likert scale. Four items (2, 3, 7, and 9) are ∗∗∗ and phubbing (r = 0.418 ) but negatively correlated reverse scored. Te Chinese version of the scale’s Cronbach’s ∗∗∗ with self-control (r = −0.518 ). Bedtime procrastination alpha coefcient was 0.910 [45]. In this study, the value of ∗∗∗ was negatively correlated with self-control (r = −0.414 ) Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.868. ∗∗∗ and positively correlated with phubbing (r = 0.402 ). Self-control was negatively correlated with phubbing ∗∗∗ 2.2.4. Self-Control Scale (SCS). Te Chinese version of the (r = −0.448 ). SCS was revised based on the original by Tangney et al. [46] to measure self-control among Chinese college students 3.2. Mediating Efect Analysis. Te mediation analysis of [47], including impulse control, healthy habits, resisting gender and age demonstrated that neither variable sig- temptation, work focus, and temperance entertainment. It nifcantly impacted the relationship between boredom consists of 19 items rated on a fve-point Likert scale. Except proneness and phubbing. Te bootstrapping tests for items 1, 5, 11, and 14, all items are reverse scored, and the revealed that self-control and bedtime procrastination scores are summed to yield a total. Te Chinese version of mediate the relationship between boredom proneness the scale’s Cronbach’s alpha coefcient was 0.862. In this and phubbing (Table 2). Te results indicated an efect of study, the value of Cronbach’s alpha was 0.849. boredom proneness on mediating variables, −0.225 for self-control (P<0.001) and 0.088 for bedtime pro- 2.3. Procedure. Te original data were collected through crastination (P<0.001). Additionally, concerning the an online survey among Chinese college students. Par- infuence of mediators’ variables on the outcome, the ticipants were asked to complete the online survey by efect of self-control was −0.416 for phubbing and the using Sojump (http://www.sojump.com), one of China’s efect of bedtime procrastination was 0.290 for phubbing most professional online survey websites, within (P<0.001 in both cases). 20 minutes. Tis study was approved by the Anhui A mediation analysis was conducted to determine the Normal University Institutional Review Board. Te extent to which the change in phubbing was brought about survey began on March 12, 2020, and ended on March by self-control and bedtime procrastination. Direct efects 24, 2020. showed that boredom proneness had a direct positive efect SPSS software (version 26.0) was used for statistical on phubbing of 0.167 (P<0.001), whereby the 95% bias- analysis. First, potential common method bias was corrected CI did not include zero [0.111–0.224]. In addition checked, and Harman’s single factor test was calculated to the direct path, there are three indirect paths: (1) the frst to determine the data for common method variance [48]. path coefcient �a (−0.225)✕b (−0.416) �0.094, 95% CI 1 1 Second, descriptive statistics such as the means (X) and [0.062–0.128]; (2) the second path coefcient �a (0.088) standard deviations (SD) for each variable were reported, ✕b (0.290) �0.025, 95% CI [0.011–0.042]; and (3) the third followed by the correlations among focal study variables. path coefcient �a (−0.225)✕d(−0.484)✕b (0.290) � 1 2 Tird, mediation analyses assessed whether self-control 0.032, 95% CI [0.020–0.046]. Te total indirect efects of and bedtime procrastination mediated the relationship boredom proneness on phubbing were signifcant at 0.151 between boredom proneness and phubbing. A mediation (P<0.001). Zero was not included in the bootstrap interval, analysis can use bootstrap analysis to evaluate the sig- 95% CI [0.115–0.190], suggesting that self-control and nifcance of indirect efects by using macro Process 3.3 bedtime procrastination partially mediate the relationship from SPSS (version 26.0) developed by Hayes (Model 6) between boredom proneness and phubbing (Table 3). [49]. Te lowest possible signifcance level was used, and the bootstrapping procedure with 10,000 bias-corrected 4 Journal of Healthcare Engineering Table 1: Correlations between boredom proneness, bedtime procrastination, self-control, and phubbing. Bedtime M±SD Boredom proneness Self-control Phubbing procrastination Boredom proneness 3.455±0.953 1 ∗∗∗ Self-control 3.179±0.414 −0.518 1 ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ Bedtime procrastination 2.969±0.587 0.318 −0.414 1 ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ Phubbing 2.744±0.728 0.418 −0.448 0.402 1 ∗∗∗ Notes: P< 0.001; M �mean; SD �standard deviation. Table 2: Results of regression analysis in the chain mediation model. Variables Model ftting indicator Efect value 95% CI Outcome variable Predictor variable R R F B t LLCI ULCI ∗∗∗ Self-control Boredom proneness 0.518 0.269 86.132 −0.225(a ) −15.994 −0.253 −0.198 ∗∗∗ Boredom proneness 0.432 0.187 40.249 0.088(a ) 3.562 0.039 0.136 Bedtime procrastination ∗∗∗ Self-control −0.484(d) −8.583 −0.595 −0.373 ∗∗∗ Boredom proneness 0.541 0.292 57.939 0.167(c) 5.826 0.111 0.224 ∗∗∗ Phubbing Self-control −0.416(b ) −6.056 −0.551 −0.281 ∗∗∗ Bedtime procrastination 0.290(b ) 6.642 0.204 0.376 ∗∗∗ Note. P<0.001; C �constant; CI �confdence interval; LLCI �low limit confdence interval; ULCI �upper limit confdence interval. Table 3: Results of the mediation test using bootstrap analysis. Bootstrap 95% CI Type Mediation paths Estimate Std. err Lower Upper Indirect 1 Boredom proneness—self-control—phubbing 0.094 0.172 0.062 0.128 Indirect 2 Boredom proneness—bedtime procrastination—phubbing 0.025 0.008 0.011 0.042 Indirect 3 Boredom proneness—self-control—bedtime procrastination—phubbing 0.032 0.007 0.020 0.046 Total indirect 0.151 0.019 0.115 0.190 Direct Boredom proneness—phubbing 0.167 0.029 0.111 0.224 Total 0.318 0.026 0.267 0.370 activity in the impulsive system to choose hedonic behaviors, 4. Discussion such as bedtime procrastination and phubbing. Accordingly, Tis study explored the efect of boredom proneness on boredom among Chinese college students positively predicts college students' phubbing and the mediating role of self- their phubbing behaviors [57]. In contrast, the refective control and bedtime procrastination. Te fndings showed system inhibits or overrides prepotent responses. In line statistically signifcant gender diferences in boredom with previous research, correlation analysis shows that self- proneness, consistent with the previous research [51]. A lack control is negatively related to bedtime procrastination [58], of external stimulation greatly afected men [52]. Tey phubbing [59], and boredom [60]. In contrast, phubbing is appeared to experience greater boredom than women be- positively associated with boredom and bedtime pro- cause men were more likely to attribute boredom to the crastination. Results are consistent with previous studies that home environment, being relatively isolated from the ex- the higher the individual’s trait of boredom is, the higher the ternal world during the COVID-19 outbreak. However, level of phubbing is [61]. Boredom is positively related to women were more likely to attribute boredom to a lack of bedtime procrastination, consistent with earlier fndings that internal stimulation [53]. Furthermore, male college stu- the high bedtime procrastination group spends 451% more dents experience greater boredom when they perceive their time (about 61minutes) per day on their smartphones before environment as lacking in activities to pursue, slow time bedtime than the low bedtime procrastination group passage, and feelings of impatience [54]. Accordingly, fur- [62, 63]. ther research would include a more specifc exploration of Te second proposition was to test the prediction that how segmentation dimensions of boredom infuence self-control and bedtime procrastination would mediate the phubbing. relationship between boredom proneness and phubbing. According to the dual systems model of self-control [55], Te results of the current study can be explained according when faced with temptation, the refective system prompts to the theorizing on the potential interplay between bore- rational behavior for long-term goals, whereas the impulsive dom and self-control in guiding goal-directed behavior [64]; system prompts individuals to do what pleasure dictates boredom proneness and self-control play essential roles in [56]. Boredom proneness may be more likely to evoke goal-directed behavior (Figure 1). On the one hand, Journal of Healthcare Engineering 5 mixed-method approaches. Furthermore, as phubbing and Bedtime Self-Control bedtime procrastination are increasing research attention, Procrastination researchers need to dive deeper into the causal relationship. Future research could be extended by studies that further – + explain the cognitive mechanisms, particularly the cognitive + – mechanisms of self-control on phubbing. Boredom Phubbing Tese results contribute theoretically and empirically to the Proneness literature on phubbing and highlight many worthwhile ques- Figure 1: Te infuence of boredom proneness on phubbing in the tions with the hope of inspiring future research. First, based on current study. the fndings of this study, we suggested some strategies that reduce boredom, bedtime procrastination, and phubbing by training college students’ self-control, time management, and boredom proneness, as a signal to engage in a diferent commitment. Second, intervening strategies, such as the online activity (change behavior), should make adherence to application of mental contrast with implementation intentions containment measures more complicated, thus afecting [67], can reduce bedtime procrastination and phubbing, pro- bedtime procrastination and positively impacting phubbing. viding critical practical implications for reducing college failure. It indirectly afects bedtime procrastination through the Tird, metacognitive strategies enable college students to use an mediating efect of self-control. High levels of boredom app to record how often they phub, rethink why they phub, and proneness can increase phubbing levels, and self-control can go to bed later than they intended. As mentioned above, these reduce phubbing and bedtime procrastination. Self-control results provide ideas and methods for college students to carry is an essential intermediary variable between boredom out home-based learning. From the perspective of home-school proneness and phubbing. When boredom proneness limits cooperation, online training in mindfulness and home-based refective self-control, it increases PSU [65]. Mu’s reported mindfulness practice can decrease college students’ boredom that self-control negatively predicts bedtime procrastination [68], bedtime procrastination [69], and phubbing [70]. Fur- [66]. Mediating efect analysis also shows that boredom thermore, mindfulness can promote college students’ self- proneness can indirectly afect phubbing through the chain control [71] during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mindfulness mediation of self-control and bedtime procrastination. A can also work against negative emotions and problematic be- high level of boredom proneness tends to cause negative and haviors, help students work and rest regularly, and improve the impulsive emotions, which increase bedtime procrastination efciency of home-based learning for college students. From the behavior among college students. Tus, they may show more perspective of college students, the promotion function of phubbing behavior. However, improving self-control and classmate friendship can reduce boredom, and students can reducing bedtime procrastination can reduce phubbing in beneft from forming an online study group to study and live college students. Concretizing existing models for the cur- regularly. In the group, students will share their home-based rent study allows us to shed new light on how self-control learning progress and achievements to monitor and encourage and bedtime procrastination mediate the relationship be- each other’s progress. tween boredom proneness and phubbing. In conclusion, boredom proneness, self-control, and Te study has certain limitations that need to be con- bedtime procrastination are essential factors that afect sidered. First, causal directions cannot be interpreted be- college students’ phubbing, while self-control and bedtime cause the data are cross-sectional. A longer temporal procrastination are mediating variables afecting phubbing. dimension would reveal the evolution of self-control and bedtime procrastination and their relationship with bore- dom proneness and phubbing. Second, only unmarried Data Availability college students participated in this research, limiting the Te datasets used and analyzed during the current study are fndings’ generalizability. Tird, this research relied on self- available from the corresponding author upon reasonable reported data, often biased by social desirability and com- request. mon method bias. Fourth, the current study cannot provide clear support for the reverse causal relationship between bedtime procrastination and phubbing. Finally, this model Conflicts of Interest does not expound on the concrete cognitive mechanisms of phubbing. Te authors declare that they have no conficts of interest. In the future, longitudinal models need to assess the evolution of conditions in college students to understand the Acknowledgments causal directions between phubbing and its infuencing factors. Te sample needs to be extended to other population Tis study was supported by the Anhui Topnotch Talents of groups, such as clinical or enterprise employees. In addition, Disciplines in Universities and Colleges (gxbjZD2020002), the to increase the diversity of participants, we encourage future University Synergy Innovation Program of Anhui Province research to use multi-informant approaches (such as (GXXT-2021-003), and the Humanities and Social Science parent reports, teacher reports, and friend reports) and Research Project of Henan Province (2020-ZZJH-473). 6 Journal of Healthcare Engineering depression and anxiety with problematic smartphone use,” References Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, vol. 2, no. 1, [1] Z. Liang, Q. Zhao, Z. Zhou, Q. Yu, S. Li, and S. Chen, “Te pp. 61–70, 2020. efect of ‘novelty input’ and ‘novelty output’ on boredom [18] Y. Wang, H. Yang, C. Montag, and J. D. Elhai, “Boredom during home quarantine in the COVID-19 pandemic: the proneness and rumination mediate relationships between moderating efects of trait creativity,” Frontiers in Psychology, depression and anxiety with problematic smartphone use vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 1–10, 2020. severity,” Current Psychology, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 5287–5297, [2] Y. Al-saggaf and B. O. Sarah, “Phubbing: perceptions, reasons behind, predictors, and impacts,” Human Behavior and [19] W. Wolf, C. S. Martarelli, J. Schuler, ¨ and M. Bieleke, “High Emerging Technologies, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 132–140, 2019. boredom proneness and low trait self-control impair ad- [3] V. Chotpitayasunondh and K. M. Douglas, “How ‘phubbing’ herence to social distancing guidelines during the COVID-19 becomes the norm: the antecedents and consequences of pandemic,” International Journal of Environmental Research snubbing via smartphone,” Computers in Human Behavior, and Public Health, vol. 17, no. 15, p. 5420, 2020. vol. 63, pp. 9–18, 2016. [20] A. L. Duckworth, J. L. Taxer, L. Eskreis-Winkler, B. M. Galla, [4] J. A. Roberts and M. E. David, “My life has become a major and J. J. Gross, “Self-control and academic achievement,” distraction from my cell phone: partner phubbing and re- Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 70, no.1, pp. 373–399, 2019. lationship satisfaction among romantic partners,” Computers [21] Y. Geng, J. Gu, J. Wang, and R. Zhang, “Smartphone addiction in Human Behavior, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 134–141, 2016. and depression, anxiety: the role of bedtime procrastination [5] J. H. Han, S. J. Park, and Y. Kim, “Phubbing as a millennials’ and self-control,” Journal of Afective Disorders, vol. 293, new addiction and relating factors among nursing students,” pp. 415–421, 2021. Psychiatry Investigation, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 135–145, 2022. [22] K. S. Sansevere and N. Ward, “Linking phubbing behavior to [6] V. Chotpitayasunondh and K. M. Douglas, “Te efects of self-reported attentional failures and media multitasking,” ‘phubbing’ on social interaction,” Journal of Applied Social Future Internet, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 100, 2021. Psychology, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 304–316, 2018. [23] K. J. Walters, J. S. Simons, and R. M. Simons, “Self-control [7] J. D. Elhai, H. Yang, J. Fang, X. Bai, and B. J. Hall, “Depression demands and alcohol-related problems: within- and between- and anxiety symptoms are related to problematic smartphone person associations,” Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, use severity in Chinese young adults: fear of missing out as vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 573–582, 2018. a mediator,” Addictive Behaviors, vol. 101, no. 57, Article ID [24] R. Servidio, “Self-control and problematic smartphone use 105962, 2020. among Italian University students: the mediating role of the [8] X. Chu, S. Ji, X. Wang, J. Yu, Y. Chen, and L. Lei, “Peer fear of missing out and of smartphone use patterns,” Current phubbing and social networking site addiction: the mediating Psychology, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 4101–4111, 2021. role of social anxiety and the moderating role of family f- [25] J. Zhu, Y. Jiang, Y. Chen, L. Huang, Z. Bao, and W. Zhang, nancial difculty,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 12, Article ID “High impulsivity, low self-control and problematic mobile 670065, 2021. phone use: the efect of poor sleep quality,” Current Psy- [9] A. Guazzini, M. Duradoni, A. Capelli, and P. Meringolo, “An chology, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 3265–3271, 2021. explorative model to assess individuals’ phubbing risk,” Fu- [26] A. N. Teoh, E. Y. E. Ooi, and A. Y. Chan, “Boredom afects ture Internet, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 21–13, 2019. sleep quality: the serial mediation efect of inattention and [10] E. Capilla Garrido, T. Issa, P. Guti´errez Esteban, and S. Cubo bedtime procrastination,” Personality and Individual Difer- Delgado, “A descriptive literature review of phubbing be- ences, vol. 171, Article ID 110460, 2021. haviors,” Heliyon, vol. 7, no. 5, Article ID e07037, 2021. [27] A. Hunter and J. D. Eastwood, “Does state boredom cause [11] Y. Al-Saggaf, R. Macculloch, and K. Wiener, “Trait Boredom failures of attention? Examining the relations between trait is a predictor of phubbing frequency,” Journalof Technology in boredom, state boredom, and sustained attention,” Experi- Behavioral Science, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 245–252, 2019. mental Brain Research, vol. 236, no. 9, pp. 2483–2492, 2018. [12] Y. Al-Saggaf, “Phubbing, fear of Missing out and boredom,” [28] S. Nauts, B. A. Kamphorst, W. Stut, D. T. D. De Ridder, and Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, vol. 6, no. 2, J. H. Anderson, “Te explanations people give for going to bed pp. 352–357, 2021. late: a qualitative study of the varieties of bedtime pro- [13] J. D. Eastwood, A. Frischen, M. J. Fenske, and D. Smilek, “Te crastination,” Behavioral Sleep Medicine, vol. 17, no. 6, unengaged mind: defning boredom in terms of attention,” pp. 753–762, 2019. Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 482– [29] M. X. Zhang, H. Zhou, H. M. Yang, and A. M. S. Wu, “Te 495, 2012. prospective efect of problematic smartphone use and fear of [14] E. Malkovsky, C. Merrifeld, Y. Goldberg, and J. Danckert, missing out on sleep among Chinese adolescents,” Current “Exploring the relationship between boredom and sustained Psychology, pp. 1–9, 2021. attention,” Experimental Brain Research, vol. 221, no. 1, [30] G. Cui, Y. Yin, S. Li et al., “Longitudinal relationships among pp. 59–67, 2012. problematic mobile phone use, bedtime procrastination, sleep [15] E. C. Westgate and T. D. Wilson, “Boring thoughts and bored quality and depressive symptoms in Chinese college students: minds: the MAC model of boredom and cognitive engage- a cross-lagged panel analysis,” BMC Psychiatry, vol. 21, no. 1, ment,” PsychologicalReview, vol.125, no. 5, pp. 689–713, 2018. p. 449, 2021. [16] V. M. Hill, A. L. Rebar, S. A. Ferguson, A. E. Shriane, and [31] K. Bernecker and V. Job, “Too exhausted to go to bed: implicit G. E. Vincent, “Go to bed! A systematic review and meta- theories about willpower and stress predict bedtime pro- analysis of bedtime procrastination correlates and sleep outcomes,” Sleep Medicine Reviews, vol. 66, Article ID 101697, crastination,” British Journal of Psychology, vol. 111, no. 1, 2022. pp. 126–147, 2020. [17] C. A. Wolniewicz, D. Rozgonjuk, and J. D. Elhai, “Boredom [32] J. X. Wang, Y. Zhang, Y. Y. Liu, and S. R. I. Xilinmen, “Sleep proneness and fear of missing out mediate relations between status of college students and its infuencing factors,” Te Journal of Healthcare Engineering 7 Annual Sleep Report of China 2022, pp. 75–88, Social Science [49] A. F. Hayes, Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Academic Press, Beijing, China, 2022. Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, [33] L. Li and H. Sun, “Review of research on bedtime pro- Guilford Press, New York, NY, USA, 2017. crastination,” China Journal of Health Psychology, vol. 28, [50] Z. Wen and B. Ye, “Analyses of mediating efects: the de- no. 2, pp. 316–320, 2020. velopment of methods and models,” Advances in Psycho- [34] C. D. Mah, E. J. Kezirian, B. M. Marcello, and W. C. Dement, logical Science, vol. 22, no. 5, p. 731, 2014. “Poor sleep quality and insufcient sleep of a collegiate [51] J. Oxtoby, R. Schroeter, D. Johnson, and S. A. Kaye, “Using student-athlete population,” Sleep Health, vol. 4, no. 3, boredom proneness to predict young adults’ mobile phone use in the car and risky driving,” Transportation Research Part pp. 251–257, 2018. [35] X. Ma, D. Meng, L. Zhu et al., “Bedtime procrastination F: Trafc Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 457– predicts the prevalence and severity of poor sleep quality of 468, 2019. Chinese undergraduate students,”Journal ofAmericanCollege [52] J. Boylan, P. Seli, A. A. Scholer, and J. Danckert, “Boredom in Health, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 1104–1111, 2022. the COVID-19 pandemic: trait boredom proneness, the desire [36] W. Wolf, M. Bieleke, C. Englert, A. Bertrams, J. Schuler, ¨ and to act, and rule-breaking,” Personality and Individual Dif- C. S. Martarelli, “A single item measure of self- ferences, vol. 171, Article ID 110387, 2021. control–validation and location in a nomological network [53] C. M. Studak and J. E. Workman, “Fashion groups, gender, of self-control, boredom, and if-then planning,” Social Psy- and boredom proneness,” International Journal of Consumer Studies, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 66–74, 2004. chological Bulletin, vol. 17, pp. 1–22, 2022. [37] Y. Lin, S. Liu, S. Li, H. Zuo, and B. Zhang, “Relationships [54] S. J. Vodanovich, S. J. Kass, F. Andrasik, W. D. Gerber, U. Niederberger, and C. Breaux, “Culture and gender dif- between the changes in sleep patterns and sleep quality among Chinese people during the 2019 coronavirus disease out- ferences in boredom proneness,” North American Journal of break,” Sleep Medicine, vol. 91, pp. 154–160, 2022. Psychology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 221–230, 2011. [38] R. West, C. Ash, A. Dapore, B. Kirby, K. Malley, and S. Zhu, [55] A. Diamond, “Executive functions,” Annual Review of Psy- “Problematic smartphone use: the role of reward processing, chology, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 135–168, 2013. depressive symptoms and self-control,” Addictive Behaviors, [56] W. Forrest, C. Hay, A. O. Widdowson, and M. Rocque, vol. 122, Article ID 107015, 2021. “Development of impulsivity and risk-seeking: implications [39] F. M. Sirois, S. Nauts, and D. S. Molnar, “Self-compassion and for the dimensionality and stability of self-control,” Crimi- bedtime procrastination: an emotion regulation perspective,” nology, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 512–543, 2019. [57] J. Zhao, B. Ye, and L. Yu, “Peer phubbing and Chinese college Mindfulness, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 434–445, 2019. [40] J. Peng, W. Guo, L. Zhao, X. Han, and S. Wu, “Short Boredom students’ smartphone addiction during COVID-19 pandemic: Proneness Scale: adaptation and validation of a Chinese the mediating role of boredom proneness and the moderating version with college students,” Social Behavior and Person- role of refusal self-efcacy,” Psychology Research and Behavior ality: International Journal, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 1–8, 2020. Management, vol. 14, pp. 1725–1736, 2021. [41] A. A. Struk, J. S. A. Carriere, J. A. Cheyne, and J. Danckert, “A [58] J. Kuhnel, C. J. Syrek, and A. Dreher, “Why don’t you go to short boredom proneness scale: development and psycho- bed on time? A daily diary study on the relationships between metric properties,” Assessment, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 346–359, chronotype, self-control resources and the phenomenon of 2017. bedtime procrastination,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 9, [42] V. Chotpitayasunondh and K. M. Douglas, “Measuring phone no. 77, p. 77, 2018. snubbing behavior: development and validation of the generic [59] A. Cebollero-Salinas, J. Cano-Escoriaza, and S. Orejudo, “Are scale of phubbing (GSP) and the generic scale of being emotional e-competencies a protective factor against habitual phubbed (GSBP),” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 88, digital behaviors (media multitasking, cybergossip, phubbing) pp. 5–17, 2018. in Spanish students of secondary education?” Computers & [43] L. Zhang and L. Zhang, “Revision of the Chinese version of Education, vol. 181, Article ID 104464, 2022. generic scale of phubbing,” Chinese Journal of Clinical Psy- [60] M. Bieleke, L. Barton, and W. Wolf, “Trajectories of boredom in self-control demanding tasks,” Cognition & Emotion, chology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 29–36, 2020. [44] F. M. Kroese, D. T. D. de Ridder, C. Evers, and vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 1018–1028, 2021. [61] X. J. Yang, Q. Q. Liu, S. L. Lian, and Z. K. Zhou, “Are bored M. A. Adriaanse, “Bedtime procrastination: introducing a new area of procrastination,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 5, minds more likely to be addicted? Te relationship between pp. 611–618, 2014. boredom proneness and problematic mobile phone use,” [45] X. Ma, L. Zhu, J. Guo, Y. Zhao, Y. Fu, and L. Mu, “Reliability Addictive Behaviors, vol. 108, Article ID 106426, 2020. and validity of the bedtime procrastination scale in Chinese [62] S. J. Chung, H. An, and S. Suh, “What do people do before college students,” Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, going to bed? A study of bedtime procrastination using time vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 717–720, 2021. use surveys,” Sleep, vol. 43, no. 4, p. zsz267, 2020. [46] J. P. Tangney, R. F. Baumeister, and A. L. Boone, “High self- [63] R. Rubin, “Matters of the mind—bedtime procrastination, control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better relaxation-induced anxiety, lonely tweeters,” JAMA, vol. 323, no. 1, pp. 15-16, 2020. grades, and interpersonal success,” Journal of Personality, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 271–324, 2004. [64] C. S. Martarelli and W. Wolf, “Too bored to bother? Boredom as a potential threat to the efcacy of pandemic containment [47] S. Tan and Y. Guo, “Revision of self-control scale for Chinese college students,” Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, measures,” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 468–470, 2008. vol. 7, no. 1, p. 24, 2020. [48] S. Tehseen, T. Ramayah, and S. Sajilan, “Testing and con- [65] L. Exelmans and J. Van den Bulck, “Glued to the tube”: the trolling for common method variance: a review of available interplay between self-control, evening television viewing, methods,” Journal of management sciences, vol. 4, no. 2, and bedtime procrastination,” Communication Research, pp. 142–168, 2017. vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 594–616, 2021. 8 Journal of Healthcare Engineering [66] D. Meng, Y. Zhao, J. Guo et al., “Te relationship between bedtime procrastination, future time perspective, and self- control,” Current Psychology, 2021. [67] T. J. Valshtein, G. Oettingen, and P. M. Gollwitzer, “Using mental contrasting with implementation intentions to reduce bedtime procrastination: two randomised trials,” Psychology and Health, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 275–301, 2019. [68] A. N. Teoh and J. W. K. Wong, “Mindfulness is associated with better sleep quality in young adults by reducing boredom and bedtime procrastination,” Behavioral Sleep Medicine, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 61–71, 2022. [69] H. Liu, Y. Ji, and S. B. Dust, “‘Fully recharged’ evenings? Te efect of evening cyber leisure on next-day vitality and per- formance through sleep quantity and quality, bedtime pro- crastination, and psychological detachment, and the moderating role of mindfulness,” Journal of Applied Psy- chology, vol. 106, no. 7, pp. 990–1006, 2021. [70] F. M. Schneider and S. Hitzfeld, “I ought to put down that phone but I phub nevertheless: examining the predictors of phubbing behavior,” Social Science Computer Review, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1075–1088, 2021. [71] N. K. Canby, I. M. Cameron, A. T. Calhoun, and G. M. Buchanan, “A brief mindfulness intervention for healthy college students and its efects on psychological distress, self-control, meta-mood, and subjective vitality,” Mindfulness, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 1071–1081, 2015.

Journal

Journal of Healthcare EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation

Published: Feb 8, 2023

There are no references for this article.