The relationship between loneliness and mobile phone addiction among Chinese college students: The mediating role of anthropomorphism and moderating role of family support

Yanhong Zhang; Yongxue Li; Meng Xia; Miao Han; Lei Yan; Shuailei Lian

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0285189

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 29, 2022
25 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Arista Lahiri, Editor PONE-D-22-21299Loneliness and mobile phone addiction among Chinese college students: the mediating role of anthropomorphism and moderating role of family supportPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lian, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 09 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Arista Lahiri Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. PLOS ONE does not copy edit accepted manuscripts (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-5). To that effect, please ensure that your submission is free of typos and grammatical errors. 3. Please change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun (see for instance https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender) 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. "Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter 5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Please address the concerns raised by the reviewers [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The manuscript is well written but there are some issues which needs clarification: 1. Some references could not be found. Line 214, 216 2. What is the rationale of considering participants of 17-24 age groups in the study and mostly "adolescents" has been mentioned in the manuscript, what according to the authors is considered as adolescent age group? 3. The total number of participants mentioned in the study is 582.But when categorising, the total no.of participants is not coming as 582. Line 248-251 4. Give proper explanation about rationality of using Harman Single factor test with appropriate references. 5. Under Limitation section line 487,488: Regarding common method biases, this limitation has been mitigated. So better to avoid mentioning under limitation section and can be discussed in Discussion section of the study. 6.Role of teachers and school authorities to be elaborated more in preventing loneliness and mobile addiction under Conclusion section. 7. How the sample size was calculated is not clear. Reviewer #2: Title: Looks Incomplete Abstract: Better if written in structural form Introduction: Very much elaborated, can be precise and related to objectives. The explanation on mediating role and moderating role needs to be better clarified. Materials and methods: • Study type and design-Needs to be clearly mentioned. • Sample size calculation-was there any basis of the sample size calculation? • Inclusion criteria-Needs to be clearly mentioned • Pre testing- Was any pre testing conducted? • Ethical approvals-Was the ethical approval taken for the study? Conclusion and recommendation: Need to be separated ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285189.r001
Revision 1
5 Feb 2023 Author Response Reviewer #1: The manuscript is well written but there are some issues which needs clarification: 1. Some references could not be found. Line 214, 216 R: Thank the experts on reminding. Due to our mistakes, the citation format of these two references has been omitted and has been re added in the manuscript. 2. What is the rationale of considering participants of 17-24 age groups in the study and mostly "adolescents" has been mentioned in the manuscript, what according to the authors is considered as adolescent age group? R: Thanks for expert suggestion. We consulted relevant literature and books and found no uniform standards for different academics and organizations regarding the chronological age stage division of adolescents. The current "adolescents" age definition is 12,13-17,18 years; 13,14-28years; Had 7,8-28years; 7,8-40 years; And 13,14-40 years et al. Combined with the practical need for investigation into this study, we finally consider the 17-24 years age group participants for two main reasons. First according to Zhang's《psychology of adolescent development》, the term adolescence should refer to the social group defined by the terms juvenile (11,12-14,15) , early youth(14,15-17,18), and late youth(17,18-24,25) , which means 11,12-24,25 years of age. The college student group was in advanced youth stages. Second, due to the limitation of time and economic cost, considering the effectiveness and economy of data distribution and recovery, we adopted a convenient sampling method to collect data by issuing online questionnaires to college students. Because college students have more opportunities and time to use mobile phones independently than junior high school students and senior high school students, which is helpful for online data collection. Based on the physical and psychological growth characteristics, we think that the adolescent age group refers to the group 11,12-23,24 which contains the early youth, middle youth and late youth groups, and the college student group is in the late youth group. In addition, our review of the literature found that Gao et al (2023), Sugimura et al (2022) articles also counted college student samples in the adolescent group. Attached references: Zhang, WX. Adolescent developmental psychology. Jinan: Shandong people's press, 2008. Gao, F., Bai, XJ., Zhang, P., Cao, HB. A Meta-analysis of the Relationship between Parenting Styles and Suicidal Ideation in Chinese Adolescents. Psychological Development and Education.2023;(01):97-108.https://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2023.01.11. Sugimura, K., Hihara, S., Hatano, K.et al. Profiles of Emotional Separation and Parental Trust from Adolescence to Emerging Adulthood: Age Differences and Associations with Identity and Life Satisfaction. J Youth Adolescence. 2022; Dec 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01716-z PMID:36525106 3. The total number of participants mentioned in the study is 582.But when categorising, the total no.of participants is not coming as 582. Line 248-251 R: Thanks for expert suggestion. Our grade description of the manuscript lacks senior year, and the data has been added to the manuscript after re verification. See lines 251-253. The number of students in each grade is as follows: One hundred and twenty-two (20.96%) of them were freshmen; one hundred and forty-two (24.40%) of them were sophomores; one hundred and seventy-nine (30.76%) of them were juniors; One hundred and thirty-nine (23.88%) of them were seniors. 4. Give proper explanation about rationality of using Harman Single factor test with appropriate references. R: Thanks for expert suggestion. Harman single factor test, the basic assumption of this technique is that if there is a large number of method variations, a single factor can be separated during factor analysis; Either a common factor explains most of the variation in variables. The biggest advantage of Harman single factor test is that it is simple and easy to use, but it is only a diagnostic technique to evaluate the variation severity of common methods, and it is also an insensitive test method, without any role in controlling the effect of methods. According to its assumption, only when a single factor separates from the factor analysis and explains most of the variation in variables, it is reasonable to think that there is a serious common method deviation. In addition, we reviewed the relevant literature and found that although Harman Single factor test was widely used in a large number of studies, it has also been questioned by some scholars in recent years. For example, Schwarz et al (2017) and Miguel I. Aguirre Ureta & Jiang Hu (2019) believed that it was worthless to continue to rely on Harman's single factor test to provide evidence against substantive methodological bias in empirical research, call for abandoning this method and looking for more effective alternatives. Although Harman single factor test is still widely used, of course, we also expect researchers to find effective alternative methods as soon as possible to help you carry out research. References attached: Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003; 88:879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 PMID:14516251 Zhou H, Long LR. Statistical remedies for common method biases. Adv Psychol Sci. 2004;12(6):942-50. Schwarz, A., Rizzuto, T., Carraher-Wolverton, C., Roldan, J., & Barrera, R. Examining the impact and detection of the “urban legend” of common method bias. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 2017;48(1). Aguirre-Urreta MI, Hu J. Detecting common method bias: performance of the Harman's single-factor test. ACM SIGMIS Database. 2019; 50:45–70. https://doi.org/10.1145/3330472.3330477 5. Under Limitation section line 487,488: Regarding common method biases, this limitation has been mitigated. So better to avoid mentioning under limitation section and can be discussed in Discussion section of the study. R: Thanks for expert suggestion. We delete this content with the limitation section of the manuscript. 6.Role of teachers and school authorities to be elaborated more in preventing loneliness and mobile addiction under Conclusion section. R: Thanks for expert suggestion. We adapted the conclusion section in the manuscript to differentiate it into conclusion and implications sections. And further describe the role of teachers and school authorities on preventing loneliness and mobile phone addiction in the implications section. See lines 485-491 and 499-502. 7. How the sample size was calculated is not clear. R: Thanks for expert suggestion. In this study, we used GPower3.1.9.7 to calculate the sample size, the calculated parameters including Tails = two, Effect size = 0.2, α err prob = 0.05, Power (1-β) = 0.95, calculated sample size is 314. Considering the invalid response rate of the subjects, assuming that the invalid response rate is 20%, 314 / (1-0.2) = 393 questionnaires should be sent out. We have supplemented this to the participants and procedures section of the manuscript, see lines236-239. References attached: Kang H. Sample size determination and power analysis using the GPower software. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2021;18.17. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.17 Reviewer #2: Title: Looks Incomplete R: Thanks for expert suggestion. We revised the title of the article as follows: The relationship between loneliness and mobile phone addiction among Chinese college students: the mediating role of anthropomorphism and moderating role of family support. Abstract: Better if written in structural form R: Thanks for expert suggestion. We adapted the abstract section in the manuscript in structured form to make it appear more rational and legible. Introduction: Very much elaborated, can be precise and related to objectives. The explanation on mediating role and moderating role needs to be better clarified. R: Thanks for expert suggestion. We have revised the introduction and cut some of the contents to make it closer to the research purpose. At the same time, we also further to explain the mediation and moderation functions to make them clearer. See the introduction section of the manuscript. Materials and methods: • Study type and design-Needs to be clearly mentioned. R: Thanks for expert suggestion. This study constructs a moderated mediational research model by reviewing literature and proposing hypotheses. Research on the association with loneliness with cell phone addiction and its underlying mechanisms. We have adapted the description of this study design in our manuscript to make it appear clearer and unambiguous. • Sample size calculation-was there any basis of the sample size calculation? R: Thanks for expert suggestion. In this study, we used GPower3.1.9.7 to calculate the sample size, the calculated parameters including Tails = two, Effect size = 0.2, α err prob = 0.05, Power (1-β) = 0.95, calculated sample size is 314. Considering the invalid response rate of the subjects, assuming that the invalid response rate is 20%, 314 / (1-0.2) = 393 questionnaires should be sent out. We have supplemented this to the participants and procedures section of the manuscript, see lines 236-239. References attached: Kang H. Sample size determination and power analysis using the GPower software. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2021;18.17. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.17 • Inclusion criteria -Needs to be clearly mentioned R: Thanks for expert suggestion. Inclusion criteria for this study were full-time college students, filling in longer than 3 mins, and volunteering to participate in this survey. We supplement this to the manuscript, see lines 242-243. • Pre testing - Was any pre testing conducted? R: Thanks for expert suggestion. There was no pre-test in this study. Pre-test is often used in the research of questionnaire preparation and experiment to design. In this study, we used a mature questionnaire with good reliability and validity to collect data. At the same time, we also consulted the relevant literature, and found that the researchers did not conduct a pre-test when using the same type of questionnaires for research, so this study did not conduct a pre-test. However, we will improve on this in future study. • Ethical approvals-Was the ethical approval taken for the study? R: Thanks for expert suggestion. In any research, ethics is necessary. We also attach great importance of ethical principles. This study strictly abides by the ethical standards of psychology and the ethical research standards of our university. We applied to the psychology department of our university for ethical approval and were approved. Conclusion and recommendation: Need to be separated R: Thanks for expert suggestion. We readjusted this part of the manuscript, separating conclusions and recommendations to make them clearer and more logical. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285189.r002
18 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Yaser Mohammed Al-Worafi, Editor The relationship between loneliness and mobile phone addiction among Chinese college students: the mediating role of anthropomorphism and moderating role of family support PONE-D-22-21299R1 Dear Dr. Lian, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Yaser Mohammed Al-Worafi Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285189.r003
Formally Accepted
20 Apr 2023 Acceptance Letter - Yaser Mohammed Al-Worafi, Editor PONE-D-22-21299R1 The relationship between loneliness and mobile phone addiction among Chinese college students: the mediating role of anthropomorphism and moderating role of family support Dear Dr. Lian: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor Yaser Mohammed Al-Worafi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285189.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .