Master Thesis

Master's Programme in Nordic Welfare, 60 credits

The Relationship between Smartphone

Addiction and Interaction Anxiousness
among College Students in Sweden

Health and Lifestyle, 15 credits

Halmstad 2018-05-24
Yuhao Wu
HALMSTAD
UNIVERSITY
Title: The Relationship between Smartphone Addiction
and Interaction Anxiousness among College
Students in Sweden

Author: Yuhao Wu

Department: School of Health and Welfare, Halmstad

University

Supervisor: Janicke Andersson

Examiner: Kristina Ziegert

Abstract
The development of smartphones packed with applications has brought great
convenience to, and improved the quality of, people’s daily lives, but it has also changed
people’s behavior. People spend more and more time on mobile phones every day,
leaving them distracted, affecting their sleep quality, and thereby giving rise to the
concept of smartphone addiction. As a major group of smartphone users, college
students have also experienced situations in which the use of mobile phones has
decreased their learning efficiency as they try to escape from academic pressure.
This article presents quantitative research on college students in Halmstad and aims
to explore the connection between smartphone addiction and interaction anxiousness.
Data was collected from a sample of 123 smartphone-using college students using an
incidental sampling method; questionnaires provided a scale to rate smartphone
addiction and interaction anxiousness. Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) 23
was used to analyse descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, independent-sample t-test,
and regression and so on.
According to the results, smartphone addiction is not common among college
students. The overall status of college students’ interaction anxiousness is close to a
moderate level. Levels of interaction anxiousness varied significantly depending upon
gender, subject and grade. There is a significant positive correlation between smartphone
addiction and interaction anxiousness. Interaction anxiousness has a certain predictive
effect on smartphone addiction.

Key words
College students, Interaction anxiousness, Smartphone addiction , Sweden
Acknowledgements
I want to start off by expressing my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Jannicke
Andersson for her guidance and valuable insights throughout this research process. I am
also truly thankful for all the respondents that have participated in my study and
contributed with great enthusiasm and honesty. This research would not be possible
without these contributions.
I would also like to express our thankfulness to the opponents who have given me
concrete and helpful insights to improve the quality of my study. Lastly, I would like to
direct a special thanks to my families and friends for their support and understanding and
all the others who directly or indirectly have contributed to this journey.

Halmstad, 22 May 2018

 Table of contents
Chapter 1: Introduction......................................................................... 1

1.1 Background.................................................................................... 1

1.2 Research aim..................................................................................3

1.3 Problem description...................................................................... 3

1.3.1 Smartphone addiction........................................................................... 3
1.3.2 Interaction anxiousness......................................................................... 5

Chapter 2:Theoretical framework......................................................7

2.1 Theories related to smartphone addiction................................... 7

2.1.1 A cognitive-behavioral model ............................................................. 7
2.1.2 Use and gratifications approach............................................................ 8

2.2 Theories related to interaction anxiousness.................................9

2.2.1 A cognitive-behavioral model................................................................ 9
2.2.2 Self-regulation model of social anxiety..................................................9
2.2.3 Theory of interpersonal communication...............................................9

Chapter 3: Methodology...................................................................... 11

3.1 Research design........................................................................... 11

3.1.1 Research hypotheses........................................................................... 11

3.2 Data processing and analysis....................................................... 11

3.2.1 Questionnaire design...........................................................................12
3.2.2 Data sources........................................................................................12

3.3 Ethical considerations..................................................................12

3.4 Reliability......................................................................................13

3.5 Validity..........................................................................................13

Chapter 4: Results and analysis..........................................................14

 4.1 General overview of college students’ smartphone usage.........14

4.2 Analysis of demographic differences in smartphone addiction and

interaction anxiousness............................................................................. 15
4.2.1 General overview of smartphone addiction and interaction
anxiousness...........................................................................................................15
4.2.2 Differences in smartphone usage between smartphone-addicted and
non-addicted college students..............................................................................16
4.2.3 Gender differences in college students' smartphone addiction and
interaction anxiousness........................................................................................ 17
4.2.4 Subject differences in college students' smartphone addiction and
interaction anxiousness........................................................................................ 17
4.2.5 Grade differences in college students' smartphone addiction and
interaction anxiousness........................................................................................ 18

4.4 Correlation analysis between smartphone addiction and

interaction anxiousness............................................................................. 18

4.5 Regression analysis between smartphone addiction and

interaction anxiousness............................................................................. 20

Chapter 5: Discussion........................................................................... 21

5.1 Result discussion..........................................................................21

5.1.1 General overview of college students’ smartphone usage................. 21
5.1.2 Differences in demographic variables of smartphone addiction and
interaction anxiousness........................................................................................ 22
5.1.3 Correlation analysis between smartphone addiction and interaction
anxiousness...........................................................................................................23

5.2 Method discussion....................................................................... 24

5.3 Conclusion................................................................................... 25
 5.3.1 Result conclusion.................................................................................25
5.3.2 Recommendation.................................................................................25

References............................................................................................... 27

Appendices..............................................................................................33
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background
In modern times, mobile phones have become ever more popular. The rapid
updating of smartphones makes their prices more and more populace. By the end of
2017, according to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the number of
mobile phone users in the world had exceeded 7.74 billion. In the Information and
Communication Technologies Development Index 2017 rankings, Iceland placed first,
Denmark fourth, Norway eighth, Sweden eleventh, and Finland twenty-second,
demonstrating that the Nordic countries are global frontrunners in the development of
information technology. It is no surprise, then, that smartphone adoption in the Nordic
countries continues to rise and had reached 88% as of mid-2017. Norway had the
highest adoption rate that year, at 92%, as compared to 86% in Denmark and Finland
(Deloitte Global Mobile Consumer Survey, 2017), and 85% in Sweden (Statistics portal,
2016).
With the arrival of mobile internet era, Smartphones are increasingly ubiquitous and
have penetrated into nearly every aspect of our lives. The original principal functions of
mobile phones – phone calls and text messaging – have gradually faded, to be replaced
by smartphone applications. Smartphones not only provide richer communication
methods (SMS, voice, video, etc.), but also function as portable terminals for a diverse
range of purposes (listening to music, watching videos, learning, etc.); as such,
smartphones meet a variety of user needs and have penetrated deeply into our lives.
Smartphones are increasingly seen as the easiest way to connect to the Internet, making
them the central “access point” to the wider digital world (Malinen & Ojala, 2012; Cui &
Roto, 2008). We connect with people to discuss our interests, take photos, watch videos
and blog; we pay our bills, buy plane tickets and find our way around unfamiliar places
with maps and other navigation apps; and we adjust or support other activities in our
lives using digital technologies.
Such a striking change in the way we engage and interact with other people and the
world necessarily has far-reaching, but still unclear, consequences. Some researchers

1
believe that the frequent use of mobile phones will ultimately lead to positive results for
users (Gentzler, Oberhauser, Westerman, & Nadforff, 2011; Jin & Park, 2010). For
example, mobile phones facilitate communication which overcomes the limitations of
physical space, expanding the reach and potential of interpersonal communication. On
the other hand, there is a dark side to the ubiquity of mobile phone use, with some
analysts expressing the view that “mobile phone usage is a compulsive and addictive
disorder which looks set to become one of the biggest non-drug addictions in the 21st
century” (Madrid, 2003). On the bus or the subway, it is now a commonplace to see
many or even most people playing with their phones; some are equally transfixed when
walking along a busy street, creating a hazard that has prompted Swedish artists to design
and erect signs in Stockholm warning people of the dangers of not looking where they
are going (Graham, 2016). There is even a new word for these people: “phubber”.
“Phubber” is combination of “phone” and “snubber”, which means people who lower
their heads while staring at their smartphones.
Young college students represent a group that is particularly affected by smartphone
use. Smartphone dependence not only affects their physical health, in the form of neck,
shoulder and back pain, as well as hearing and visual problems (Jenaro, Flores,
Gómez-Vela, González-Gil, Caballo, 2007), but it also leads to many psychological
problems, such as when the phones are used as a means of distraction from work and
thereby ultimately reduce the efficiency of their learning (Leung, 2008). Therefore,
college students should enjoy the convenience and many practical advantages of mobile
phones and be vigilant over their potential for abuse in the same time.
The enormous popularity of mobile social media in recent years has led people to
rely ever more on smartphones for social networking. It seems that smartphones
facilitate people’s social lives, but research has also found that social phobia was highly
prevalent among Swedish university students, with a point prevalence of 16.1% (Tillfors
& Furmark, 2007). In Finland, the rate of high social anxiety (defined by SPIN1 at or
over 19 points) was 16% (Ranta, Kaltiala-Heino, Rantanen & Marttunen, 2009). In light

1
Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN) is a questionnaire developed by the department of Psychiatry and Behavioral
Sciences at Duke University for screening and measuring the severity of social anxiety disorder

2
of this, the present study aims to investigate the relationship between interaction anxiety
and smartphone addiction among college students in order to highlight and understand it
within the context of this growing social concern. It is hoped that by doing so, college
students will be better able to understand the harms of smartphone addiction and the
excessive use of mobile phones and thereafter cultivate a consciously healthier lifestyle.

1.2 Research aim

This study attempts to describe the relationship between college students’
smartphone addiction and interaction anxiousness based on an analysis of the
characteristics of smartphone usage. The central research questions are:
What are the current characteristics of smartphone usage, behavior and
smartphone addiction among Swedish college students?
What is the relationship between interaction anxiousness and smartphone
addiction among these college students?

1.3 Problem description

This section will introduce the concept, the harms, and the methods of measuring
smartphone addiction and interaction anxiousness.
1.3.1 Smartphone addiction
Traditionally, addiction has been defined using a psychological model based on
material rather than behavioral patterns, such as substance abuse and drug dependence.
As society has continued to develop and research into addiction has evolved, researchers
have found that some people also overindulge in particular activities. Based on this, a
scientific researcher proposed the concept of Behavioral Addiction, that is, individuals
may not be experiencing any direct biological effect, as they would from drug ingestion,
but nevertheless experience excessive psychological and behavioral dependence on
certain things or activities, as we see in gambling addiction (Griffiths, 1995), wealth
addiction (Slater, 1980), pornography addiction (Garnes, 1983) and Internet addiction
(Goldberg, 1990). Based on this, Shaffer (1996) argued that all the extreme behaviors can
be called addictions. Smartphone addiction falls into this categorization and is also
known as mobile phone dependence, problematic use of mobile phones, mobile phone

3
addiction, problematic mobile phone use, and mobile phone addiction tendency.
Following this widely-accepted definition, this study defines smartphone addiction as the
psychological or behavioral problems experienced by mobile phone users due to their
abuse of smartphones.
Research has shown that smartphone addiction, in the form of long-term, intensive
use of the technology, can lead to physical symptoms, such as dizziness, nausea, vomiting,
and even sleep problems. Nylund and Leszczynski (2006) reported that radiation from
mobile phones can also impair human function, affect the expression of human cells,
thereby destroying protein molecules and protein immunity of other systems.. Other
research has shown that people with smartphone addiction are less healthy than those
who are not mobile phone addicts (Lepp, Barkley & Karpinski 2014). Some scholars
have found that suicidal moods are related to the use of mobile phones at night (Oshima,
Nishida, Shimodera, Tochigi, Ando, Yamasaki, Sasaki, 2012). Sanchez-Martinez and Otero
(2009) surveyed more than 1,000 high school students in Spain and found that students
who overused their smartphones showed higher rates of depression, social isolation and
frustration. Ha, Chin, Park, Ryu & Yu (2008) surveyed Korean high school students and
found that the longer they used their phones, the more likely they were to have
depression and social anxiety.
The diagnosis of smartphone addiction is challenging, because there are many
symptoms associated with it (Walsh, White & Young, 2008), so that there is no standard
disease classification system which unambiguously defines it. Young (1998) believes that
any behavior defined as addiction must satisfy six principles: saliency, mood change,
tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, conflict and relapse. Corresponding to the diagnostic
criteria with regard to smartphone addiction, numerous researchers have developed
corresponding measurement tools. Based on the related literature of addiction, especially
regarding behavioral addiction, and considering the social problems associated with the
use of mobile phones, Bianchi and Phillips (2005) compiled the ‘mobile phone problem
use scale’, the first of its kind, which includes tolerance, avoidance of other problems,
withdrawal, craving, and negative aftermath. The score was scored by dot Lee, and the
higher the score, the more serious the problem. Su, Pan, Liu, Chen & Wang (2014)
4
selected smartphone-using university students as test subjects and compiled the College
Students’ Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS-C) in order to measure addiction levels.
There are 22 items on this scale, including withdrawal response, highlighting behavior,
social comfort, negative effects, APP use, APP update 6 factors. The Cronbacha α
coefficient of SAS-C is 0.88, retest reliability reaches 0.93. This paper uses this scale as a
research tool.
1.3.2 Interaction anxiousness
Most existing research defines social anxiety as an anxiety that arises in real or
imagined social situations which involve the potential for being negatively evaluated by
other people. Such scenarios include giving speeches or performances, or attending
formal appointments (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). In the fourth edition of the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in the United States, social anxiety is defined as “a
significant and persistent fear of one or more social contexts or performance situations
in which individuals are exposed to unfamiliar people or under the scrutiny of others,
individual fears that their behavior will make themselves ugly, and therefore show
symptoms of anxiety”. The social-evaluative anxiety proposed by Watson and Friend
(1969) refers to social anxiety in non-specific situations. It includes fear of negative
evaluation, social avoidance and distress. Fear of negative evaluation refers to four
aspects: fear of others’ appraisals, agonizing over other people’s appraisals, evasion of
assessed social contexts, and holding a perception that others have negative appraisals of
themselves respectively. Individuals experiencing this anxiety avoid socializing due to the
fear of other people’s negative evaluations. This study uses the concept of social
assessment anxiety proposed by Watson and Friend.
Social anxiety has a serious impact on people’s ability to work and study. The study
found that the onset of social anxiety disorder was relatively early. Before a clear
diagnosis was made, many parties had already dropped out of school at the junior middle
school or senior high school level. Persons with severe symptoms even stayed home for
several years. This not only affected their learning, but also deeply and painfully affected
their social and work life. Social anxiety showed significant negative correlations with
individual quality of life or perceived quality of life; Safren, Heimberg and Juster (1997)
5
found that three-quarters of socially anxious individuals who sought treatment at the
Center for Stress and Anxiety Disorders of the University at Albany, State University of
New York reported that their quality of life was low. Wittchen, Stein & Kessler (1999)
used social function questionnaires to investigate the life quality of socially anxious
people and found that they were significantly impaired in emotional expression and social
function.
The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) was compiled by Michael Liebowitz in
1987 to assess the severity of social anxiety, fear, and avoidance in people with social
anxiety disorders. The scale contains a total of 24 items, each relating to a specific social
scenario. Thirteen items relate to performance scenarios, and 11 items relate to the social
scene. Each scenario has different degrees of subscales for fear and avoidance. The scale
was scored between 0-3 (Fear assessment: “0” indicates none, “3” indicates severe;
Avoidance assessment of “0” indicates never, “3” indicates often). The Interaction
Anxious Scale (IAS) was compiled by Leary in 1983 and is mainly used to assess the
tendency of subjective social anxiety experiences that are independent of behavior. The
IAS contains 15 self-reported items that require the subject to use a 1-5 rating system to
answer (“1” means an item does not describe me at all; “5” means it describes me very
accurately). The overall score is from 15 (lowest social anxiety) to 75 (highest social
anxiety). The total correlation coefficient of all items in IAS and other items is at least
0.4, Cronbacha α coefficient exceeds 0.87, and the eight weeks retest correlation
coefficient is 0.800. The IAS score correlates well with self-reported anxiety in real social
interactions (Leary, 1983). As a measure of subjective social anxiety experience, IAS
shows good reliability and validity. This paper therefore uses this scale as a research tool.

6
Chapter 2: Theoretical framework
2.1 Theories related to smartphone addiction
Due to the short history of smartphone use, research into smartphone addiction
remains in its infancy and has not yet formed a representative theoretical model.
Although mobile phone addiction and Internet addiction are somewhat different, both
involve similar behaviors. I therefore use the mature model of Internet addiction theory
in order to study smartphone addiction..
2.1.1 A cognitive-behavioral model

Figure 1 A cognitive-behavioral model (Davis, 2001, p. 4)

Davis (2001) put forward a cognitive-behavioral model to study Internet addiction.
Figure 1 shows that the central factor of this model is Maladaptive-Cognition, which is
located at the proximal end of the etiology chain of Internet addiction and is a sufficient
condition for the occurrence of Internet addiction. Some Internet addicts show certain
aspects of cognitive impairment. Maladaptive cognition involves self-perception and
cognition to the world. The former includes self-doubt, low self-efficacy and negative
self-evaluation. The latter often manifests itself as neglecting reality and overly
identifying networks. In the cognitive-behavioral model, Internet addiction is also
understood to be influenced by individual susceptibility and life events. These two
influencing factors are located at the distal end of the Internet addiction etiology chain

7
and are a necessary condition for the occurrence of Internet addiction. Among them,
susceptibility is heightened when an individual has depression, social anxiety, or a
material dependence.
Pourrazavi, Allahverdipour, Jafarabadi & Matlabi (2014) found that self-efficacy and
self-control reduce excessive mobile phone use, and the expected result improves the
possibility of excessive mobile phone use. Multivariate logistic regression analysis shows
that self-efficacy has become the only effective method to reduce excessive mobile phone
use in social cognitive theory. Mobile-dependent variables and self-control reduce the
short-term negative effects of using mobile phones, and when individuals perceive their
experience of mobile phone use as pleasant, they continue to use them.
2.1.2 Use and gratifications approach
The Uses and Gratification theory states that individuals seek out specific media to
fulfill specific needs (Kuss & Griffiths, 2011). The various needs of college students in
their development process are the internal driving forces of their smartphone-related
behavior. When certain conditions arise, the use of mobile phones is required to meet or
partially meet developmental needs. From low to high, the classic Maslow hierarchy of
needs theory divided individual needs into physiological needs, safety needs, love and
belonging, esteem, and self-actualization.
From the point of view of individual needs satisfaction, Suler (1999) points out that
Internet addiction is not only a special channel for an individual’s unconscious needs, but
also notes a pathological satisfaction is obtained when the demand is suppressed,
neglected, or transferred. Media system dependency theory (Ball-Rokeach & Defleur,
1976) states that the more a person depends on media to meet needs, the more
important media will be in a person’s life, and therefore the greater effect media will have
on a person. If the individual must rely on audience media to accomplish a certain need
and purpose, the audience media is particularly important to that individual. The
audience’s dependence on the media is interactive but not equal. Against the background
of digital streaming media integration, “mobile phones are more popular than computers,
more interactive than newspapers, and more portable than TVs”. As such, Internet
addiction must increasingly be understood in dialogue with smartphone addiction.
8
2.2 Theories related to interaction anxiousness
2.2.1 A cognitive-behavioral model
Rapee and Heimberg (1997) argue that individuals suffer from social anxiety
because they believe that the people around them will, as an “audience”, positively or
negatively evaluate them. Such individuals are extremely concerned about other people’s
positive evaluations and are correspondingly disturbed by any negative information about
themselves which appears in a social context. At the same time, self-interested people
have a relatively high level of social anxiety, and as a measure of the surrounding people's
own self-esteem, once they fail to meet the requirements, they will think that others will
make a negative evaluation. This fear, caused by self-perception deviation, is thus a
subjective cause of social anxiety.
2.2.2 Self-regulation model of social anxiety
The basic assumption of the self-regulation model is that people monitor their own
behavior and compare their behavior with established standards. Once they perceive a
gap between the two, they will adjust their behavior to bring it closer to the standard. The
self-evaluation system decides whether more effort is needed to reduce the gap between
behavior and standards. According to Carve and Scheier (1981), if individuals are very
confident in their ability to meet standards, they will continue to push toward them.
However, when they doubt their ability, they experience negative emotions and
self-deprecating thoughts, which can lead to evasive behavior. Carver and Scheier
explained that such behavior may be a blatant evasion, such as leaving a social occasion,
but it may also take certain psychological forms, such as generating ideas that are
unrelated to the task. Smartphones offer a near-ubiquitous tool with which people can
evade stressful tasks, awkward social situation and so on.
2.2.3 Theory of interpersonal communication
The theory of interpersonal relationships holds that the interpersonal cycle of
individual interpersonal patterns can lead to social anxiety. The socially anxious person
often adopts some maladaptive behaviors, such as non-verbal gestures that rarely involve
eye-contact, self-exposure, or affinity. If they do have short conversations with others,

9
they often blush or exhibit other symptoms of anxiety. These maladaptive behaviors are
unlikely to trigger positive responses from the other people present. This has a
compounding effect, with social anxiety sufferers becoming ever more concerned about
negative reactions as they enter future scenarios involving interpersonal communication,
thus entrenching their maladaptive behaviors and symptoms in a vicious circle. Initially,
researchers thought that this was due to a defect in individual social skills which then led
to the maladaptive behavior patterns (Segrin, 2001). However, later researchers found
that maladaptive behavior patterns were actually dependent on the perceived social risk
factors in a given scenario.

10
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Research design
The purpose of this study is to provide a better understanding of the current
situation of smartphone usage behavior, smartphone addiction, and interaction
anxiousness among Swedish college students. Then, by analyzing the data, it aims to
discover the nature of the relationship between interaction anxiousness and smartphone
addiction in this group. I have chosen to use quantitative research methods, which are
frequently depicted as presenting a static image of social reality with an emphasis on
relationships between variables. Quantitative data are often depicted as “hard” in the
sense of being robust and unambiguous, owing to the precision offered by measurement
(Bryman, 2015). According to my research purpose, I am following the quantitative
research steps to design my research.
Drawing on the existing research outline above, I will put forward a description of
smartphone addiction and its relationship with interaction anxiousness. I begin by
presenting the research hypotheses, describing the process of data collection, method of
analysis, ethics, reliability and validity. Thereafter, I present my results and analysis,
including descriptions of collected data in terms of demographic differences and
relationship analysis. In the discussion I will interpret these results before offering some
recommendations.
3.1.1 Research hypotheses
H1: College students’ smartphone addiction has significant differences in some
demographic variables.
H2: There are differences between addicted and non-addicted college student
smartphone-users which are visible in the basic conditions of their smartphone usage,
such as mobile phone usage time and phone bills.
H3: There is a significant positive correlation between smartphone addiction and
interaction anxiousness.

3.2 Data processing and analysis

In order to conduct this research into my hypotheses, designing an effective
11
questionnaire was crucial. Given the infancy of research into this area, I decided to use
the smartphone addiction scale and interaction anxiousness scale established by other
researchers, as described above.
3.2.1 Questionnaire design
The aims of the questionnaire are made explicit to respondents. The first section
gathers basic information in order to analyze the demographic variables. Questions are
then presented following the College Students’ Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS-C),
which uses a 5-point scale to evaluate responses to 22 items. This study defines students
with scores greater than 66 as smartphone addicts. To assess social anxiety, Leary’s 15
questions were posed and scored on a 5-point scale. The lowest possible score is 15
points, and the highest possible score is 75 points. This study defines students with
scores greater than 45 as having social anxiety.
3.2.2 Data sources
Between April and May 2018, 127 students at Halmstad University were randomly
selected to fill out the questionnaire. Usually I chose different buildings in which to issue
questionnaires and introduced the project to each respondent. In total, 4 invalid
questionnaires were deleted, leaving 123 valid questionnaires for analysis. This study uses
SPSS 23 to conduct statistical analysis of the collected data before discussing the results.

3.3 Ethical considerations

Ethical considerations are one of the most important aspects of such research.
According to Bryman (2015), the following points represent important principles related
to ethical considerations in a thesis.
Research participants should not be subjected to harm in any way whatsoever. To
ensure clarity of expression, avoiding offensive, discriminatory or other unacceptable
language, I consulted with my supervisor and, in the process of issuing the questionnaire,
I made sure to ask respondents whether they took any offence to its content. Respect for
the dignity of research participants must also be prioritized. Any deception or
exaggeration concerning the aims and objectives of the research are to be avoided.
Therefore, the questionnaire has an introductory section explaining the purpose of this

12
research, including a statement of related interests, and an assurance of adequate levels
of confidentiality. Having explained the nature of the questionnaire in detail, full and
voluntary consent from respondents was obtained and recorded.

3.4 Reliability
Bryman (2015) states that reliability is related to the question of whether a study’s
results are repeatable, which is presented using the figure of Cronbach’s alpha. When the
figure of Cronbach’s alpha is < 0.5, the reliability of the questionnaire is very low; as the
value increases, the reliability increases.
Table 1 Reliability test of the two scales

Variable Items Cronbach’s Alpha Value

SAS 22 0.841

IAS 15 0.817

The Smartphone Addiction Scale has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.841, indicating that
the reliability of the questionnaire is acceptable for further use. The Interaction
Anxiousness Scale has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.817, making it likewise suitable for
further use.

3.5 Validity
Validity as an important indicator as to the real and practical meaning of a study.
This is presented through a KMO value, which has a positive relation to the degree of
validity. The closer a KMO value is to 1, the stronger the validity.
Table 2 KMO and Barlett’s test of the two scales

Variable Items KMO Value

SAS 22 0.696

IAS 15 0.770

The Smartphone Addiction Scale’s KMO is 0.696; the Interaction Anxiousness

Scale is 0.770, which means these two questionnaires have an acceptable validity and can
be used in research.
13
Chapter 4: Results and analysis
4.1 General overview of college students’ smartphone

usage
126 questionnaires were distributed, 3 invalid questionnaires were excluded, and 123
valid questionnaires were obtained. Among the 123 respondents, 46.3% were male and
56.7% were female; 22.0% were first-year students, 34.1% were second-year students,
26.8% were third-year students, 8.1% were fourth-years and 8.9% were pursuing either a
Masters or other more advanced degree. 39.0% were taking a science subject, compared
to 61.0% who were studying an arts subject. Only 8.1% of students had owned a
smartphone for less than two years, while 5.7% of students had owned a smartphone for
between 2-4 years, and a much larger 86.2% of students had owned a smartphone for
more than four years. 15.4% of students used their smartphone for more than 5 hours
per day. 60.2% of students spent more than 200kr per month on their smartphone.
Among the most important motivations they disclosed for using their smartphones were
interpersonal needs and a desire for amusement or entertainment: both exceeded 40%,
being respectively 42.3% and 41.5%. Full details are shown in Table 3 and Table 4.
Table 3 Description of population variables

Variable Type Frequency Percentage

Male 57 46.3%
Gender
Female 66 56.7%
First-year 27 22.0%
Second-year 42 34.1%
Grade Third-year 33 26.8%
Fourth-year 10 8.1%
Master or higher 11 8.9%
Science 48 39.0%
Subject
Arts 75 61.0%

14
Table 4 Smartphone usage behavior

Variable Type Frequency Percentage

Years of <2 years 10 8.1%
smartphone 2-4 years 7 5.7%
ownership >4 years 106 86.2%
<3hours 33 26.8%
Hours of
3-5 hours 71 57.7%
smartphone
>5-7 hours 16 13.0%
use per day
>7 hours 3 2.4%
<100kr 13 10.6%
Cost of
100-200kr 36 29.3%
smartphone
200-300kr 28 22.8%
per month
>300kr 46 37.4%
Interpersonal needs 52 42.3%
killing time 10 8.1%
Motivation
Amusement & entertainment 51 41.5%
Study or work needs 10 8.1%

4.2 Analysis of demographic differences in smartphone

addiction and interaction anxiousness

4.2.1 General overview of smartphone addiction and interaction
anxiousness
The results show that the average score for college students’ smartphone addiction
is 55.496. The higher an individual’s score, the higher their level of addiction. This study
defines students with scores greater than 66 as smartphone addicts. From the scores,
there are 13% of students who have smartphone addiction.
The results show that the average score for interaction anxiousness among college
students is 43.668. The higher the score, the higher the level of anxiousness. This study
defines students with scores greater than 45 as having interaction anxiousness. From the
scores, there are 37.4% students who have interaction anxiousness.

15
Table 5 The overall results according to the two scales

Addicted Anxious
Variable N Minimum Maximum M SD
rate rate

Smartphone
123 36 79 55.496 10.300 13%
addiction
Interaction
123 22 60 43.668 7.827 37.4%
anxiousness

Table 5 shows that smartphone addiction is not common among college students
and 13% is much lower than the 32.75% figure discovered in China (Xiangying, 2012).
The overall status of college students’ interaction anxiousness is close to a moderate level.
This shows that undergraduates are close to a moderate level of anxiety during social
activities, and interaction anxiousness has become a non-negligible problem among
contemporary college students.
4.2.2 Differences in smartphone usage between smartphone-addicted and
non-addicted college students
According to the results of the smartphone addiction scale measurement, the
results of the independent sample t-test are shown in Table 6.
Table 6 Difference of using smartphone between addicted and non-addicted
Variable Type Frequency M SD p

Years of Addicted 16 3.000 0.000

smartphone 0.000
ownership No-addicted 107 2.748 0.616

Hours of
Addicted 16 2.375 0.500
smartphone 0.004
use per day No-addicted 107 1.841 0.702
Cost of
Addicted 16 3.188 1.268
smartphone 0.332
per month No-addicted 107 2.822 0.926
From Table 6, the length of smartphone ownership and daily usage rates all show

16
significant differences between addicted students and non-addicted students. Addicted
students spend more than the mean value than do non-addicted students.
4.2.3 Gender differences in college students' smartphone addiction and
interaction anxiousness
An independent sample t-test was conducted on college students’ smartphone
addiction, interaction anxiousness and gender. The results are shown in Table 7.
Table 7 Differences of smartphone addiction and interaction anxiousness by gender

Variable Gender Frequency M SD t p

Smartphone Male 57 55.211 10.025

-0.108 0.914
addiction Female 66 55.409 10.314
Interaction Male 57 45.246 7.777
2.013 0.046
anxiousness Female 66 42.303 7.668

According to the table above, the gender difference is mainly reflected in the
interaction anxiousness rating (p=0.046<0.05), but there is no difference in rates of
smartphone addiction. Specifically, interaction anxiousness is higher among females.
4.2.4 Subject differences in college students' smartphone addiction and
interaction anxiousness
An independent sample t-test was conducted according to subject classifications in
reference to college students’ levels of smartphone addiction and interaction anxiousness.
The results are shown in Table 8.
Table 8 Differences of smartphone addiction and interaction anxiousness by subject

Variable Subject Frequency M SD t p

Smartphone Science 48 56.833 9.924

1.331 0.186
addiction Arts 75 54.345 10.222
Interaction Science 48 45.833 7.051
2.600 0.010
anxiousness Arts 75 42.173 7.955

Table 8 shows that although the average score of smartphone addiction for science
students is slightly higher than that of arts students, there is no statistically significant
difference (p=0.186 >0.05).

17
4.2.5 Grade differences in college students' smartphone addiction and
interaction anxiousness
Taking grade as a factor, an ANOVA test was conducted to examine college
students’ smartphone addiction and interaction anxiousness.
Table 9 Differences of smartphone addiction and interaction anxiousness by grade

Variable Grade Frequency M SD F p

First-year 26 52.192 10.303

Second-year 43 53.512 10.496
Smartphone Third-year 32 55.719 8.970
3.968 0.05
addiction Fourth-year 10 64.500 5.911
Master or
12 59.833 9.370
higher
First-year 26 42.000 6.609
Second-year 43 45.791 8.399
Interaction Third-year 32 39.719 7.591
6.293 0.000
anxiousness Fourth-year 10 51.000 3.830
Masters or
12 43.417 3.502
higher

The results are shown in Table 9. Smartphone addiction rates among students at
fourth-year, Masters or higher levels are greater than that of students in first, second or
third year. Due to the smaller sample size for students in fourth-year or above, we cannot
be sure that this difference is significant and it therefore requires further verification
(p=0.05). Smartphone addiction scores slightly increase from first-year to third-year.
Fourth-year students have the highest level of social anxiety, which contrasts sharply with
third-year students.

4.4 Correlation analysis between smartphone addiction and

interaction anxiousness
At first, taking interaction anxiousness as the independent variable and smartphone

18
addiction as the dependent variable, the scatter plot is drawn as follows.

Figure 2 Scatter diagram of smartphone addiction and interaction anxiousness

From Figure 2, we find that there is a linear relationship between smartphone

addiction and interaction anxiousness. In order to further explore this linear relationship
and obtain specific information, a Pearson correlation analysis was conducted.
Table 10 Correlation analysis between smartphone addiction and interaction anxiousness

Smartphone Interaction
Variable p N
addiction anxiousness

Smartphone
1 0.194
addiction
0.032 123
Interaction
0.194 1
anxiousness

According to the data in the Table 10, it can be seen that there is a significant
positive correlation between smartphone addiction and interaction anxiousness (p<0.05),
coefficient of correlation is 0.194.

19
4.5 Regression analysis between smartphone addiction and

interaction anxiousness
The analysis in the previous section shows there is a significant positive correlation
between smartphone addiction and interaction anxiousness, so linear regression analysis
was conducted in this part. Smartphone addiction was used as the dependent variable,
and interaction anxiousness was used as the predictor variable.
Table 11 Regression analysis between smartphone addiction and interaction anxiousness

Dependent Predictor
B T F R △R
variable variable

Smartphone Interaction
0.194 2.172 4.717 0.038 0.030
addiction anxiousness

Table 11 shows that interaction anxiousness can explain 3% of smartphone

addiction variation, which indicates that interaction anxiousness has a certain predictive
effect on smartphone addictio

20
Chapter 5: Discussion
5.1 Result discussion
5.1.1 General overview of college students’ smartphone usage
There were 106 college students who have used smartphones for more than 4 years,
accounting for 86.2% of the total number of samples. This means that most college
students have had smartphones since high school, indicating the increasing prevalence of
smartphone use among younger people. This may be due to the high level of economic
development in Sweden, which was ranked sixteenth in terms of purchasing power parity
per capita, according to the World Bank’s International Comparison Program database in
2016. Smartphones have become increasingly affordable products, and the purchase of
mobile phones has become part of a normal consumerist lifestyle. On the other hand,
college students often study far away from their families, so another factor in the
prevalence of smartphones among college students may be the desire for parents to keep
in touch with their children (Lee, 2014).
University-level students accounted for 73.2% of the students who spend an
average of 3 hours each day on their mobile phones. College students’ timetables are
more fragmented, however, creating more “free” time which is spent using mobile
phones. This may be explained by the ease of communication provided by smartphones,
as most students use their phones for these purposes (Gikas & Grant, 2013). For
example, class information or important college events are announced by e-mail, so
students must regularly check their accounts to avoid missing essential information.
College students also face the pressure of adapting to new social environments and
integrating into various social groups, much of which involves an online presence via
social media. Therefore, time spent on smartphones increases every day (Salehan, &
Negahban, 2013).
College students’ monthly expenditure on smartphones is mainly in the form of
mobile phone packages. 37.4% of university students spend more than 300 kr per month.
Nevertheless, college students often use a variety of mobile phone apps to satisfy their
social needs, which incur additional data costs.

21
5.1.2 Differences in demographic variables of smartphone addiction and
interaction anxiousness
The results of this study show that the overall average score of college students’
smartphone addiction is 55.496, which is relatively low. Although this study does not
prove that smartphone addiction has become a serious problem among college students,
it should nevertheless be nipped in the bud.
Females score slightly higher than males in terms of smartphone addiction, but not
significantly. This is because the attractiveness of smartphones for men and women is
the same; although the attraction points for men and women may be different, their
degree is similar. The results show that male social anxiety is greater than that of females.
On the one hand, it may be that boys are not as confident in expressing themselves, so in
the process of talking to others, they might miss important details which can then lead to
social obstacles. On the other hand, the level of equality between men and women is
high in Sweden, and women are more confident in social interactions.
There is no significant difference in smartphone addiction between students
studying science or arts subjects. However, there is a significant difference in interaction
anxiousness, which was higher among students in the sciences. Science and engineering
are dominated by male students who have fewer opportunities to make contact with
females and often possess poor language skills. They usually deal with numbers and
machines during the studies, which may increase their social anxiety. By contrast, there
are more females studying arts subjects and our results show that women are less anxious
than men.
Fourth-year students had the highest rates of smartphone addiction, followed by
students at Masters or a more advanced level, while first-year students had the lowest.
Due to the limited sample size, the significance is not clear. However, the current
findings may be due to the pressures of final exams and the forthcoming job search
faced by fourth-year students. In addition, fourth-year students may have more free time.
Because First-year students have just arrived to school and seek to understand their new
environment, they frequently embrace a full exploration of university life and pursue
numerous social activities. In terms of interaction anxiousness, fourth-year students are
22
most anxious and third-year students are the least anxious. This may be explained by a
difference in the stability of their lives at these respective points in their college
experience. Fourth-year students must complete their theses, but will also soon leave
campus life, step into society, and have to find a career path. By contrast, third-year
students have become familiar with and settled within campus life and face little pressure
to make major decisions for their immediate future.
5.1.3 Correlation analysis between smartphone addiction and interaction
anxiousness
The results of the study demonstrate that there is indeed a correlation between
interaction anxiousness and smartphone addiction – the coefficient of correlation is
0.194. These results are consistent with the findings of Hong, Chiu and Huang (2012).
The total score for smartphone addiction is significantly related to the total score
for interaction anxiousness. It can be seen that people with high social anxiety are likely
to appear dependent on their smartphones. Lee, Tam and Chie (2012) found that the
reason why college students rely on mobile phones is due to fears surrounding real-life
social behavior. They can neutralize this need in the virtual world, and they prefer to use
social media networks for socializing purposes. It can be assumed that people with heavy
social anxiety tend to rely on mobile phones to communicate with the outside world and
can thereby avoid direct exposure to the public environment or direct social pressure. At
the same time, the various functions of mobile phones create a buffering effect on the
pressure of social anxiety. Therefore, it can be all too easy for socially anxious users to
further rely on smartphones.
At the same time, with the acceleration of the pace of life and the increased
mobility of people’s living situations, many people face considerable inconvenience if
they continue to communicate through traditional methods. Reid (2007) showed that
online forms of communication are more common among people with high mobile
phone dependence. The smartphone, a mobile terminal, compensates for this lack of
traditional contact tools, and it also objectively causes university students to have a
tendency to rely more on smartphones.
Conversely, the more one relies on mobile phones, the more likely one is to become
23
increasingly lonely and anxious. Excessive use of smartphones for contact or
entertainment may lead to reduced social connections and draw people into deeper social
anxiety.
From the regression analysis results of smartphone addiction and interaction
anxiousness, interaction anxiousness has a significant positive predictive effect on mobile
phone addiction, with an explanatory power of 3%. This shows that social anxiety is an
important cause of smartphone addiction.

5.2 Method discussion

The method used in this paper is quantitative analysis, and college students were
selected as research subjects in order to study the nature and relationship between
smartphone use, smartphone addiction, and interaction anxiousness. Due to the
limitations of my research capabilities and external conditions, such as time and place,
there are many deficiencies in this study, which are outlined below.
First, the scope of the sample was limited to the University of Halmstad. The total
number of samples was small, and the number of female students and arts students was
large. The sample was therefore not fully representative. In the future, attention should
be paid to selecting a representative sample collection to ensure a balanced proportion of
variables.
Second, the research method is based on questionnaires and the forms are
insufficiently rich. Follow-up work should enrich research methods, including interview
methods or case tracking methods, which would deepen research content and further
explore the relationship between the variables.
Third, the smartphone addiction and interaction anxiousness scales were developed
by others without questionnaire testing, so the questions themselves do not necessarily
suit the actual situation of Swedish university students. Therefore, the validity of the
questionnaire has only reached a general level.
Fourth, when college students fill out questionnaires, they may be disturbed by
other unrelated factors, such as their present mood, the environment they live in, the
weather, and so forth. Such unrelated factors may cause a certain amount of interference

24
in the results and conclusion of this study.
Fifth, in terms of research content, the traits embodied in the two scales still remain
at the surface level, being mainly an analysis of correlations. In future research, in-depth
analysis should be pursued, specifically regarding which psychological factors lead to the
correlation between smartphone addiction and interaction anxiousness.

5.3 Conclusion
5.3.1 Result conclusion
Drawing on the results of previous studies, this study explored the relationship
between smartphone addiction and interaction anxiousness by using the smartphone
addiction scale and the interaction anxiousness scale, and reached the following
conclusions:
(1) Smartphone addiction is not common among Swedish college students. There
are significant differences between addicted and non-addicted students in their
smartphone behavior, such as length of time spent using their smartphone and their
monthly spend on their smartphones.
(2) The overall status of college students’ interaction anxiousness is close to a
moderate level. Interaction anxiousness has significant differences between gender,
subject and grade.
(3) There is a significant positive correlation between smartphone addiction and
interaction anxiousness.
(4) Interaction anxiousness has a certain predictive effect on smartphone addiction.
5.3.2 Recommendation
Although smartphone addiction has not yet spread among undergraduates, due to
the escalating function, widespread use, and high frequency of smartphones, smartphone
addiction is likely to poison people’s minds and bodies like other types of addictions in
the next five to ten years. From a long-term point of view, it is extremely important to
take precautionary measures in advance of mobile addiction. In view of this, based on
the research results, the following recommendations are made.
Healthy psychology is the basic prerequisite for college students to form a good

25
habit of behavior, and it is also an urgent requirement for college students to treat all
kinds of stress correctly. Mental health education plays a role in this, with individuals
learning to cultivate an awareness of the results of their behavior and thereby take
responsibility for it. On the other hand, when approaching behavior change, goals must
be practical and feasible. Students must learn to adjust their emotions, understand their
own strengths and weaknesses, and recognize their own values in order to deal effectively
with the various pressures they face.
College students’ social skills must be improved. A college student who is about to
enter the community requires certain social skills in order to correctly handle his or her
relationship with others and thereby establish good interpersonal relationships. Schools
should organize a series of theoretical and practical training sessions and activities on the
subject of “establishing good interpersonal relationships”. At the theoretical level, we
can use examples of good interpersonal relationships to teach students who lack social
experience some successful modes of interpersonal communication; in practice, they can
organize a series of campus activities, such as summer camps and climbing. By enriching
the experience of direct face-to-face interactions, students are thus prevented from
escaping from the reality of interpersonal communication or becoming excessively
invested in a virtual analog of interpersonal communication

26
References
Ball-Rokeach, S. J., & DeFleur, M. L. (1976). A dependency model of mass-media
effects. Communication research, 3(1), 3-21.

Bianchi, A., & Phillips, J. G. (2005). Psychological predictors of problem mobile phone
use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8(1), 39-51.

Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods 5th. Oxford university press.

Carver, C. and Scheier, M. (1981). Attention and Self-Regulation: A Control-Theory

Approach to Human Behavior, Springer-Verlag.

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

use. Computers in human behavior,17(2), 187-195.

Deloitte Global Mobile Consumer Survey. (2017). More than just a phone: A study on
Nordic mobile consumer behaviour. The Nordic Cut.

Gentzler, A. L., Oberhauser, A. M., Westerman, D., & Nadorff, D. K. (2011). College
students' use of electronic communication with parents: links to loneliness, attachment,
and relationship quality. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(1-2),
71-74.

Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student
perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and
Higher Education, 19, 18-26.

Graham. (2016). Road signs warn pedestrians not to use smartphones [The Telegraph].
Retrieved from

27
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/12139462/Road-signs-
warn-pedestrians-not-to-use-smartphones.html

Ha, J. H., Chin, B., Park, D. H., Ryu, S. H., & Yu, J. (2008). Characteristics of excessive
cellular phone use in Korean adolescents. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(6), 783-784.

Hong, F. Y., Chiu, S. I., & Huang, D. H. (2012). A model of the relationship between
psychological characteristics, mobile phone addiction and use of mobile phones by
Taiwanese university female students. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2152-2159.

International Telecommunication Union. (2017). Measuring the Information Society[R].

Jenaro, C., Flores, N., Gómez-Vela, M., González-Gil, F., & Caballo, C. (2007).
Problematic internet and cell-phone use: Psychological, behavioral, and health
correlates. Addiction research & theory, 15(3), 309-320.

Jin, B., & Park, N. (2010). In-person contact begets calling and texting: Interpersonal
motives for cell phone use, face-to-face interaction, and loneliness. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(6), 611-618.

Khan, M. (2008). Adverse effects of excessive mobile phone use. International journal of
occupational medicine and environmental health, 21(4), 289-293.

Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Online social networking and addiction—a review
of the psychological literature.International journal of environmental research and public
health, 8(9), 3528-3552.

Leary, M. R. (1983). Social anxiousness: The construct and its measurement. Journal of
personality assessment, 47(1), 66-75.
Lee, S., Tam, C. L., & Chie, Q. T. (2014). Mobile phone usage preferences: The
28
contributing factors of personality, social anxiety and loneliness. Social Indicators
Research, 118(3), 1205-1228.

Lee, S. Y. (2014). Examining the factors that influence early adopters’ smartphone
adoption: The case of college students.Telematics and Informatics, 31(2), 308-318.

Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. (2014). The relationship between cell phone
use, academic performance, anxiety, and satisfaction with life in college
students.Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 343-350.

Leung, L. (2008). Leisure boredom, sensation seeking, self-esteem, and

addiction. Mediated interpersonal communication, 1, 359-381.

Madrid. 2003. Mobile phones becoming a major addiction [Electronic Version].

Retrieved from
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/10/1070732250532.html?from=storyrhs

Malinen, Sanna, and Jarno Ojala. (2012). Maintaining the instant connection—social
media practices of smartphone Users, From Research to Practice in the Design of
Cooperative Systems: Results and Open Challenges, Springer, 197-211.

Nylund, R., & Leszczynski, D. (2006). Mobile phone radiation causes changes in gene
and protein expression in human endothelial cell lines and the response seems to be

genome‐and proteome‐dependent. Proteomics, 6(17), 4769-4780.

Oshima, N., Nishida, A., Shimodera, S., Tochigi, M., Ando, S., Yamasaki, S., ... & Sasaki,
T. (2012). The suicidal feelings, self-injury, and mobile phone use after lights out in
adolescents. Journal of pediatric psychology, 37(9), 1023-1030.

29
Pourrazavi, S., Allahverdipour, H., Jafarabadi, M. A., & Matlabi, H. (2014). A
socio-cognitive inquiry of excessive mobile phone use. Asian journal of psychiatry, 10,
84-89.

Ranta, K., Kaltiala‐Heino, R., Rantanen, P., & Marttunen, M. (2009). Social phobia in
Finnish general adolescent population: prevalence, comorbidity, individual and family
correlates, and service use. Depression and anxiety, 26(6), 528-536.

Rapee, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1997). A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in

social phobia. Behaviour research and therapy, 35(8), 741-756.

Reid, D. J., & Reid, F. J. (2007). Text or talk? Social anxiety, loneliness, and divergent
preferences for cell phone use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(3), 424-435.

Safren, S. A., Heimberg, R. G., & Juster, H. R. (1997). Clients' expectancies and their
relationship to pretreatment symptomatology and outcome of cognitive-behavioral
group treatment for social phobia. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 65(4),
694.

Salehan, M., & Negahban, A. (2013). Social networking on smartphones: When mobile
phones become addictive.Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2632-2639.

Sánchez-Martínez, M., & Otero, A. (2009). Factors associated with cell phone use in
adolescents in the community of Madrid (Spain). CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(2),
131-137.

Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A

conceptualization model. Psychological bulletin, 92(3), 641.

Segrin, C. (2001). Interpersonal processes in psychological problems. Guilford Press.

30
Shaffer, H. J. (1996). Understanding the means and objects of addiction: Technology, the
internet, and gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12(4), 461-469.

Söderqvist, F., Carlberg, M., & Hardell, L. (2008). Use of wireless telephones and
self-reported health symptoms: a population-based study among Swedish adolescents
aged 15–19 years. Environmental Health, 7(1), 18.

Su, S., Pan, T.-T., Liu, X.-Q., Chen, X.-W., Wang, Y.-J., & Li, M.-Y. (2014). Development
of the Smartphone addiction scale for college students. Chinese Mental Health Journal,
28(5), 392–397.

Suler, J. R. (1999). To get what you need: healthy and pathological Internet
use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2(5), 385-393.

Tillfors, M., & Furmark, T. (2007). Social phobia in Swedish university students:
prevalence, subgroups and avoidant behavior. Social psychiatry and psychiatric
epidemiology, 42(1), 79-86.

Walsh, S. P., White, K. M., & Young, R. M. (2008). Over-connected? A qualitative

exploration of the relationship between Australian youth and their mobile
phones. Journal of adolescence, 31(1), 77-92.

Wittchen, H. U., Stein, M. B., & Kessler, R. C. (1999). Social fears and social phobia in a
community sample of adolescents and young adults: prevalence, risk factors and
co-morbidity.Psychological medicine, 29(2), 309-323.

Xiangying, W. (2012). A Study on the Relationship among Mobile Phone Addiction,

Loneliness and Personality Traits of College students. Chinese Journal of Special
Education, (12), 59-63.

31
Young, K. S., & Rogers, R. C. (1998). The relationship between depression and Internet
addiction. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 1(1), 25-28.

Young, K. S. (1998). Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical

disorder. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 1(3), 237-244.

32
Appendices
An Analysis of the Relationship between Smartphone Addiction and

Interaction Anxiousness among College Students

Questionnaire
Dear friends,
Firstly, thanks for spending time to complete this questionnaire. This questionnaire
is to design to help support the thesis in Halmstad University. Which aims at the
relationship between smartphone addiction and interaction anxiousness.
This survey data will only be used for research purposes. We will keep your information
private.
I have been given adequate time to consider my decision and I agree to take part in

this Study □

Ⅰ Basic Information

1. Gender : Male □ Female □

2. Age : ______

3. Grade : First-year □ Second-year □ Third-year □ Fourth-year □

Master or higher □

4. Subject : _______________________
5. How long have you been using your cell phone?

1 <2 years □ ② 2—4 years □ ③ >4 years □

6. How long do you use your mobile phone per day?

① <3 hours □ ② 3—7 hours □ ③ 5—7 hours □ ④ > 7 hours

7. How much do you spend on mobile phone services per month in average?

① <100 kr □ ② 100—200 kr □ ③ 200—300 kr □ ④ > 300 kr □

8. The primary motivation for using a cell phone is for (Single selection)

① Interpersonal needs □ ② Killing time □ ③ Amusing and entertaining □

④ Studying or working needs □

33
Ⅱ For each item, please√ in number with your own situation based on your
smartphone usage.

Items Strongly Disagree Moderately Agree Strongly

disagree agree

1 My classmates and friends have told me

that I spend too much time using my 1 2 3 4 5

smartphone.

2 I think I need to spend more time using

1 2 3 4 5
my smartphone to get satisfied.

3 Using my smartphone has negatively

1 2 3 4 5
impacted my school work.

4 Friends and family complain that I use my

1 2 3 4 5
smartphone too much.

5 I would rather use my smartphone for

communication than face-to-face 1 2 3 4 5

communication.

6 My thoughts often turn to my smartphone

1 2 3 4 5
when I am sad.

7 I tend to worry about missing calls if my

1 2 3 4 5
smartphone is not with me for a while.

8 I open certain applications on my phone

1 2 3 4 5
more than three times a day.

9 Using my smartphone has reduced my

1 2 3 4 5
learning efficiency.

10 I would feel anxious if I did not use my

1 2 3 4 5
smartphone for a while.

11 I am interested in and download newly

1 2 3 4 5
released mobile applications.

34
12 My smartphone has become part of my
1 2 3 4 5
life and I cannot go without it.

13 Using my smartphone has made me late on

1 2 3 4 5
some occasions.

14 I feel uneasy and keep on checking it if my

1 2 3 4 5
phone does not ring for a while.

15 I get anxious and lose my temper when my

1 2 3 4 5
phone cannot get a connection.

16 I find it hard to sleep because I care about

1 2 3 4 5
whether my friends are online.

17 My academic performance has declined

1 2 3 4 5
because of using my smartphone.

18 I open certain applications on my

1 2 3 4 5
smartphone unconsciously.

19 I often have an illusion that my phone is

1 2 3 4 5
ringing/vibrating.

20 I am always concerned about whether

applications on my phone update to the 1 2 3 4 5

latest version.

21 I feel uneasy without my smartphone. 1 2 3 4 5

22 I would open applications on my phone

when I run out of things to say to the 1 2 3 4 5

friends I’m with.

35
Ⅲ Here are some of the feelings that people sometimes come up with. For each
item, please √ in number with your own situation.

Items Strongly Disagree Moderately Agree Strongly

disagree agree

1 I often feel nervous even in casual get-togethers. 1 2 3 4 5

2 I usually feel uncomfortable when I'm in a group

1 2 3 4 5
of people I don't know.

3. I am usually at ease when speaking to a member

1 2 3 4 5
of the other sex.

4 I get nervous when I must talk to a teacher or a

1 2 3 4 5
boss.

5 Parties often make me feel anxious and

1 2 3 4 5
uncomfortable.

6. I am probably less shy in social interactions than

1 2 3 4 5
most people.

7 I sometimes feel tense when talking to people of

1 2 3 4 5
my own sex if I don't know them very well.

8 I would be nervous if I was being interviewed

1 2 3 4 5
for a job.

9 I wish I had more confidence in social situations. 1 2 3 4 5

10. I seldom feel anxious in social situations. 1 2 3 4 5

11 In general, I am a shy person. 1 2 3 4 5

12 I often feel nervous when talking to an attractive

1 2 3 4 5
member of the opposite sex.

13 I often feel nervous when calling someone who I

1 2 3 4 5
am not familiar with.

14 I get nervous when I speak to someone in a 1 2 3 4 5

36
 position of authority.

15. I usually feel relaxed around other people, even

1 2 3 4 5
people who are quite different from me.

37
Yuhao Wu is a student from China:
Master in Social Security from
Shanghai University of Engineering
Science

PO Box 823, SE-301 18 Halmstad

Phone: +35 46 16 71 00
E-mail: registrator@hh.se
www.hh.se